The persecution of Christians

Imperator Augustus said:
the possibility of god not existing is so close to 100%, that for all intents and purposes it's not erroneous to just simply say god does not exist in the definitive sense. Just like we say santa claus does not exist. For all you know he's real and when you become an adult he casts a magic delusion on you into thinking that you actually bought presents for your kids.

There are an infinite amount of possibilities that are non-falsifiable, and the correct, logical, and rational default stance is to not believe in things unless provided with some form of evidence. Otherwise you're just being an intellectual pussy too afraid to say no.
Click to expand...

If evidence in favor of design could be provided, would you admit to the possibility that God exists? There are patterns in the universe which, although falling short of proving God's existence, are indicative of design. The problem with explicit atheism is that it begins with the assumption that God cannot exist.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Seth? The one who murdered his brother?
Click to expand...

Set or Seth... (spelled both ways) is the God of Chaos. Anyway Set didn't kill his brother. He and Horus (his cousin) were enemies because Set killed Osiris. Isis put him back together and Osiris became the God of the Underworld as a mummy... She then sexed up the dead corpse creating Horus. Horus inherited Upper Egypt, while Set inherited Lower Egypt. Later, when the lands were united they were seen acting together to crown the Pharaohs...

I could go on, but really I should have stopped at Chaos.
:D
 
Grind, you bastard, I was going to offer you the title of Imperator, but I see you've already given it to yourself. I declare myself Augusti, and the other three clowns can be Caesare.

:clink:
 
Damocles said:
Set or Seth... (spelled both ways) is the God of Chaos. Anyway Set didn't kill his brother. He and Horus (his cousin) were enemies because Set killed Osiris. Isis put him back together and Osiris became the God of the Underworld as a mummy... She then sexed up the dead corpse creating Horus. Horus inherited Upper Egypt, while Set inherited Lower Egypt. Later, when the lands were united they were seen acting together to crown the Pharaohs...

I could go on, but really I should have stopped at Chaos.
:D
Click to expand...

Yeah, Egyptian myth is really weird. Most ancient creation myths are.
 
Emperor Antoninus Pius said:
If evidence in favor of design could be provided, would you admit to the possibility that God exists? There are patterns in the universe which, although falling short of proving God's existence, are indicative of design. The problem with explicit atheism is that it begins with the assumption that God cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Does God have an epistimoligically sound amount of evidence behind his existence? That is generally what we mean by "I don't believe in this". To not believe in something, it is not required that prove its non-existence. That would be absurd. It just has to be a non-epistimologically sound proposition.

To make a serious argument for something, I think that a rational requirement is that you accept as true the existence of things which have an equal or greater amount of evidence going for them. Otherwise, you are like a defense attorney saying "Jury, I know my case is shitty, and I know that, in every other instance, you would find my client guilty, but please jury, find my client innocent anyway!" And what makes the Christian God any more likely than any other? They all really have as much going for them as each other, don't they? And yet Christians often scoff at the notion of Allah, treating such a belief as if it were the most absurd thing in the world.

What about fairies? You scoff at the notion of fairies, but can you list one thing, besides an argumentum ad popularem (an argument that would've proved the existence of fairies had it been used in more primitive ages), that makes God any more likely than such a proposition? Then why do you ask that I find your client innocent? I'd heartlessly send every other client away, why should I suddenly change my mind in the case of yours? Why do you do unto other ideas what you have not done unto your own?
 
Last edited:
Imperator Augustus said:
the possibility of god not existing is so close to 100%, that for all intents and purposes it's not erroneous to just simply say god does not exist in the definitive sense. Just like we say santa claus does not exist. For all you know he's real and when you become an adult he casts a magic delusion on you into thinking that you actually bought presents for your kids.

There are an infinite amount of possibilities that are non-falsifiable, and the correct, logical, and rational default stance is to not believe in things unless provided with some form of evidence. Otherwise you're just being an intellectual pussy too afraid to say no.
Click to expand...

I don't even think the concept of probability is really meaningful when it comes to God. What is the probability of a loofah? I dunno.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Does God have an epistimoligically sound amount of evidence behind his existence? That is generally what we mean by "I don't believe in this". To not believe in something, it is not required that prove its non-existence. That would be absurd. It just has to be a non-epistimologically sound proposition.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was making a distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "there is no God."
 
As for the OP, its a simple straw man. Christians are persecuted in many areas of the world, but not here. We've made our stand here, especially in the South, which includes a large area that is God's country.
 
Imperator Augustus said:
the possibility of god not existing is so close to 100%, that for all intents and purposes it's not erroneous to just simply say god does not exist in the definitive sense. Just like we say santa claus does not exist. For all you know he's real and when you become an adult he casts a magic delusion on you into thinking that you actually bought presents for your kids.

There are an infinite amount of possibilities that are non-falsifiable, and the correct, logical, and rational default stance is to not believe in things unless provided with some form of evidence. Otherwise you're just being an intellectual pussy too afraid to say no.
Click to expand...
Operative word here being "afraid". I also have to correct you here. The "probability" of god not existing is close to 100%. Anything is "possible".
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
LOL

Most can't deal with that. I always thought God was Santa Clause for adults.
Click to expand...
That's very true Darla....or like a great philosopher once said, "Hey sewer rats may taste like pumpkin pie but I wouldn't know cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother fucker."
 
Emperor Nero said:
I don't even think the concept of probability is really meaningful when it comes to God. What is the probability of a loofah? I dunno.
Click to expand...
You are right and wrong. God is a possibility. Lacking any tangible physical evidence for Gods existence and with the complete absense of a null hypothesis for Gods existence no probability for the existance of God can be stated to exist. A loofah, on the other hand, does have undeniable tangible physical evidence of it's existence as well as an acceptable null hypothesis for it's "non-existence" and thus a loofah does have a probability and it would be calculated as 1.0 or unity.
 
DamnYankee said:
Actually the opposite is true. Atheists insist that the universe and life happened by chance; that's just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
That is a gross misrepresentation and thus another one of the strawmen you are so famous for. An athiest would not state that at all. An athiest would state that the universe and life have occured via natural processes and according to the physical laws of nature and not by some supernatural guy in the sky.
 
01.jpg

02.jpg

03.jpg

04.jpg

05.jpg

06.jpg

07.jpg

08.jpg

09.jpg

10.jpg

11.jpg

12.jpg

13.jpg

14.jpg

15.jpg

16.jpg
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That is a gross misrepresentation and thus another one of the strawmen you are so famous for. An athiest would not state that at all. An athiest would state that the universe and life have occured via natural processes and according to the physical laws of nature and not by some supernatural guy in the sky.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that our understanding of universal laws is total and that god cannot exist inside those parameters. Both are assumptions without a complete understanding of either concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top