Why would god hate an athiest?

[Ceannairceach]

Which, since he's supposed to be infallible, means he was either wrong before or wrong now, thus breaking his infallibility.

Not exactly. If you take the view that something is moral because God wills it, then he is never wrong and thus infallible.

No; If he believes something to be wrong but once thought it to be right, he is either wrong now or was wrong then, depending. His morality now makes his previous morality wrong, and as such, God was wrong. His creation or lack of creation of morality has nothing to do with it, besides the fact that he is proving himself to be hypocritical based on his past actions and beliefs.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Which, since he's supposed to be infallible, means he was either wrong before or wrong now, thus breaking his infallibility.

Not exactly. If you take the view that something is moral because God wills it, then he is never wrong and thus infallible.

I'm sick of all these "it's moral because god wills it" "god cannot lie because he is perfect" arguments which are nothing but excuses. They point to absurdities like god can be both god and not god at the same time.

[Norstal]

Here you go: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Then it is just as I feared. I wanted to formulate a theory why the Muslim world is so theocratic, but if it doesn't stem from their holy texts, then it must be for cultural or other reasons.

well you should remember that Muslims do have sections not shared by Christianity which do support theocracy slightly more, but without the new testament which is were most of the anti-theocracy stuff in Christianity is.
but like christianity it can go both ways depending on the interpretation.

I don't think Muslims have a greater schism than Christianity though. That's what I'm wondering. It might be that, you're right, they don't have a "new testament" for their quran.

Maybe that explains it.

[Demonatrix]

well you should remember that Muslims do have sections not shared by Christianity which do support theocracy slightly more, but without the new testament which is were most of the anti-theocracy stuff in Christianity is.
but like christianity it can go both ways depending on the interpretation.

I don't think Muslims have a greater schism than Christianity though. That's what I'm wondering. It might be that, you're right, they don't have a "new testament" for their quran.

Maybe that explains it.

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

[Farnhamia]

I don't think Muslims have a greater schism than Christianity though. That's what I'm wondering. It might be that, you're right, they don't have a "new testament" for their quran.

Maybe that explains it.

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

Quite right. Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, beloved of God, even, but the son of? No. The unitary aspects of Islam seem to have appealed to non-Orthodox Christians in the East, who had been in an increasingly acrimonious dispute with Constantinople before the Muslims appeared out of the desert.

[Norstal]

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

Quite right. Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, beloved of God, even, but the son of? No. The unitary aspects of Islam seem to have appealed to non-Orthodox Christians in the East, who had been in an increasingly acrimonious dispute with Constantinople before the Muslims appeared out of the desert.

Ah, alright, that somewhat makes more sense. Thanks y'all.

[Farnhamia]

Quite right. Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, beloved of God, even, but the son of? No. The unitary aspects of Islam seem to have appealed to non-Orthodox Christians in the East, who had been in an increasingly acrimonious dispute with Constantinople before the Muslims appeared out of the desert.

Ah, alright, that somewhat makes more sense. Thanks y'all.

The history of the early 7th century in the East is very interesting.

[Sanguinthium]

Here you go: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Then it is just as I feared. I wanted to formulate a theory why the Muslim world is so theocratic, but if it doesn't stem from their holy texts, then it must be for cultural or other reasons.

well you should remember that Muslims do have sections not shared by Christianity which do support theocracy slightly more, but without the new testament which is were most of the anti-theocracy stuff in Christianity is.
but like christianity it can go both ways depending on the interpretation.

sharia law is not actually included in the Koran; it actually came about well after Muhommad was dead. technically, sharia is a bastardization of Islam, since it came from later prophesy.. except that Muhommad is supposed to be the last prophet. i really would need a middle-eastern muslim to understand this from a non-american perspective, though.

Which, since he's supposed to be infallible, means he was either wrong before or wrong now, thus breaking his infallibility.

Not exactly. If you take the view that something is moral because God wills it, then he is never wrong and thus infallible.

so you approve of selling my children into slavery?

Found these in revelations:
22:18: I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

22:19: If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Source: http://www.needprayer.com/bible/bible.asp
(Go to revalations, then chapter 22, its near the bottom)

That's just prophecy of Revelations, not the Bible in general.

revelation being part of the bible, makes that part of the bible. since it is the last book, it is the most relevant, as it is also the most recently written (around 100 ad if i recall).

1: Can you disprove it?
3: Essentially, it's the same way with bosses. People have their job, and their boss.

1. No, since it isn't a maths problem. To the greatest degree of "proof" as you understand it, yes, trivially.
3. People have two jobs, and two bosses. Hell, people have one job and several bosses.

if im reading this right, than i recommend you read how to prove a universal negative

[Sanguinthium]

I don't think Muslims have a greater schism than Christianity though. That's what I'm wondering. It might be that, you're right, they don't have a "new testament" for their quran.

Maybe that explains it.

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

you know, jesus did approve of the OT.. and whenever this is brought up, christians call it either "OOC" or "Metaphor" or "lies"

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

Quite right. Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, beloved of God, even, but the son of? No. The unitary aspects of Islam seem to have appealed to non-Orthodox Christians in the East, who had been in an increasingly acrimonious dispute with Constantinople before the Muslims appeared out of the desert.

islam is sorta like a mix of christianity and Judaeism, if you look at it from that perspective; i personally approve of them, although their adoption of sharia law (essentially the law of moses minus the slaves) is a dubious concept; although this came about after the death of Muhommad (supposedly the last prophet), making its actual practice possible heresy (again, need a middle-easterner for perspective).

[Johz]

In a sense they consider the quran to be the REAL new new testament that follows on from the 'son of god removed' edit of the 4 gospels, Jesus the prophet, not Jesus the god, and superceded by the quran...

you know, jesus did approve of the OT.. and whenever this is brought up, christians call it either "OOC" or "Metaphor" or "lies"

True, but then Peter is also told that the work of the new testament of Jesus supercedes that of the old testament laws in Acts 10. Equally, on the two laws 'love your God' and 'love your neighbour as yourself' "hang all the law and the prophets" as Mathew 22:40 and Anglican liturgy tell us. So yes, Jesus did approve of the OT, but also believed in a living communion with the spirit, where the most important thing is love.

[Felbah]

People always say that if your an athiest your going to hell.This got me thinking.Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fighery hole of dispaire.Doing this horrifying act just because I don't think he existed.There was no evidence to support the fact he exist.I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy.If god is real in this manner he is a evil villianous charector sending me and my closest friend to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

I'm not scared by this since he doesn't exist.

You see, we believe what we believe because we believe the bible. We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere. We also believe that God wants us to believe what He says. So actually it's not as awful as you think. Any other questions, just TG me.

[Furious Grandmothers]

People always say that if your an athiest your going to hell.This got me thinking.Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fighery hole of dispaire.Doing this horrifying act just because I don't think he existed.There was no evidence to support the fact he exist.I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy.If god is real in this manner he is a evil villianous charector sending me and my closest friend to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

I'm not scared by this since he doesn't exist.

You see, we believe what we believe because we believe the bible. We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere. We also believe that God wants us to believe what He says. So actually it's not as awful as you think. Any other questions, just TG me.

Evidence for god is everywhere?? Isn't it the case instead that evidence AGAINST god is everywhere? I'm sure that you can at least list some of these evidences for god, since as you claim, they are everywhere. Can't you?

Oh wait, you don't need evidence since you already believe. Just because some book tells you that day and night came into existence even before the sun came into existence, and you believe the book, you too believe that day and night came into existence even before the sun came into existence.

Or if you say, no, that's not to be taken literally! But nowhere in the book says that this part is meant not to be taken literally! Who are you to judge the words of god and judge them to say that some of them are not meant to be taken literally? I thought you said you believe the bible?

[The Alma Mater]

You see, we believe what we believe because we believe the bible. We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere. We also believe that God wants us to believe what He says. So actually it's not as awful as you think. Any other questions, just TG me.

Evidence for god is everywhere?? Isn't it the case instead that evidence AGAINST god is everywhere?

Oh no, evidence for God is indeed everywhere. It can be found in all things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Evidence for god is everywhere?? Isn't it the case instead that evidence AGAINST god is everywhere?

Oh no, evidence for God is indeed everywhere. It can be found in all things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat.

Humans must qualify for all of these characteristics! Just look at our horribly designed appendix, urethra, eyes and so on...wait! Eyes! Our eyes have blind spot whereas squid eyes don't! This must mean that squids are god's chosen species, not us!

[Bottle]

We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere.

So...you DO need evidence then, you just think you already have it. So why get on other people's case for demanding evidence? You say that you HAVE evidence already, why are you being an asshole to people who don't have any?

[Dyakovo]

We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere.

So...you DO need evidence then, you just think you already have it. So why get on other people's case for demanding evidence?

Because if scrutinized it becomes obvious that their "evidence" isn't.

[Bottle]

So...you DO need evidence then, you just think you already have it. So why get on other people's case for demanding evidence?

Because if scrutinized it becomes obvious that their "evidence" isn't.

Well, yeah, I do suspect that he doesn't really know what "evidence" means. But we're getting there.

[Salandriagado]

1: Can you disprove it?
3: Essentially, it's the same way with bosses. People have their job, and their boss.

1. No, since it isn't a maths problem. To the greatest degree of "proof" as you understand it, yes, trivially.
3. People have two jobs, and two bosses. Hell, people have one job and several bosses.

if im reading this right, than i recommend you read how to prove a universal negative[/quote]

No, you aren't reading it properly. You can't prove that no god exists for two reasons:

1) "Proof" isn't something that's valid in a non-axiomatic system
2) The deist god (/"god of the gaps") can't be formally disproved due to their nature.


Disproving that god exists to the degree that the word is understood by the general population, however, is easy.

1) Every falsifiable god ever produced is easily falsified (obviously, the exact falsification method depends on the god)
2) P(unfalsifiable hypothesis = TRUE) = 0, as per Unhealthy2's argument that's been quoted many times in various discussions around here, including a couple, I believe, earlier in this thread.

Therefore, no currently extant falsifiable god concept is valid and the probability of any unfalsifiable god existing is zero.

You see, we believe what we believe because we believe the bible. We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere. We also believe that God wants us to believe what He says. So actually it's not as awful as you think. Any other questions, just TG me.

If it's everywhere, you should be able to produce some here (indeed, it should already be here). Do so. In essence, your argument rests upon the assumption that a book compiled from things written by many different people over the course of centuries a few millennia ago is absolutely accurate (despite all of the internal contradictions), but that... everything since then isn't. And your god allegedly wants people to do everything he says without question or thought. I can't think of a whole lot that's worse than that.

[EnragedMaldivians]

We don't need evidence because we believe that it's all around us. That evidence for God is everywhere.

So...you DO need evidence then, you just think you already have it. So why get on other people's case for demanding evidence? You say that you HAVE evidence already, why are you being an asshole to people who don't have any?

Oh. It's either a vague reference to an arguement from design, or a "why is there something instead of nothing" therefore God chain of reasoning.

In otherwords, there is nothing in existence that is not evidence of God. Specifically the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one.

Look! An Ostrich! Clearly God exists!

[Demonatrix]

Well, yeah, I do suspect that he doesn't really know what "evidence" means. But we're getting there.

Oh. It's either a vague reference to an arguement from design, or a "why is there something instead of nothing" therefore God chain of reasoning.

In otherwords, there is nothing in existence that is not evidence of God. Specifically the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one.

Look! An Ostrich! Clearly God exists!

Duck Billed Platypus... Only a deity would make something that badly designed on purpose...

God is probably an old Aboriginal with a bull roarer on a bit of string, and a leather sack made out of kangeroos...

[The Alma Mater]

Oh no, evidence for God is indeed everywhere. It can be found in all things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat.

Humans must qualify for all of these characteristics! Just look at our horribly designed appendix, urethra, eyes and so on...wait! Eyes! Our eyes have blind spot whereas squid eyes don't! This must mean that squids are god's chosen species, not us!

Don't be silly. Gods love for beetles is universally known

[Caninope]

Not exactly. If you take the view that something is moral because God wills it, then he is never wrong and thus infallible.

No; If he believes something to be wrong but once thought it to be right, he is either wrong now or was wrong then, depending. His morality now makes his previous morality wrong, and as such, God was wrong. His creation or lack of creation of morality has nothing to do with it, besides the fact that he is proving himself to be hypocritical based on his past actions and beliefs.

No, he was right then, just as he is right now.

[Caninope]

Not exactly. If you take the view that something is moral because God wills it, then he is never wrong and thus infallible.

I'm sick of all these "it's moral because god wills it" "god cannot lie because he is perfect" arguments which are nothing but excuses. They point to absurdities like god can be both god and not god at the same time.

"It's moral because God wills it" is perfectly consistent, if you believe that the powers that be get to decide what's right. It's not an excuse.

[Caninope]

so you approve of selling my children into slavery?

I would hesitate to say that God still says that's OK.

revelation being part of the bible, makes that part of the bible. since it is the last book, it is the most relevant, as it is also the most recently written (around 100 ad if i recall).

Still doesn't make it applicable to the whole book.

[Johz]

Humans must qualify for all of these characteristics! Just look at our horribly designed appendix, urethra, eyes and so on...wait! Eyes! Our eyes have blind spot whereas squid eyes don't! This must mean that squids are god's chosen species, not us!

Don't be silly. Gods love for beetles is universally known

I love the moment in Pratchet's 'The Last Continent' when Ponder Stibbons suddenly realises the God of Evolution's master plan is a six foot cockroach...