User talk:The Debater/Archive2

Please do not edit this page. It is an archive.

Debate on the statement: "A God who is all merciful is an unjust God"

"A God who is all merciful is an unjust God". Damo^Hi 19:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And so the debate starts. I see your point of view and have thought this a few times myself, but God can be all-merciful while giving each what he deserves. God is all-merciful in the sense that He can change the punishment for each person. If we all got what we deserved every time, we would all be in hell. A just God will still punish you for what you do wrong, but will show mercy to you (His creation) so that you may be in His kingdom. Originally, before Jesus came to earth, God judged every person according to their sins, and showed no mercy. These people went to limbo once they died which was a hell-like state until they could be forgiven by Jesus who took the blame for all our sins.--The Debater (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is limbo? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Limbo is the place that people who died in mortal sin (bad sin, against the commandments, etc...) went because they could not be forgiven by Jesus yet (he was not on earth and did not die for all the world's sins yet). They stayed there until Jesus died on the cross, and then underwent the particular judgement (God's judgement directly regarding your life on earth). At that point, they would either go to Heaven or hell (or purgatory in some cases). Further reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

So it's not in the Bible then? It's just something that the idolatrous Catholics made up? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You must use some transitive thinking my friend. If the people who died in the state of mortal sin could not be saved yet (because Jesus did not make the ultimate sacrifice yet), then where did they all go in the meantime? Hell?--The Debater (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Where does the bible describe this "limbo" thing. I looked and looked and could not find it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the Bible, just like many things are not in the Bible, but are rather implied with deductive thinking.--The Debater (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, basically you can make up anything you like even if it's not in the Bible? What sort of objective morality is that? You may also want to reconsider the meaning of "deductive thinking". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just searched it up, and it is stated that it is in the Bible at the following verses: Luke 16:19-31, Genesis 15:4-6, Romans 4:13-24. (many things can be deducted by implication and a little deductive thinking in the Bible, such as Joseph's death).--The Debater (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in those verses that would entail the existence of limbo. I guess, not having been schooled by Jesuits, my theology is not sophisticated enough. Kindly splain to this unanointed heathen, moi, how you deduce limbo from Lazarus and some epistolary snippets? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that Luke 16:19-31 states it the most clearly: "19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Where is Abraham's bosom? Heaven. Where is the rich man? (He could not be in hell because he rose from hell, and God only sends those into hell who are to stay there (this is after the particular judgement where God has made up His mind)). This proves a "temporary hell", which we call: Limbo.--The Debater (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. The translation you just qoted said the rich man was in hell. End of story. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Does God change His mind? AFTER HE HAS JUDGED YOU?! I don't think so. Any omnipresent God cannot make a misjudgement because he takes all factors into account (there is nothing that anyone could tell God that He didn't know already). It is also known that Limbo is a part of hell (the outskirts), so the translation is correct as well.--The Debater (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to shout. I think you meant omniscient. Omnipresence and immanence, well, that's another story. I missed the part where it says consignment to hell is irreversible. Got a cite for that? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Cite: Matthew 18:8. (note: "eternal fire")--The Debater (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the fire eternal, is the eternal bit the fiery sojourn of this "soul" of which Christians speak? Does the fire burn but not consume, or does the soul vanish in a puff of greasy smoke? What does the earliest Greek of the "Matthew" compilation say, and how would its intended audience have understood that passage? Why should we be teasing out the mythic strands of a cult founded on stories of a Galil mamzer who supposedly became a rabbi/messiah? Have you eaten well today? Are you warm and well-sheltered? I believe those last two questions are the important ones. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm always interested in the cutoff point. How old do you have to be to suffer eternal damnation (without the chance of parole - it's eternal, after all). Now, take my brother who died aged four hours. Heaven or hELL? That's a tough one. The good book says that one can only achieve heaven through the zombie but Patrick, my brother, never lived long enough for that. Upstairs? Downstairs? Who knows. Now, I know that god works in mysterious ways but eternal damnation does seem a little tough for a four hour old child.

And, if you're going to come back with the 'suffer little children' line - then we have another problem with cutoff. Let's suppose Patrick had lived to ten, like my sister (longevity is not a sibling trait in my family) Now, at ten, she wasn't really old enough to make moral judgements and I'm pretty sure she hadn't 'accepted jesus into her life' but, at ten, was she still young enough got get by under the 'suffer little children' ruling? Another tough one.

Or it's all bollocks. When you die it's over. Now is the only time you'll get. Live for now because it's all you'll have. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, another interesting point in all this is the rather binary nature of the system. It's a bit all or nothing. Now, a common feature of most justice systems is that the object most sublime, he will achieve in time, is to make the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime. But, unlike the Mikado, god, in his infinite wisdom, only has one punishment - eternal damnation. There is no making the punishment fit the crime, either you're washed in the blood of the lamb (which, quite frankly is a shade messy) or, oops, off you go to wailing and gnashing of teeth forever and ever and ever and ever.

Furthermore, according to many, the only way to achieve heaven is through the forgiveness of god. Fine, well, not fine, actually. All those who, for whatever reason, fail to be acquainted with the one true god, don't get this chance. Someone born in, say, a Muslim country, will never get the chance to accept Jesus into their life and certainly won't undergo Catholic last rights. It's strongly implied that, even if they were to lead the most blameless of lives, because of original sin, they won't make it upstairs. Seems a trifle tough to me.

Of course, if you interpret all this as Bronze Age leaders saying "do as I say or it will all go bad for you" then it makes a lot more sense. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Its very simple guys. The Catholic Church teaches about purgatory as you probably know. In this place, all people who die in the state of mortal sin (a state of sin that separates you from God) can cleanse their souls so that they can come face-to-face with God without feeling shameful. Those too young to accept Jesus and those who did not know about Him during their lifetime get a special compensation (because God is a just God, yet a forgiving and merciful God). You can read more about our position on this in the CCC.--The Debater (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if any of you guys don't have a CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), you can find it here:[1]--The Debater (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Good old original sin. If you don't fully subscribe to our particular invisible friend then you're doomed. That's the way to sell it. Sorry, doesn't work for me. That's why you have to have all this nonsense about purgatory as you try to square the circle. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you a papist, Debater? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said original sin, but i'm glad you brought it up. So... how do you get rid of it? Baptism. In Baptism, you undergo a sign of Christ's presence within you, and God forgives you from your original sin. What you see (the pouring of Holy water, etc...) is just a sign (a ritual) that states the forgiveness of original sin. As far as my religion, you must call it by its name, not some slang demeaning term.--The Debater (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As a Catholic, how do you feel about your teachers complete disregard for the Catholic church's pro-evolution stand? As a Catholic, how do you feel about your teachers complete disregard for the Catholic church's anti death-penalty stand? Why are you allowed to ignore parts of your faith you don't like? Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So, by splashing some water over the baby - along with the associated magical words - POOF!!! - all sin is washed away. So, no woo there. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NO!!! That's exactly the direction I was trying to stay away from!! The Water does NOTHING! It is a sign of what God is doing off-the-scene. You are forgiven of your original sin from GOD, NOT WATER.--The Debater (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do some people saying words and pouring water over you make an invisible all powerful all knowing thing change his opinion about your need for permanent torture or permanent bliss? Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

God calls you to Baptism, you do not call God to Baptism. Original Sin does not make you worthy of hell automatically. It is just another sin that deserves purgatory (to cleanse yourself before you reach Heaven).--The Debater (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(reply to Hipocrite's first statement) I don't ignore any part of my faith at all. The Catholic Church does NOT think that the universe was created by evolution!! Yet, it is debatable whether creatures, etc... evolved after their creation. I think that the Church has been highly influenced by liberal points-of-view, and that is why these types of views are weaseling their way into the Church. And even if that was touted by the Church, it would not be considered 'doctrine'. You can believe it if you want, but it is not a requirement.--The Debater (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From poppa bear himself

“” While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

The reference is here. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Where has it been demonstrated? How could everything that exists come from one organism? WHAT CREATED THAT FIRST ORGANISM? I don't see how you make the rationale that EVERYTHING came about on its own. If the Church truly states this, then I do not believe this regardless of the speaker. I'll have to look at the cite... standby...--The Debater (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I happen to know that the evolving of the universe to present day in the Catholic Church IS NOT a doctrine (you DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT). I would say that most Catholics do not agree with what the cite stated, and frankly, I don't know why that is in there at all. Nice work Inncocent! I'll look into it further later. But, do you notice how the cite included GOD in the whole process. That theory makes MUCH MORE SENSE than if there was not a God. Good work.--The Debater (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if you got that quote to disprove my statement: "The Catholic Church does NOT think that the universe was created by evolution!!", you wasted your time, because my quote is correct. The Church never said that the universe was CREATED by evolution.--The Debater (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you running rhetorical traps? Evolution is not abiogenisis. They are unrelated. The Catholic church accepts that evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, and they reject "Intelligent Design." Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's junk! Anyone with an ounce of brain juice knows that the Church proposes Intelligent Design. Where the heck did you get that? Go and study up.--The Debater (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You have confused Theistic Evolution with Intelligent Design. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You believe in Original Sin? With Adam and Eve and the snake and all?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Original sin is the inclination to sin that we humans have. Yes, I believe that it does exist. The first sin (as you described) caused the inclination to sin. If we humans never sinned EVER, then we would not be inclined to sin, for we would not know any benefits from it.--The Debater (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was all that bitch Eve's fault. If it were left to us men.... Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of putting it. But, Adam ate it too (of his own accord). He should have thought about what God told him.--The Debater (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So - when do you feel that this evil apple-eating sin by the first humans took place took place? How many years ago?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Advertizing Polls

Does anyone have an idea of how I could get more users involved with my polls?--The Debater (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't ask stupid questions. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of those things, anyway?--Krej^talk 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of them is to see what everyone thinks about different topics. I was only asking if you guys have a set way to advertise polls and discussions rather than drifting to each user and asking them to vote.--The Debater (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that people ever voted on any polls besides those in WIGO, RationalWiki:Predictions, and the Saloon Bar.--Krej^talk 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess its only the people who talk with me that vote on my page. That's alright. Thanks for the info.--The Debater (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the "Intercom"? Could that be used in order to ask people to vote?--The Debater (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Do not abuse the intercom to drum up interest in your polls. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Okay!! Take it easy! Just a question.--The Debater (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Do you believe that God created all that exists?"

A. If God did not exist, then he did not create anything. B. If God did exist, he could not have created himself, therefore he did not create everything. You'r not very good at this, are you? Sophie^Wilder 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If something created God, then who created all? Sounds like you don't understand. If you have an alternative to something (like God) coming from nothing, then you have broken all creation theories that exist.--The Debater (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

God does not 'exist', he IS. Just like he said in the burning bush: "I Am the I Am".--The Debater (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Talking bushes? How crazy is that? Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If crazy means awesome, agreed.--The Debater (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"God does not exist, he IS." look up what exist means. Someone wrote what someone else said about some other person who said he saw a burning bush talking to him, therefore you can say "exists" doesn't mean "is." Evidence please. All I see here is you twisting words so you get to believe your magic fairyland is really really real. Sophie^Wilder 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Crazy as in out of your tiny little mind, away with the fairies. Генгис^pillaging 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, it's come to this. We are expected to parse the meanings of what "is" are. How Clintonesque. I thought The Debater was not a fan of Slick Willie... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Look guys, where did everything come from? Something! So therefore, if you want to say everything BUT God, okay. God created everything BUT God. You happy?--The Debater (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So where did God come from then? You ask us to believe, but without any reason or evidence to. It's just "you've got to believe - you just gotta!" at the end of every argument for God's existence. Prove God exists? You can't, you just rearrange the language so you can have your way. Sophie^Wilder 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How did the universe come about you think?--The Debater (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please reply.--The Debater (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How did God come about? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How could God not exist? How could everything that exists (other than God) be made? How could it come about? If you all just thought about it for a while, you would understand that there is no other option. Something must come from nothing in the beginning.--The Debater (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does god get an exemption? Генгис^mutating 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From what?--The Debater (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow the link and see...

The Abrahamic God, YHWH, arose a handful of thousands of years ago, amidst a polytheistic patchwork of human societies on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Man created god in his own image; try to prove otherwise. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of everything, what is there? I'd imagine that you'd say: nothing. Okay, then if there was nothing (as there was at some point), then how did everything come about? This simple analysis creates the indisputable fact that there cannot be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And other than that absolutely nothing, is God. The creator of anything that exists after nothing is God. The characteristics of God can be disputed, but it is an undeniable fact that He does exist.--The Debater (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I am not well-versed in astrophysics, so I don't have a simple description of what came first and what might have been before that. So far you are rearranging an embroidery of words, with tenuous connection to any underlying logic. There may be an underlying reality which prompts our perception of what we think is real, but we cannot get any privileged access to it. All we have is our senses and inference. From that, we make up stories. Why is your story so much better than all the others? (Hint: There are an awful lot of other stories.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you disagree that there cannot be nothing in order for there to be something?--The Debater (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That question is cast in such general terms as to be meaningless. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We now know that there are observable instances of something coming out of nothing. As for "I can't understand the mechanism, therefore god" - that's called god of the gaps. Way back when consciousness was first achieved there was so much we didn't know so we invented god to explain it all away. We still don't know everything but the need for god is diminishing fast. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We may not understand fully, but what we do know is that it all came from something. This proves God. The only reason that I am using this analysis is because it may be the only thing that we can agree on. If someone believed that God does not exist, they are cheating their own analysis and are believing this because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions here on earth. Without God (which can't be, but anyways), you are not held accountable for your actions and will not suffer from them in the end. This is stupid logic, and will cause the person to do something that makes him deserve hell.--The Debater (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"This proves God" Eh? Scream!! (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This proves God in your own reasoning.--The Debater (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "prove god". The prime mover argument has a number of flaws. I'm quite happy to live in a godless world and your impugning that I do so in order to avoid the consequences of my actions is about as insulting as it gets. I do the right thing because it IS the right thing, not because I'm scared of some magic man in the sky. Why it's the right thing is a whole other ball of wax (start with iterated prisoners dilemma) but you don't need god to be good. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a question. With all due respect: Where will you be going when you die?--The Debater (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gone, over, finished, dead. I will not be pining for the fjords. Once brain activity has ceased there is no more. It's only the very human need to feel that there must be more that has invented the immortal soul. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would the human need be there if it did not exist? You are saying that you will not go anywhere else when you die? In that case you are saying that you do not have a soul. Then why don't people (like you) who believe that it all ends when you die, go robbing banks and killing people? You won't have to endure the consequences because there are none. Look at recent historie's killers. They all committed suicide after their stupidity that we all pay for. Why did they do this? 1. Because they are cowards 2. Because they believe that they can get away with it. So now when they're all rotting in hell thank God, do they still think that they got away with it? I don't think so. There are major consequences to the disbelief in an afterlife and I hope that you think about it more.--The Debater (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Empathy or compassion do not require belief in a soul. You are saying that you would go robbing and killing if it were not for your fear of retribution in some imaginary afterlife. That seems like a timid approach to life. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone, because of their knowledge of good and evil. But it would certainly make it easier. Is this what we want?--The Debater (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Make what easier? The control of a docile obedient flock? No, that is not what I want, especially not if it comes along with all the other baggage of Catholicism. The major consequence of disbelief in an afterlife is freedom. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I've been looking at your Catholic stuff - most of the misconceptions you have about atheism are answered in this RW article. In particular, section 5 covers morality. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Jesus: "The truth will set you free". According to your statement about death, freedom sucks. What do you want? To be able to do whatever you want to, whenever you want to, no matter how bad it is? And then just die off without any consequences?! Sounds to me like YOU'RE living in a fairytale. Come on, you know the guilty feeling. If that exists, then don't you think that doing good will make you more free? Atheism is a lie. To humanity, to God, to all. I would never EVER be an atheist.--The Debater (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do whatever I want to do, and other things follow on from that. This morning I wanted to make a cup of coffee and bring it to my wife, who was snuggled under warm covers in a room lit by the sunrise. She smiled. Later on, I held a visitor's baby son, and did not devour his tender succulent flesh. Instead, I went to the kitchen and got him some Tupperware to play with. I admit I had ulterior motive for that last bit—it was to distract him from fishing around in the waste basket. In none of the above scenes did I stop to consider how Abraham's God would judge my doings. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And, this morning, I stopped to chat with a complete stranger because the weather was gorgeous and we were both happy to be out in it. Just that tiny bit of love was spread around to add to all other tiny bits of love that make this world so wonderful. As the great philosopher put "I see friends shaking hands saying 'how do you do?'. They're really saying 'I love you'" and all this without a god. How do I stop myself from murdering. Beats me. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That just tells me that you ARE expecting a life after this one. Your life will ALWAYS feel like it has an empty spot if you are truly atheist. What is love if it ends at the end of your life. What will you have accomplished? There is no hope. There is no beginning. It is impossible to not believe in God. Love is not an attribute of humans, but yet of God (his Holy Spirit) who lives in humans. You could not love if you were not loved by God.--The Debater (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Man, there is just so much wrong with that statement, I feel as though I have no choice but to tell you how stupid yyou are making yourself look. Starting with telling people who clearly don't believe in God that it is impossible to not believe in God to making a broad and thoroughly unsupported statement about what makes love possible, this whole paragraph just reeks of making stuff up and throwing it around as though its truth. Please, for the love of God, just stop. You're only succeeding in making yourself look bad. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 17:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Whee-oo! Innocent Bystander just reminded me of the time I stepped out the front door of my bachelor digs (between marriages at the time) on a side street of a little New England town on a warm spring morning, with a big wad of wet laundry balanced in my hand, intending to circle around to the back yard where the clothesline was. Just then, along came two door-to-door evangelists, who asked me if I didn't think the world was in a terrible state.

I smiled at them, looked around at the blue sky, felt the warm damp weight of the colorful T-shirts in my hand, and said I didn't think so. We had a short conversation with not an unkind word spoken, but their mission to sell me fear, uncertainty, and doubt was not successful that day.

Debater, you don't know me or most of the people on this planet, and telling me I feel like I have an empty spot is just wrong. It's also presumptuous, but since this page is explicitly for discussion like this, I won't go as far as calling it arrogant. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright...alright. Maybe I went one statement too far. Sorry about that. I get pretty disturbed when I can't get my point across. Again, my apologies.--The Debater (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I think I see your sincerity and earnestness showing. Please be aware, though, as you practise your skills on us, that many of these points have been hashed out repeatedly in the past. There is even an index of them which is worth perusing, no matter where one's sympathies may lie. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More discussion on the Bible and God

I dare you. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really have an opinion on that because i've only watched one.--The Debater (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet you've probably only read the Bible but are prepared to put that above all other holy books. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I ever say that? Almost all other holy books were written by people who proclaimed themselves to be prophets, not GOD.--The Debater (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So you believe that God actually wrote the Bible in his own hand? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No other holy book writers proclaimed that they were writing the Word of God (who inspired men to write His word).--The Debater (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey now, don't go changing your posts. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Inspired by men, indeed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Almost" all other holy books, eh? Then what do you think about the rest of them?--Krej^talk 20:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Name me one that references itself as the Word Of God.--The Debater (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to brush up on your comparative religion. Other belief systems don't need to claim themselves as the word of your God. They have their own justifications. 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other religions don't have the Word of God.--The Debater (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Not the Bible, for a start. Sophie^Wilder 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bible IS the Word of God. Other religions know that and take from it what is convenient.--The Debater (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This a pretty poor show for a debater, all we've had so far is the cosmological argument and circular reasoning. So what bits of Christianity have Buddhism and Hinduism appropriated? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For example: The knowledge of good and evil.--The Debater (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering the historical Buddha lived about 500 years before the ostensible life of Yeshua Josephson, I doubt it. Or are you talking about the "original sin" flavor of good and evil? That is even less likely. Closest thing in Buddhism might be karma, which literally means "activity." Popular misconceptions notwithstanding, karma is not reward nor punishment; it is simply consequences, or that which arises mutually. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This guy's useless. I suggest he comes back when he can get beyond the basic PRATTS. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why are Buddhists civil and doing more good than evil?--The Debater (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they developed their own set of ethics independent of the Israelites. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Being civil and doing more good than evil are not attributes normally associated with Christianity more than any other religion. Indeed, when, historically, one looks at the atrocities done in religion's name, Christianity has a pretty poor track record. To suggest that, somehow, the Bible has some sort of monopoly on the whole good/evil thing - hmm, now, about selling my daughter into slavery, oh, yes, that's allowed. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)