You say that now Tantris if you don't return Christ's love and accept Him as your personal savior then you are going to be tortured and have all of the flesh burnt off your body every day for all of eternity in a literal lake of fire!

Who the hell are you, Tantris? What an arrogant, superior attitude!

Luckily for you indeed. Do kids these days think about ANYTHING they say? Of course not, of course not. It's all just sneering atheist rage.

Acosmist, do you believe in a God who sends non-believers to hell for all eternity?

Yes.

@Acosmist:
I am curious about spyman's question as well. Since you took such offense to my statement. Also, I am not sure, at my age, that I would be termed a "kid".

You should probably not speak like a child, then. Sneering like Richard Dawkins in a monocle at theists is not a rational way to approach a discussion.

@Acosmist:
So, Richard Dawkins is a child? This entire thread is dismissing all science, if there is any possibility to pick at it, while at the same time saying "God exists and created the world/designed all life on it, you question? No faith in the unprovable? You are damned!"

And, I am the child?

Why is Tantris arrogant for saying 'Your God doesn't exist'? That's what he believes! That's no more arrogant than somebody saying 'My God DOES exist, and by the way you'll be tortured for eternity because you don't believe it'. Don't these Christians think about ANYTHING they say?

Acosmist I don't believe in a God who damns souls of non-believers for all eternity.
Is this arrogant of me? Is this irrational?

"So, Richard Dawkins is a child?"

He relishes tweaking theists. That's childish.

"This entire thread is dismissing all science"

I'm not dismissing all science! In fact, I'd rather dismiss none of science, if it can be helped.

"And, I am the child?"

I'm not sticking up for the maturity of TMW or other people in this thread, but you definitely responded in kind. So, you've been called out on it.

"Why is Tantris arrogant for saying 'Your God doesn't exist'?"

I didn't say that. At all.

"That's what he believes!"

Yep!

"That's no more arrogant than somebody saying 'My God DOES exist, and by the way you'll be tortured for eternity because you don't believe it'"

Well, it's not "I disagree with you" but rather "Even if you are correct then your God is not worthy of respect." That's...definitely not going to fly.

"Don't these Christians think about ANYTHING they say?"

I'm going to draw attention to this because you need to be reminded of it. I never said what you ascribe to me, and now your attempt at turning this back on me is going to embarrass you.

"Acosmist I don't believe in a God who damns souls of non-believers for all eternity.
Is this arrogant of me? Is this irrational?"

You misunderstood too! Oh well.

Let me identify the problem sentence:

"Any god that would put me in hell for eternity, for the things I have said and done, doesn't deserve worship or respect."

If you believe the premises of Christianity, how arrogant would you have to be to think this? Quite.

Acosmist, your idea of an argument is "[one-liner attempt at wit] UR RONG LOLOLOL." It doesn't follow that an astronomy that provides for a universe without gods makes gods superfluous? News to me, elaboration is necessary if you want me to do more than laugh at you. As far as your accusations about atheists being childish, are your beliefs too unsure to stand some raillery and criticism? Are you that insecure in your faith that you can't take a critique seriously in the first place, much less respond to at all?

"Acosmist, your idea of an argument is '[one-liner attempt at wit] UR RONG LOLOLOL.'"

Anyone else who's actually read my posts throughout the forum actually believe this?

"It doesn't follow that an astronomy that provides for a universe without gods makes gods superfluous?"

No, that does not follow at all. Look, astronomy can be constructed without assuming that candy canes exist, right? I mean, our astronomical knowledge does not depend on the existence of candy canes. What does that entail, then? It entails that candy canes are superfluous FOR ASTRONOMY. It does not entail that candy canes are superfluous for THE ENTIRETY OF EXISTENCE.

"News to me, elaboration is necessary if you want me to do more than laugh at you."

Hey have fun, me and some theists and some atheists who do more than laugh at me are gonna have a discussion all up in here, peace out

"As far as your accusations about atheists being childish"

I never said that. Whoops!

"are your beliefs too unsure to stand some raillery and criticism?"

It seems unlikely, as I'm engaging in discussion across the forum. So, probably not.

"Are you that insecure in your faith that you can't take a critique seriously in the first place, much less respond to at all?"

Huh?!

Read my post again. At no point did I ascribe that sentence to you. Not embarrassed.

Why is it arrogant for someone to say that God may exist, but even so they wouldn't respect Him? You might have a dictator who rules your particular country, but you'd still be perfectly entitled to deny them your respect. God may not feel like a dictator to you, but for others he can and does. This is simply a belief like any other.

@Acosmist:
So, the god you believe in has created a world. That world is a test. He has put people on that world, and not actually specified the rules in any concrete manner. In fact, there are many multiple sets of rules. Only one is correct. If you violate those rules, you are punished for all eternity.

Let's put this in terms that brings it down to earth. You pick up a bunch of dogs. Some are strays. Some are trained to only eat things they kill. Some are trained to only eat dry food. Now, you adopt all these dogs, and you declare a set of rules and train one dog in these rules. Your rules actually go against the urges of the dogs. If any of the dogs violate these rules, you will torture them for a long time. Are you deserving of worship and respect?

The sentence I'm assuming you were referring to is 'My God DOES exist, and by the way you'll be tortured for eternity because you don't believe it' by the way. I may have become confused though, so I'm happy to apologise if I have.

"Read my post again. At no point did I ascribe that sentence to you. Not embarrassed."

OK! I would be.

"Why is it arrogant for someone to say that God may exist, but even so they wouldn't respect Him?"

Because if God had the feature deserving-respect, it would be arrogant not to respect God. That's...just tautological.

"You might have a dictator who rules your particular country, but you'd still be perfectly entitled to deny them your respect."

Does that dictator have the predicates of infinite goodness, wisdom, etc.? Because...yeah.

"God may not feel like a dictator to you, but for others he can and does."

People can be wrong/

"This is simply a belief like any other."

Beliefs can be wrong, too. A person shouldn't be proud to say "Even if I believed this, I would fail to do the thing entailed by that belief." That's arrogant.

"So, the god you believe in has created a world."

Yes.

"That world is a test."

No.

"He has put people on that world, and not actually specified the rules in any concrete manner."

False. We possess reason. That is all that is required, although we have the further advantage of having revelation (Ten Commandments).

"In fact, there are many multiple sets of rules."

In the trivial sense.

"Only one is correct."

Yes.

"If you violate those rules, you are punished for all eternity."

Yes.

"If you violate those rules, you are punished for all eternity."

All right, let's.

"You pick up a bunch of dogs. Some are strays. Some are trained to only eat things they kill. Some are trained to only eat dry food. Now, you adopt all these dogs, and you declare a set of rules and train one dog in these rules. Your rules actually go against the urges of the dogs. If any of the dogs violate these rules, you will torture them for a long time."

Oh dear this analogy is terrible.

Morality isn't positive or arbitrary. It's not valid because someone told you it's valid. It's a set of universal and necessary rules of conduct. What you're describing is what Aquinas would call positive law. If I've never learned the positive law of my jurisdiction, then it's unfair to torture me for not knowing that. But natural law/the law of reason/the categorical imperative/WHATEVER is a law you know by virtue of being a rational creature. To the extent you are capable of making moral choices at all, you know what you're supposed to do. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because it's never actually the case that a person is ignorant (other than willfully).

So that analogy is far, far off the mark.

Pertaining to your question about whether others perceive your argument style as one liners, I'd point out that every "rebuttal" bar one in your response to me was one line, generally incorporating the theme of "ur rong lol." In your words, whoops!

Acosmist, no one claims candy canes created the universe. We have evidence of candy canes from other sources, and while astronomy isn't the be-all-end-all of the situation, it doesn't provide for or need divine intervention. Neither do modern biology, or geology, or physics. There is no evidence of gods in the natural world. Ethics don't require gods (and actually function better without religion), and until you provide evidence of this god or that I have no reason to believe assertions that are entirely unsupported by the material world.

I'd also note that you said Tantris and Richard Dawkins exhibit childish behaviors, so you did in effect call atheists childish. I didn't specify scope, in the event you mistakenly took it as a generalization to all atheists, but I feel like your protestations of innocence regarding such a wild and empirically unsupported statement belie your true beliefs on the matter. Or, to be more succinct, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I wouldn't exactly call dismissing people out of hand "engaging in discussion," personally.

Acosmist: Who are you to ascribe predicates to a divine being? Have you met it? I'd be intrigued to hear your personal story of divine revelation and why this entity in question won't bother itself with those who express doubt.

"Pertaining to your question about whether others perceive your argument style as one liners, I'd point out that every 'rebuttal' bar one in your response to me was one line, generally incorporating the theme of 'ur rong lol.' In your words, whoops!"

OOOOK Doctor Goofy!

"Acosmist, no one claims candy canes created the universe. We have evidence of candy canes from other sources, and while astronomy isn't the be-all-end-all of the situation, it doesn't provide for or need divine intervention."

Well, let's go back to what you said!

"Astronomy can't disprove gods, but it can certainly make them entirely superfluous, Crazy Anglican."

Did you not mean that astronomy can make entities superfluous for the entirety of existence? Because then you just said a false thing. hth

"Neither do modern biology, or geology, or physics."

Yep.

"Ethics don't require gods"

Really?

"(and actually function better without religion)"

You sure? The Reign of Terror?

"and until you provide evidence of this god or that I have no reason to believe assertions that are entirely unsupported by the material world."

Plenty of assertions are unsupported by the material world. How COULD certain assertions be supported by the material world? "The material world is all that exists" couldn't be supported by the material world. So what now?

"I'd also note that you said Tantris and Richard Dawkins exhibit childish behaviors, so you did in effect call atheists childish."

You're slipping from my existential quantification to universal quantification. Don't do that.

"I didn't specify scope, in the event you mistakenly took it as a generalization to all atheists, but I feel like your protestations of innocence regarding such a wild and empirically unsupported statement belie your true beliefs on the matter."

Then you misread me completely.

"Or, to be more succinct, methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Nah.

"I wouldn't exactly call dismissing people out of hand 'engaging in discussion,' personally."

[citation needed]

"Acosmist: Who are you to ascribe predicates to a divine being?"

I can at the minimum assign the predicate "divine" and "existent" to a divine being, right?

"Have you met it?"

Omnipresence is one of those predicates!

"I'd be intrigued to hear your personal story of divine revelation and why this entity in question won't bother itself with those who express doubt."

If you fail to recognize a thing, it doesn't fail to exist, man.

As for revelation, I guess you don't know what revelation is. All right, there's a dichotomy between natural and revealed religion. Natural religion is something accessible to rational argument; revealed religion is something historically contingent, like the revelation (small "r") of the scriptures. So, the Ten Commandments - revealed religion. Don't be a douche - natural religion.

I'm not even sure I agree with Crazy Anglican, and I know I don't agree with TMW, but it's rather irritating that I'm the only one even making these points. Anyone else want to jump in so maybe I can take a break? Crack a book? Play some video games?

ANYONE?

@Acosmist:
"You sure? The Reign of Terror?"

hmm, Al Qaeda, Eric Robert Rudolph, the Crusades, World War II Germany, gosh, I could go on and on with cases of religion used to do evil. Where religion was specifically used to twist morality back onto itself.

I like how you just dismiss my analogy. Do you eat pork? Is that one of the rules or not? Morally, in your mind, should you eat pork? Dog? Cow? Should you work on Sunday? Saturday? Morally, with the universal laws, how does that go? I don't live an immoral life, but I still go to hell, because one of those universal laws, those things you can just feel inside, is having faith and worshipping god? Which god? Really?

"Did you not mean that astronomy can make entities superfluous for the entirety of existence? Because then you just said a false thing. hth"

I don't see how. If I say that traffic lights work via little gnomes, and then you open one up and don't find any, you won't accept as valid a response that they just hide when you try to look for them, or that they're invisible in the first place, or that we're just incapable of sensing their presence for this reason or that.

"Really?"

Godless Morality, Peter Singer. Read it. Morals deriving from a divine source raise a particularly difficult question for many atheists and theists alike: are things like rape and murder wrong solely because some divine being said so? Why aren't they wrong because of their tangible and undeniable effects on people? The same divine being could just as well say that murder and rape are right, after all, and who would we mere mortals be to question that? If you're one of those theists who tries to fix this up by saying that god is good and could never order evil, or something of that sort, then there /already exists an objective morality sans divine right./

"
"(and actually function better without religion)"

You sure? The Reign of Terror?"

People on medical ethics committees are among the most conscientious people I've met, and they don't do their jobs by consulting the ten commandments or any other "divinely-inspired text." They look at the ramifications of medicine for human life.

"Plenty of assertions are unsupported by the material world. How COULD certain assertions be supported by the material world? "The material world is all that exists" couldn't be supported by the material world. So what now?"

All evidence seems to suggest that cognitive processes and all aspects of human perception depend on the brain and what are ultimately chemical reactions across the human body. We can't, therefore, perceive anything but the material world, and why should we posit anything but the material world exists?

"You're slipping from my existential quantification to universal quantification."

You misread me again. I made an ambiguous statement, you assume I meant to write the universal reading (if English habitually disambiguated such things), and it seems to me like your conscience betrays you.

""I wouldn't exactly call dismissing people out of hand 'engaging in discussion,' personally."

[citation needed]"

Personal experience my friend, I wasn't making a universal truth claim.

"I can at the minimum assign the predicate "divine" and "existent" to a divine being, right?"

Divine meaning "godlike," sure. Why existent, though? You'll need to support that one.

"Omnipresence is one of those predicates!"

It's certainly done a good job of escaping the notice of modern science which leads me to believe it doesn't exist. I'd furthermore ask how you got this predicate.

"If you fail to recognize a thing, it doesn't fail to exist, man."

What is there to recognize? It's also funny how you try to define religion into things like the golden rule.

Whoops, divine right. Was lol'ing at a monarchist not long ago, meant to say divine mandate or something of the sort.

'To the extent you are capable of making moral choices at all, you know what you're supposed to do. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because it's never actually the case that a person is ignorant (other than willfully).'

So now you're saying I know I'm wrong, and I'm actually just being willfully ignorant. This applies to everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs and is therefore destined for Hell. Is this an arrogant view? I'm sorry but it feels like it to me. But then I suppose it would wouldn't it, because I'm wrong by definition of having an opposing viewpoint to yourself.

Rational argument indeed.

@ Acosmist It's amazing how a person can attempt to trash theories of multiverses or even the ideal of their discusion because they are not testable, yet can turn around and attack atheist for saying the same of theism.

The guy thinks the existence of being whose existence doesn't manifest itself in any way, let alone a way that's at all mildly testable, should be our default position, what more do you expect warsprite?

Who cares if someone is disrespecting God. Do you really think it offends his sensibilities? Respect is a worldly concept and I imagine God cares as much about what some random guy on a message board thinks of him as he does about my rank in Modern Warfare 2.

I don't think it is appropriate to use faith as a weapon to show that I am better than other people. Don't forget about Matthew 7:1. There's a lot of that going on in this thread. Others of faith should be embracing Science for what it is - an exploration of our universe and the things in it. We have God to thank for Science. Denial of science is a denial of a gift from God.