More like: The Hazards of agnosticism (Spin-off thread)

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

He is presented as God 'A' and Man not 'A' at the same time. I am not using this to try and prove that it is true, but it is understandable why we cannot make sense of it, whether its true or not true.

You are focusing on the wrong bit.

Jesus being both a man and God is not the problem, its not the main bit of nonsense.

The main bit of nonsense is God sending Jesus to Earth as a sacrafice to himself to pay the debt we owe God. That is nonsense. God sacrafices Jesus to himself, which fails God's own standards. It is even more nonsensical if Jesus is God himself, but even if he isn't or if he is both or what ever you are trying to say it still fails the test

The important bit is that it is nonsense by the standards already laid out. You don't need a new frame of reference, it fails the frame of reference the Bible itself lays out. Jesus being sacraficed to God cannot pay our debt because Jesus was sent by God in the first place and as such the sacrafice would have no value to God beyond what he already has.

The only thing that is valuable to God is our obedience because we have something God doesn't control, our free will. Our obedience is valuable because it is something we can give god. Our disobedience is an insult, causing debt, to God because it is something we choose not to give.

Jesus cannot pay this debt because Jesus is either part of God or at the very least sent by God. Something under God's control cannot offer God the equivalent of what we offer, our freely given obedience.

Jesus sacraficing himself to God is worthless to God because God sent him to do that in the first place. It is an act of God, and an act of God cannot have equivalent worth to God.

Think of it this way. You have a birthday coming up. You are over joyed to find out that your friends, on their own, have organised a birthday party for you. The reason you are over joyed is because they have done this freely, demonstrating their love to you.

Now imagine you have a birthday coming up and you MAKE them give you a birthday party. Does this have anyway the same value? Of course not, because it is an act of you, not an act of them.

Jesus' sacrafice was an act of God. It is therefore worthless to God as a substitute for our insult to him through our disobedience. It cannot and would not repay the debt of the insult, any more than you putting on your own birthday party would be a substitute for your friends putting one on for you

(and before you say Jesus gave himself freely to God as a man, he didn't. The Bible describes Jesus being sent by God the Father to Earth to die for us. It was an act of God the Father, John 4:10. God was putting on his own birthday party because we wouldn't throw him one, and it ain't going to make up for it)

The Christian belief of the cruxification is muddle contradictory nonsense. As you yourself say that fact that you believe it to be true is irrelevant. It doesn't make sense within the context that it is set. It isn't true to itself, it doesn't make sense within itself, which is something that is important even of works of fiction, as my screen writer teacher in film school used to say. You don't need to go searching for new frames of references, the frame of reference to judge the story of Jesus is already presented to you.

Personally I suspect it arose out of the panic that the early followers of Jesus had when their messiah, God on Earth, wound up being executed by the Romans. They had to find an explanation as to how their messiah could wind up dead.

And this was the best they came up with in a short time, without the time or ability to think it through properly.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

To test prayer it must first actually be prayer. When testing the composition of a piece of iron. You don’t go out and find a piece of coal and test that and then say that that is not iron. “We’ve tested it and the results are that it is not iron”. Yeah we know it’s not iron, you didn’t test iron you tested coal. Only God can test prayer. He knows if it’s from the heart or not. And even if it is from the heart He can still either choose to grant what is being prayed for or not and just because He chooses not to grant the requests in prayers that does not mean that He does not hear them. Sorry for wrecking your head about prayer but you did bring it up.

So, by your own description, even if God does not exist, you will still think prayer is effective? Because, if it comes true then God is great and merciful, and if it doesn't come true then God is more wise than you and hence refuses your request.

This is why I loathe the concept of faith. Even if I am 100% correct and make the best arguments that can be made, I may as well try to convince a wall to stop being a wall. You are lost to the rest of the universe.

Everybody knows that 'A' cannot be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time, but if Christianity (which contradicts this frame) is true then Christianity is ultimate reality and our logical frame is not equipped to deal with it.

We have no reason to assume it is true. Furthermore, this logic can be applied to anything at all, such as Scientology or my new religion called Supernal Turtle Worship. Once again you make yourself immune to reality. You live in la la land where nothing has to make sense and nothing can be ever ruled out. Pure intellectual stagnation.

There are plenty of things that don't make sense and yet they are true. The events of 9/11 do not make sense yet they happened. Governments that do not allow food aid to their starving people does not make sense yet it happens. People making pacts on the Internet to commit suicide doesn't make sense yet that also happens.

All of those things make perfect sense. They have causes and explanations. You seem to be confusing "makes sense" with "I approve of" or "I can empathise with this". The fact that you'd so blindly misuse the term is rather telling.

So your assumption that if things do not make sense is a strong indicator that it is wrong is actually wrong itself. Christianity doesn't make logical sense because the logic we are governed by cannot contain or explain it by and through itself, because if Christianity is true then that logic is not a suitable frame of reference by which to adjudge it, so 'A' can be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time when you start thinking outside the box.

This is insane circular reasoning. If "X" is true, "X" being a proposition that makes no sense, then our frame of logic is flawed and therefore "X" is true.

I felt dirty even writing that because its such gibberish.

Zillah

Lets play a thought game for a moment.

You are asserting that I am ill-equipped to decide that your claims about God and the universe are wrong, because if you are right then my logical frame of reference is flawed. Therefore, if one makes a nonsensical claim it cannot be defeated by any arguments based in logic.

Hence, I will make the following argument:

"Your position about God and the universe are incorrect because purple monkey flying dishwasher."

If you disagree with this then it is merely a failing of your logical frame of reference, because if I am right then your logical frame of reference is no longer applicable. Therefore God does not exist.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

"Your position about God and the universe are incorrect because purple monkey flying dishwasher."

That and your philosopher dying laughin because he watched a drunk donkey eating figs are the best belly laughs I've had in ages. Will respond in full to all tomorow if I get a min. Thanks and goodnight

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

If you disagree with this then it is merely a failing of your logical frame of reference, because if I am right then your logical frame of reference is no longer applicable. Therefore God does not exist.

A possible conclusion of the stuff in my post above is that God doesn't actually care about sin.

But then the Bible states that God does care about sin.

So one could put forward that God both cares about sin and doesn't care about sin.

But I would imagine at that point most Christians (and dare I say Soul Winner) would come scrambling back to Aristotelean logic and say that God cannot both care about sin and not care about sin at the same time. That doesn't make sense. It is nonsense.

At which point I would simply tell them change their frame of reference :pac:

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

The main bit of nonsense is God sending Jesus to Earth as a sacrafice to himself to pay the debt we owe God. That is nonsense. God sacrafices Jesus to himself, which fails God's own standards. It is even more nonsensical if Jesus is God himself, but even if he isn't or if he is both or what ever you are trying to say it still fails the test

What debt did/do we owe to God?

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

What debt did/do we owe to God?

The debt of the insult of not obeying his wishes

yes he created us so what we wouldn't obey him in the first place, but one piece of nonsense at a time pH

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

The debt of the insult of not obeying his wishes

You've lost me, what wishes were not obeyed?

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

You've lost me, what wishes were not obeyed?

Well if you listen to Christians, all of them

To quote the Rev Lovejoy from The Simpsons, "Have you ever sat down and read it [the bible]. Technically we are not allowed go to the bathroom"

Dades

pH wrote: »

What debt did/do we owe to God?

Doesn't this stem from the "Original Sin" thing? i.e. Adam (with a little help from Eve and *cough* a talking snake) screwed it up for everyone. So Jesus' sacrifice was to clean the slate, so to speak.

pH

Dades wrote: »

Doesn't this stem from the "Original Sin" thing? i.e. Adam (with a little help from Eve and *cough* a talking snake) screwed it up for everyone. So Jesus' sacrifice was to clean the slate, so to speak.

What you're saying is that for this part of the Jesus story to make sense you pretty much have to believe in the literal truth of Genesis, talking snake and all?

How does the sacrifice of Jesus (to himself to appease himself) make sense for those Christians who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Dades

pH wrote: »

How does the sacrifice of Jesus (to himself to appease himself) make sense for those Christians who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis?

I suspect the sins that required the sacrifice only started with the snake, so the sacrifice was for all the sins up to that point.

From www.wcg.org:

God loves people—but he hates sin, because sin hurts people. God wants everyone to repent (2 Peter 3:9), but those who don’t will suffer the result of their sin.

In the death of Jesus, our sins are forgiven. But this does not mean that a loving Jesus appeased or “paid off” an angry God. The Father is just as merciful as Jesus is, and Jesus is just as angry about sin as the Father is. He is angry at sin because sin hurts the people he loves. Jesus is the Judge who condemns (Matthew 25:31-46), as well as the Judge who loves sinners so much that he dies for them.

When God forgives us, he does not simply wipe away sin and pretend it never existed. He teaches us throughout the New Testament that sins are taken care of through the death of Jesus. Sins have serious consequences—consequences we can see in the cross of Christ. It cost Jesus pain and shame and death.

The gospel reveals that God acts righteously in forgiving us (Romans 1:17). He does not ignore our sins, but takes care of them in Jesus Christ. God presented Jesus as a sacrifice for our forgiveness. “He did this to demonstrate his justice” (Romans 3:25). The cross reveals that God is just; it shows that sin is too serious to be ignored. Sin has consequences, and Jesus volunteered to suffer the consequences on our behalf. The cross demonstrates God’s love as well as his justice (Romans 5:8).

Make of that what you will!

Zillah

pH wrote: »

What you're saying is that for this part of the Jesus story to make sense you pretty much have to believe in the literal truth of Genesis, talking snake and all?

How does the sacrifice of Jesus (to himself to appease himself) make sense for those Christians who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis?

It depends on how wishy washy the Christian is. Don't forget that Apologetics is the most malleable of all ways of thinking. If you're not a Creationist you can still believe in the story of Genesis as a metaphor for our rejection of God. Mankind has, over the millennia, used his free will to turn away from God and fall from Grace.

Of course, we'd need a thousand rolls of duct tape to hold the whole thing together.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

If you're not a Creationist you can still believe in the story of Genesis as a metaphor for our rejection of God. Mankind has, over the millennia, used his free will to turn away from God and fall from Grace.

The story of Genesis is about 2 humans disobeying God and being directly punished by him (painful childbirth, toil the fields and all that).

I can't see how this is a metaphor for humans turning away from God.

Are we saying that whatever Jesus died to fix was directly inflicted on us (at a particular point in time) by God as a punishment for turning away from him, or was it some natural law (put in place at creation) the breaking of which triggered the debt?

anti-venom

pH wrote: »

The story of Genesis is about 2 humans disobeying God and being directly punished by him (painful childbirth, toil the fields and all that).

I can't see how this is a metaphor for humans turning away from God.

Are we saying that whatever Jesus died to fix was directly inflicted on us (at a particular point in time) by God as a punishment for turning away from him, or was it some natural law (put in place at creation) the breaking of which triggered the debt?

It's just this horribly illogical theology of theodicy, ie believers making excuses for their god. The story of Adam and Eve is just another example of people doing what they've always done; doing their god's thinking for him.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Are we saying that whatever Jesus died to fix was directly inflicted on us (at a particular point in time) by God as a punishment for turning away from him, or was it some natural law (put in place at creation) the breaking of which triggered the debt?

"we" aren't saying anything, we are atheists :P

I can tell you what Christians believe but not sure I can justify it. Its all nonsense

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

So, by your own description, even if God does not exist, you will still think prayer is effective?

Nope didn't say that.

Zillah wrote: »

Because, if it comes true then God is great and merciful, and if it doesn't come true then God is more wise than you and hence refuses your request.

Didn't say that either.

Zillah wrote: »

This is why I loathe the concept of faith. Even if I am 100% correct and make the best arguments that can be made, I may as well try to convince a wall to stop being a wall. You are lost to the rest of the universe.

Or maybe, just maybe, there just might be the ever so remote distance light years away possibility that you are wrong. Ever think of that? Of course not! So loath away the concept of faith all you want, you’ve just proved your ignorance about it. Faith is simply an act based upon a belief sustained by the confidence that the object believed in will hold up.

So by that definition faith is not restricted to religion, it is put into practice everyday when you get out of your bed and act on the belief that gravity (which you cannot see btw) will make your feet hit the floor and not the ceiling. You cannot exist without faith by that definition. The only thing that differentiates the atheist and the religious person is their object of faith, but both do have faith in what they believe by that definition. Atheist believe that there is no God and act (e.g. make pronouncements about) accordingly, and religious people believe that there is and also act accordingly.

Zillah wrote: »

We have no reason to assume it is true. Furthermore, this logic can be applied to anything at all, such as Scientology or my new religion called Supernal Turtle Worship. Once again you make yourself immune to reality. You live in la la land where nothing has to make sense and nothing can be ever ruled out. Pure intellectual stagnation.

Ooooh Zillah has spoken. Is that how you are with your friends? Just shoot everything down when it doesn't agree with your point of view?

Zillah wrote: »

All of those things make perfect sense. They have causes and explanations. You seem to be confusing "makes sense" with "I approve of" or "I can empathise with this". The fact that you'd so blindly misuse the term is rather telling.

That hurt.

Zillah wrote: »

This is insane circular reasoning. If "X" is true, "X" being a proposition that makes no sense, then our frame of logic is flawed and therefore "X" is true.

I felt dirty even writing that because its such gibberish.

That is not what I was saying, you're just reading into what I posted something that I did not say, something that you wanted it to say. At least argue my points with me instead of just shooting me down because you don't agree with them.

Telling people who believe in God that they are stupid and backward and all those other wonderful connotations will never get you anywhere. You might think you are coming across as a smart arse in order to gain brownies with your pals. Read my posts again and you'll notice a tiny little word in them called "IF" and then it will all makes sense to you. I said "IF" Christ was who He claimed to be which was God (A) and Man (not A) at the same time then our logical frame of reference which takes for granted that A cannot be A and not A at the same time is wrong. Now don’t throw all your toys out of the pram ok, be calm, read the posts, breath, read them again, breath again, now reply. There’s a good lad.

Galvasean

That was a fairly good post SW, until the last sentence.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is not what I was saying, you're just reading into what I posted something that I did not say, something that you wanted it to say. At least argue my points with me instead of just shooting me down because you don't agree with them.

Telling people who believe in God that they are stupid and backward and all those other wonderful connotations will never get you anywhere. You might think you are coming across as a smart arse in order to gain brownies with your pals. Read my posts again and you'll notice a tiny little word in them called "IF" and then it will all makes sense to you. I said "IF" Christ was who He claimed to be which was God (A) and Man (not A) at the same time then our logical frame of reference which takes for granted that A cannot be A and not A at the same time is wrong. Now don’t throw all your toys out of the pram ok, be calm, read the posts, breath, read them again, breath again, now reply. There’s a good lad.

I find it ironic that in the space of one paragraph you go from criticising Zillah for being condescending and the next you are condescending yourself.

Matthew 7:5

"You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

sink

To clarify although I am agnostic as a humanist I can recognise many of the good morales Christianity teaches. These lessons in morality can be serperate from religious belief and recongnised as worthwile from a purely logical standpoint.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope didn't say that.

Yes, you did: "Yeah we know it’s not iron, you didn’t test iron you tested coal. Only God can test prayer. He knows if it’s from the heart or not. And even if it is from the heart He can still either choose to grant what is being prayed for or not and just because He chooses not to grant the requests in prayers that does not mean that He does not hear them."

If what you prayed for occurs then God is merciful and rewarding faith, if what you pray for does not occur then its because He in his wisdom chose not to. Perhaps you didn't admit the conclusion to your logic, but by your own description whether prayer works or not you're going to presume God exists.

Or maybe, just maybe, there just might be the ever so remote distance light years away possibility that you are wrong. Ever think of that? Of course not!

No, being a sceptical person I am constantly aware of the possibility that I am wrong so I check my own logic and change my opinion as new facts are revealed to me.

But thats irrelevant. The point you responded to had nothing to do with whether I was wrong or not. I'm discussing a hypothetical situation that exposes the absurdity of faith. IF I am right, and make perfect arguments, I still can't convince you because you have faith, which as much as you might dress it up, is belief in absence of, or contrary to, evidence. You as much described it as that yourself in your opinion on prayer and the existence of God.

Perhaps you can appreciate the argument better if I use a hypothetical third person. Bob is 100% correct and makes perfect arguments. You still disregard what he says, even though you're wrong, because you have faith.

So by that definition faith is not restricted to religion, it is put into practice everyday when you get out of your bed and act on the belief that gravity (which you cannot see btw) will make your feet hit the floor and not the ceiling.

Cannot SEE? Thats the argument you're actually going with?! Ahaha, oh man. Gravity can be demonstrated to exist, repeatedly, time and again, with predictable rules and simple experiments. Your magic sky-daddy cannot. Thats where faith comes in. I do not assert that gravity definitely exists and will always exist. I have seen the existence of gravity demonstrated and will behave as it if will continue to exist, as I have no reason to believe it will suddenly vanish.

I understand why you might want to associate your beliefs with such nice dependable and measurable things as gravity but that kite is not going to fly my friend.

Ooooh Zillah has spoken. Is that how you are with your friends? Just shoot everything down when it doesn't agree with your point of view?

That hurt.

...what? Do you actually think thats a response to my argument? Its patently clear to most people reading this that its meaningless antagonism in the face of an argument you can't respond to, but I'm fascinated to consider that maybe you're so adept at double-think that you believe you've somehow responded to my argument with this childishness.

That is not what I was saying, you're just reading into what I posted something that I did not say, something that you wanted it to say. At least argue my points with me instead of just shooting me down because you don't agree with them.

Telling people who believe in God that they are stupid and backward and all those other wonderful connotations will never get you anywhere. You might think you are coming across as a smart arse in order to gain brownies with your pals. Read my posts again and you'll notice a tiny little word in them called "IF" and then it will all makes sense to you. I said "IF" Christ was who He claimed to be which was God (A) and Man (not A) at the same time then our logical frame of reference which takes for granted that A cannot be A and not A at the same time is wrong. Now don’t throw all your toys out of the pram ok, be calm, read the posts, breath, read them again, breath again, now reply. There’s a good lad.

All of this is just more meaningless antagonistic silliness that does not even nearly deal with what I'm saying.

I destroyed the basis of the logic for your entire position and this is all you can come up with?

Gaviscon wrote:

That was a fairly good post SW

No it wasn't. The silly aggressiveness aside, the whole post was a pile of strawmen and blatant avoidance, nothing more. He's essentially playing a last word game over actually discussing the issue any more.

Asiaprod

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now don’t throw all your toys out of the pram ok, be calm, read the posts, breath, read them again, breath again, now reply. There’s a good lad.

I give you the same advice, and a warning, don't patronize others in your debate.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, you did: "Yeah we know it’s not iron, you didn’t test iron you tested coal. Only God can test prayer. He knows if it’s from the heart or not. And even if it is from the heart He can still either choose to grant what is being prayed for or not and just because He chooses not to grant the requests in prayers that does not mean that He does not hear them."

If what you prayed for occurs then God is merciful and rewarding faith, if what you pray for does not occur then its because He in his wisdom chose not to. Perhaps you didn't admit the conclusion to your logic, but by your own description whether prayer works or not you're going to presume God exists.

If you wanted to talk about prayer then why didn't you start a thread on it? I pointed you to a previous discussion where we talked in debt about prayer and you said that you weren't bothered to read it because it was too long, so what can I do about that? You're convinced that you have proven that prayer doesn't work, so great. Stay there. Prayers answered or prayers not answered are not what makes God exist or not exist. He either exists and answers or doesn't answer prayers or He doesn't exist at all. My faith is not dependent on whether He answers prayers or not. I know He answers prayers from personal experience but I would never hold that up as proof that He exists. I'm not out here trying to convince anyone that He exists. I don't care what anyone else believes or doesn't believe. I know what I believe and why I believe it, so you can keep your faith in what can be measured and weighed and I'll keep mine in what can't. Does that mean I don’t believe in gravity? Nope, I do believe in it. There is some force there pulling us all toward it. We call it gravity but no one really knows what it is or how it got here, we just know it has the effects that it has and I don’t see many people trying to prove that it doesn’t exist by throwing themselves off a cliff. Right so we've established that gravity exists, now what?

Zillah wrote: »

No, being a sceptical person I am constantly aware of the possibility that I am wrong so I check my own logic and change my opinion as new facts are revealed to me.

But thats irrelevant. The point you responded to had nothing to do with whether I was wrong or not. I'm discussing a hypothetical situation that exposes the absurdity of faith. IF I am right, and make perfect arguments, I still can't convince you because you have faith, which as much as you might dress it up, is belief in absence of, or contrary to, evidence. You as much described it as that yourself in your opinion on prayer and the existence of God.

Perhaps you can appreciate the argument better if I use a hypothetical third person. Bob is 100% correct and makes perfect arguments. You still disregard what he says, even though you're wrong, because you have faith.

So in essence what you are saying is that you are 100% right because you think faith is absurd and I’m 100% wrong because I have faith in God, and this is all true simply because you say it? Am I catching on now?

Zillah wrote: »

Cannot SEE? Thats the argument you're actually going with?! Ahaha, oh man. Gravity can be demonstrated to exist, repeatedly, time and again, with predictable rules and simple experiments. Your magic sky-daddy cannot.

But, I never said He could be demonstrated to exist by those means. The God that has been revealed to us is personal and has revealed Himself as the kind of God that does not like being tested in this way. Now that is due to one of two things. 1. That He doesn’t really exist or 2. That He does exist but hates being tested like that. You don’t believe in God because there is no hard evidence and that’s fine. I believe in God simply by reading His Word, I’m sorry if you think that’s stupid, you are entitled to your opinion but that does not make your opinion right.

Zillah wrote: »

Thats where faith comes in. I do not assert that gravity definitely exists and will always exist. I have seen the existence of gravity demonstrated and will behave as it if will continue to exist, as I have no reason to believe it will suddenly vanish.

Snap.

Zillah wrote: »

I understand why you might want to associate your beliefs with such nice dependable and measurable things as gravity but that kite is not going to fly my friend.

Perish the thought! I would never associate my faith in God with something as temporal as my faith in gravity, sorry.

Zillah wrote: »

...what? Do you actually think thats a response to my argument? Its patently clear to most people reading this that its meaningless antagonism in the face of an argument you can't respond to, but I'm fascinated to consider that maybe you're so adept at double-think that you believe you've somehow responded to my argument with this childishness.

I’m not with ya. What argument? I’ve forgotten already, please re-enlighten me and I promise I will engage you properly.

Zillah wrote: »

All of this is just more meaningless antagonistic silliness that does not even nearly deal with what I'm saying.

As above.

Zillah wrote: »

I destroyed the basis of the logic for your entire position and this is all you can come up with?

I’m sorry I must have missed that one. You destroyed the basis of the logic for my entire position??? In your own mind maybe. But like I say, lets have it again please.

Zillah wrote: »

No it wasn't. The silly aggressiveness aside, the whole post was a pile of strawmen and blatant avoidance, nothing more. He's essentially playing a last word game over actually discussing the issue any more.

So Gaviscon’s opinion means nothing either then?

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

I find it ironic that in the space of one paragraph you go from criticising Zillah for being condescending and the next you are condescending yourself.

Matthew 7:5

"You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I'm sorry, it won't happen again.

Soul Winner

Asiaprod wrote: »

I give you the same advice, and a warning, don't patronize others in your debate.

Sorry

Soul Winner

Gaviscon wrote: »

That was a fairly good post SW, until the last sentence.

Thanks, and sorry for the last sentence.

Zillah

Ok so this is the point at which I'm pulling out. You're either genuinely not able to understand me or you're caught in some sort of faith based feedback loop, either way, I have no intention of repeatedly trying to invent new ways to explain the same argument to help you keep up.

Zombrex

Anyone want to comment on my "God throwing his own birthday party" post ... anyone ...

... i though that was a good analogy myself .. I'm feeling left out ... :P

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

Ok so this is the point at which I'm pulling out. You're either genuinely not able to understand me or you're caught in some sort of faith based feedback loop, either way, I have no intention of repeatedly trying to invent new ways to explain the same argument to help you keep up.

Ah, I'm sure we'll stumble upon each other again in another thread as is always the case on Boards with theists and non-theists. Arguing and rearguing the same things with neither side ever seeing the other side’s point of view with any clarity. Opposite polarities will never meet. I often find myself asking why I even bother too.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyone want to comment on my "God throwing his own birthday party" post ... anyone ...

... i though that was a good analogy myself .. I'm feeling left out ... :P

Dyu know what? I spent most of last Friday replying to each of your points in that post and was well impressed with myself and just before I was about to post them up, my laptop's battery just went splat and I lost all my stuff I was going mad. I wasn't prepared to start over, my heart was too broken. If I get a surge of inspiration again I will defo go over it again ok.