Sly_Wizard

You're a sucker for punishment, aren't you? : The 21st century called. It would like you to stop drinking the 19th century European Kool-Aid. *Ahem* The European Union in a conglomerate of 27 (I think it's 27. Not totally sure) countries versus just the U.S., has about a population of approximately 190M more people than the U.S. yet only has a GDP of about $17T USD versus the U.S.'s $13T. Fyi, that's not very good considering it's a mass of 27 countries. Hell, the standard of living in Europe is about half that of the U.S. (England is somewhere in the middle of the U.S. and the E.U.). You wouldn't dare compare any single European country to the U.S., or even Japan or China, for that matter, for the simple fact that Europe has been in a steady decline since the end of WWII. The continent's "superpowers" (France, Germany and, to a lesser extent, Italy) have seen prolonged periods of economic stagnation followed by a continuous period of declining economic growth over the past 30'ish odd years. But, hey, aside from the rapidly aging population, a decreasing working percentage of the population, a rapidly declining overall population, stagnating economies in terms of growth when compared to the rest of the world-- Especially South America, Africa and Southeast Asia-- Everything's A-OK :thumbsup: Oh, and you'll find I never said that Europe was a backwards place to be, FYI.

Two fine examples of people who refuse to think for themselves. A society with such restricting religious ideals is not one which will progress very far. Religion is the opium of the masses Marx :wall: Holding to one's convictions does not mean you are unable to think for yourself. Funnily enough... Europe isn't restricted by an "religious ideals", but they're not progressing very far. At all ;)

Okay, let's talk about... hell. If God does exist, why would he send any one of his creations into eternal damnation? There's no such thing?

The title of this forum is "Off-Topic". Really??? :shock:

This implies to me that all religions contain the same messages, albeit with different interpretations. You're giving conflicting messages. All religions carrying a shred of truth =/= All religions following the same God. I'm not even sure how you could get those two mixed up. Don't be an idiot. If you don't care what you're talking about, why should I debate with you? The title of the thread is "Is God real post your thoughts!", not "Why should I follow your religion?".

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98): Utopianflame wrote: Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally. Sly Wizard wrote: ...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions. Now by my (and apparently Tryto's as well) understanding that is saying that prayer is hearing the word of god personally. *Ahem* I said that different people of different religions pray and claim to hear the word of God/gods/goddesses, not that they pray and claim to hear the word of God, making it seem as if all religions follow one God, which is what tryto was implying.

Well, then that's an even worse argument. Okay. Here's an scenario. Let's assume we have Person A who is inflicted with a horrible disease he contracted of faults purely his own. Let's say he decides to make the best of his situation by going out and making sure that people don't suffer his same fate. In doing so, he prevents a hundred people from contracting the same disease as him. Now, let's assume that God steps in and heals him. Because he is healed, he doesn't feel the need to go out and make sure that other people didn't make the same mistakes as him, thus a hundred people end up contracting the same disease he had. Which is the more preferable situation? (Yes, this is very oversimplified but you get the gist.) Yeah okay. *Goes to look*

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98): Yes, I even left in the grammatical error. Oh, we can play this game, It's a game you're not going to win but, *shrugs*, we can play. Because it holds the most internal consistence. Ummm... No. Your argument is flawed. Both the Bible and many native American myths, for example, make reference to a flood which destroyed the world because God was unhappy with his creation (Man). Are you going to tell me that the ancient Hebrews stole that from the native Americans or vice versa? I doubt it. To say something is "unoriginal" is to claim that one group copied another. Simply because the same type of story appears in two different places does not mean that one was taken from the other. Yes yes... It's the whole onus thing. But, yet again, you're assuming I actually care what you believe. Trust me, I don't.

Considering this is the first time I've seen anyone pose the argument. Ah well... I can answer it but you're not gonna' like the answer. Fair warning. (1) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. (2) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. (3) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? (4) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God. 1 is fine. No arguments. 2 I don't agree with, but we'll get to that later. Given the conclusion of 2, then 3 follows. Given both 2 and 3, 4 follows. Going back to #2, the problem is assuming that God brings forth evil for his own purpose (I can't remember the exact verse, but somewhere in the Bible as well as in the Quran), and that purpose is a good greater than what would have been achieved in the absence of evil, then God cannot be malevolent. Assuming this former to be true, then 4 can no longer be true as, if God is not malevolent for his non-actions, then there is no reason not to call Him God. Yes, assuming I actually care that you don't follow Christianity, which I don't. Henceforth the whole "defense" thing.

Yes, that's what he said. Now how does that go against what I wrote out in the post you quoted? Yes, I know what you said. Generally, when one says that people like to make things up, they're insinuating that they're not true. I'm dumb. You're gonna' have to rewrite this is a way I can understand <_<

*Sigh* I dislike this argument, only because people use it as an argument against God when, in fact, this is not what was intended. It's original intent was to show that the gods did not care about man's plights, therefore man should not concern himself with the gods. But, meh, whatever. First of all, stop misusing the word logic. I swear... People need to learn what the word means before throwing it around. Anywho, as to the bolded part, not terribly. At least, not to the extent which would pacify a non-believer. So I don't try, as I really could care less what you believe. My only interest is, as I've said a millions times before, is a defense of Christianity. Not a proof of Christian doctrine.

Even though you meant that in a whimsical but condescending way, sure. Then it probably wasn't you. The more people who have the same type of experiences, independent of one another, the less likely those experiences are to be products of mass hysteria/mass hallucination. Come on, now. You should know this. Fixed: Glaring error.

Ah, it's the old "The plurality of religions means none of them are true!" argument, which is more or less asinine as it completely ignores-- Or, should I say, discounts-- The fact that all religions are merely a reflection of the ultimate form of truth. And, no, nowhere did I say that all gods were the same (I've no idea where you got that from). In this very thread, though, I did say that it's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message, much like the game telephone (I think it's on the last page. Not sure).

...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions. This is completely untrue. Have you ever heard of "duas" in Islam? Furthermore, God speaking to you does not make you a prophet. It's the fact that he both speaks to you and commands you to a certain action which would make you a prophet.

Because, you know, that's precisely what I said :| No, I said that there are more than just three religions in the world that profess who profess to hear the word of God/gods/goddesses etc.. There's Hinduism and some sects of Buddhism, for example (Yes, contrary to popular belief, some sects of Buddhism do worship a god). ...There is just one question I feel as if I must ask. "Who are you?" lol

Me ---> Christian Him ---> Disagreed with one of the axioms of Christianity, then proceeded to call me-- A Christian-- An idiot for accepting that axiom as true. ...What were you saying again? Problem: I didn't make an assertion. You were the ones who did, I asked you to back that statement up, you couldn't, still can't and are now trying to turn it around because you made an indefensible claim. Funny. And, as I said prior, I'd like to see it. I'm still waiting, though... *waves*

Unnecessarily, since the nature of false dilemmas takes two extremes and makes out to be the only choices. I already know what they mean. This is a lot of an irrelevancy, as we're dealing with experience (empiricism).

Okay. I'll bite. What questions?

No, he's calling people who make their own rules up, then when their rules are found to be false, bend them idiots. As you quite rightly said, "Reading skills ftl". My reading skills are just fine. Perhaps you should re-read over what he said?

First of all, Christian, Muslims and Jews account for somewhere between 54% and 55% of the world's population. Second of all, there are more than just three religions in the world. Third of all, the non-religious (Atheist, agnostics, irrelegious) account for something like 14% to 16% of the world's population, just so you know). Is this going to be one of those "You all believe different things so I'm going to say that none of you are right" type arguments, because I hate them with a passion? It's entirely possible that different people have different interpretations of the same message. Ever played telephone? ...Are you really going to play semantics? Here's the thing. I didn't make a positive assertion. You (Well, it wasn't you specifically, I don't think) who said something along the lines of "Immaterial beings can't make a sound". I asked you to back that statement up, you couldn't-- And still can't-- Then tried to turn it around on me to prove to you that they can. I'd like to know how that works?

This one comes first. Congratulations for catching on. Better late than never. Oh how convenient, yet again people bending the rules just to make their faith fit. You're an idiot. -.- Ooo... I get it now. So you disagree with the basis of Christianity (Or any religion, for that matter), then proceed to call anyone who professes to that ideology an idiot because you don't agree with it. Amazing how that works, isn't it? :roll:

I never said sound didn't come from material objects. You're the one who said immaterial beings can't make a sound. By virtue of your assertion, you have to back it up. But I already know you can't and you haven't even attempted to try because you know you can't, either. *Shrugs*

Actually, it's a false dilemma, as stated above (Which you totally missed). Reading skills ftl. Me wonders why I bother sometimes. Congratulations for catching on. Better late than never.

I totally swear we (Well, maybe it wasn't you. It was someone, though) had this argument before. Speaking only of Christianity here, you don't get to redefine the Bible because you don't agree with it. The assumptions above make things unnecessarily complex, especially considering the fact the last two statements are only debated by the non-religious.

And, yet again, either you're being purposefully obtuse or you're simply not understanding what you're being told. So, I'll say this again, "good luck backing that statement up". (Yeah yeah, I already know what you're response is going to ignore to ignore the part in quotation marks, but here's hoping.)