The Atheist Thread

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SBSP wrote:It does mean what it says. You're just being pedantic and looking for anything that'll support your claim.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but a piece of work which claims to be infallible should stand up to any level of scrutiny, any level of pedantry.

This is entirely untrue. I'd imagine if God wanted to test people's faith then he would design his work on earth to appear somewhat flawed and make some people doubtful. There would be no point in making any of the books that he has supposedly sent to mankind entirely perfect from a literal standpoint as then everyone would follow his word. God is trying to test humanity and trying to identify his true followers and he has created his work with careful intricacy to allow people who do not possess faith to scrutinize it and reject its validity.

Sorry, RR. I have now realized that it's difficult to reason with you when your understanding of language/literature is not on par with me. How old are you again? Just use the link I provided you from now on. It's really a big waste of my time trying to reason with you.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

One is true, one is false. They are both equally difficult or easy for uneducated people to understand as well, lamps floating in the air or great balls of fire far away.

Equally with mountains, it is claimed that they are there to prevent earthquakes. Great plates of land moving together, that would be equally absurd sounding to uneducated people with no scientific knowledge, except it would actually be true, whereas the line about mountains preventing earthquakes, that has no basis in reality.

How is using language to describe stars as lamps false? English/Literature was clearly not one of your strong subjects.

It was actually, dick head. How is 'lamps' preferable to 'balls of fire' (which is what they actually are BTW) why would that literary choice be made? Equally, why would the choice be made to describe mountains in a way that bears almost no resemblance to reality?

You can't just dismiss these as literary choice when you claim the book is infallible.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

How is using language to describe stars as lamps false? English/Literature was clearly not one of your strong subjects.

It was actually, dick head. How is 'lamps' preferable to 'balls of fire' (which is what they actually are BTW) why would that literary choice be made? Equally, why would the choice be made to describe mountains in a way that bears almost no resemblance to reality?

You can't just dismiss these as literary choice when you claim the book is infallible.

Then you should be familiar with the concept of similes/metaphors.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
I'm sorry you feel that way, but a piece of work which claims to be infallible should stand up to any level of scrutiny, any level of pedantry.

This is entirely untrue. I'd imagine if God wanted to test people's faith then he would design his work on earth to appear somewhat flawed and make some people doubtful. There would be no point in making any of the books that he has supposedly sent to mankind entirely perfect from a literal standpoint as then everyone would follow his word. God is trying to test humanity and trying to identify his true followers and he has created his work with careful intricacy to allow people who do not possess faith to scrutinize it and reject its validity.

Alright then, so you are saying that this God is trying to trick us into getting things wrong by putting out false and confusing statements, and if we are tricked by him, he can send us to hell? And you think this guy is worthy of being worshipped?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

It was actually, dick head. How is 'lamps' preferable to 'balls of fire' (which is what they actually are BTW) why would that literary choice be made? Equally, why would the choice be made to describe mountains in a way that bears almost no resemblance to reality?

You can't just dismiss these as literary choice when you claim the book is infallible.

Then you should be familiar with the concept of similes/metaphors.

Are you familiar with Law, ahly? Have you ever studied it in any detail?

ahlycotc wrote:Sorry, RR. I have now realized that it's difficult to reason with you when your understanding of language/literature is not on par with me. How old are you again? Just use the link I provided you from now on. It's really a big waste of my time trying to reason with you.

RR must be real angry now.

*waitsforinzaghitocomeinandsayyouarefalse

I don't rise to trolling. You can't play a player.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Then you should be familiar with the concept of similes/metaphors.

Are you familiar with Law, ahly? Have you ever studied it in any detail?

I've taken some rudimentary law classes. Why?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I don't rise to trolling. You can't play a player.

I though you said you were not a troll?

Anyway, my history professor told my class on the first day of highschool that history is subjective. History is diluted. History is the account of the person who wrote or referenced it, and thus is biased and can in some cases be ignorant of the truth, and that everytime you read a verse of history, you must be open and subject it to your own criticism and come up with your own conclusive opinions.

All I ask from you Ahly, and anyone else who partakes in these discussions, is to be exactly that. Critical of everything you read and critical of everything you believe. If you don't be, then you are a zealot.

Me and RR are just applying criticism to some religious 'facts' and coming to our own conclusions. If you wish to debate our criticism then by all means do so! I just wish for you to analyze and consider our criticism first. Ahly, you are an intelligent guy, I've known that about you for a long time, Allah would have wanted you to use your brain for exactly this purpose, why else would he create humans as intelligent sentient beings?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Are you familiar with Law, ahly? Have you ever studied it in any detail?

I've taken some rudimentary law classes. Why?

The Law is extremely important, it defines how we should live our lives, do you agree with that?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

This is entirely untrue. I'd imagine if God wanted to test people's faith then he would design his work on earth to appear somewhat flawed and make some people doubtful. There would be no point in making any of the books that he has supposedly sent to mankind entirely perfect from a literal standpoint as then everyone would follow his word. God is trying to test humanity and trying to identify his true followers and he has created his work with careful intricacy to allow people who do not possess faith to scrutinize it and reject its validity.

Alright then, so you are saying that this God is trying to trick us into getting things wrong by putting out false and confusing statements, and if we are tricked by him, he can send us to hell? And you think this guy is worthy of being worshipped?

No, he has given you his message and he has tried to encourage you to join but yet you remain pedantic and fall directly into his elaborate traps instead of maintaining your faith. It is a test and you have a conscious choice. There would be no point in proving his omnipotence as it would not be challenging whatsoever.

NZG wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I don't rise to trolling. You can't play a player.

I though you said you were not a troll?

Not regarding religion, no. All my views on this subject are entirely truthful. In the past I have trolled the EA forums, however.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Alright then, so you are saying that this God is trying to trick us into getting things wrong by putting out false and confusing statements, and if we are tricked by him, he can send us to hell? And you think this guy is worthy of being worshipped?

No, he has given you his message and he has tried to encourage you to join but yet you remain pedantic and fall directly into his elaborate traps instead of maintaining your faith. It is a test and you have a conscious choice. There would be no point in proving his omnipotence as it would not be challenging whatsoever.

Why would a good entity make elaborate traps for me which will send me to hell if I fall into them?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

How is using language to describe stars as lamps false? English/Literature was clearly not one of your strong subjects.

It was actually, dick head. How is 'lamps' preferable to 'balls of fire' (which is what they actually are BTW) why would that literary choice be made? Equally, why would the choice be made to describe mountains in a way that bears almost no resemblance to reality?

You can't just dismiss these as literary choice when you claim the book is infallible.

Well highly pressurized gases, not exactly fire.

But also nothing like a lamp.

polska. wrote:Anyway, my history professor told my class on the first day of highschool that history is subjective. History is diluted. History is the account of the person who wrote or referenced it, and thus is biased and can in some cases be ignorant of the truth, and that everytime you read a verse of history, you must be open and subject it to your own criticism and come up with your own conclusive opinions.

All I ask from you Ahly, and anyone else who partakes in these discussions, is to be exactly that. Critical of everything you read and critical of everything you believe. If you don't be, then you are a zealot.

Me and RR are just applying criticism to some religious 'facts' and coming to our own conclusions. If you wish to debate our criticism then by all means do so! I just wish for you to analyze and consider our criticism first. Ahly, you are an intelligent guy, I've known that about you for a long time, Allah would have wanted you to use your brain for exactly this purpose, why else would he create humans as intelligent sentient beings?

I'm not sure if you heard, but I could have sworn that I mentioned the numerous times I question my beliefs. To this day, I remain a Muslim and stronger than ever. I don't blindly follow everything I hear and read. Don't generalize all religious people as people who don't use their brain or question their beliefs.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

NZG wrote:

I though you said you were not a troll?

Not regarding religion, no. All my views on this subject are entirely truthful. In the past I have trolled the EA forums, however.

Ahly doesn't troll when it comes to you.

You don't troll a troll.

polska. wrote:Anyway, my history professor told my class on the first day of highschool that history is subjective. History is diluted. History is the account of the person who wrote or referenced it, and thus is biased and can in some cases be ignorant of the truth, and that everytime you read a verse of history, you must be open and subject it to your own criticism and come up with your own conclusive opinions.

All I ask from you Ahly, and anyone else who partakes in these discussions, is to be exactly that. Critical of everything you read and critical of everything you believe. If you don't be, then you are a zealot.

Me and RR are just applying criticism to some religious 'facts' and coming to our own conclusions. If you wish to debate our criticism then by all means do so! I just wish for you to analyze and consider our criticism first. Ahly, you are an intelligent guy, I've known that about you for a long time, Allah would have wanted you to use your brain for exactly this purpose, why else would he create humans as intelligent sentient beings?

The same applies to you. I have rather enjoyed these discussions. Most of the participants seem highly intelligent and the quality of argument is quite high. But do not be dismissive of what ahlycotc says and then ask him to bear with you as you provide your scrutiny.

NZG wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Not regarding religion, no. All my views on this subject are entirely truthful. In the past I have trolled the EA forums, however.

Ahly doesn't troll when it comes to you.

You don't troll a troll.

He pretends that he thinks he is better than me, or that he thinks I am stupid. That seems to be trolling to me.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

No, he has given you his message and he has tried to encourage you to join but yet you remain pedantic and fall directly into his elaborate traps instead of maintaining your faith. It is a test and you have a conscious choice. There would be no point in proving his omnipotence as it would not be challenging whatsoever.

Why would a good entity make elaborate traps for me which will send me to hell if I fall into them?

Because he wants to see your ability at avoiding them. They're there and you've been equipped with all you need to concur the challenge ahead of you yet you may fail due to your lack of faith.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

I've taken some rudimentary law classes. Why?

The Law is extremely important, it defines how we should live our lives, do you agree with that?

Law is subjective. Ideally, laws are created through majority approval. Laws are designed to protect people and organization.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Why would a good entity make elaborate traps for me which will send me to hell if I fall into them?

Because he wants to see your ability at avoiding them. They're there and you've been equipped with all you need to concur the challenge ahead of you yet you may fail due to your lack of faith.

How am I supposed to know that having faith is a good thing?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

NZG wrote:

Ahly doesn't troll when it comes to you.

You don't troll a troll.

He pretends that he thinks he is better than me, or that he thinks I am stupid. That seems to be trolling to me.

that is what you do? You run around the forum shouting that you are the smartest member here.

Clearly trolling.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Why would a good entity make elaborate traps for me which will send me to hell if I fall into them?

Because he wants to see your ability at avoiding them. They're there and you've been equipped with all you need to concur the challenge ahead of you yet you may fail due to your lack of faith.

So god has made it impossible for any rational educated person to believe in him as a test of faith?

I'd rather go to hell and spend eternity with those guys if that's the case.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

The Law is extremely important, it defines how we should live our lives, do you agree with that?

Law is subjective. Ideally, laws are created through majority approval. Laws are designed to protect people and organization.

OK, but you accept that ordinarily the Law has a significant effect on our lives, on governing our behaviour?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

NZG wrote:

Ahly doesn't troll when it comes to you.

You don't troll a troll.

He pretends that he thinks he is better than me, or that he thinks I am stupid. That seems to be trolling to me.

I don't think you are stupid. In fact, I believe you are more intelligent than the average person. You do however troll me quite often: some obvious attempts and others not so obvious. When I respond to your questions you either change the subject or find a loophole out of it. Why can't you just admit that you were wrong in some cases? I won't think any less of you or ridicule you (unless you have it coming due to your arrogance).

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Because he wants to see your ability at avoiding them. They're there and you've been equipped with all you need to concur the challenge ahead of you yet you may fail due to your lack of faith.

How am I supposed to know that having faith is a good thing?

Because he makes that clear in his works. Put it this way: You go to a school, you're taught everything by your teachers and then you encounter a test at the end of the year. The test is hard and you may fail if you have not taken the teachers' words regarding the importance of studying. The teachers evidently want you to succeed and ultimately seek the greater good for you by enhancing your education. Do you know that education is essential at a young age? No, but you're required to take a leap of faith and trust your teachers.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Law is subjective. Ideally, laws are created through majority approval. Laws are designed to protect people and organization.

OK, but you accept that ordinarily the Law has a significant effect on our lives, on governing our behaviour?

Why are you capitalizing "Law"? What law are you referring to?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

He pretends that he thinks he is better than me, or that he thinks I am stupid. That seems to be trolling to me.

I don't think you are stupid. In fact, I believe you are more intelligent than the average person. You do however troll me quite often: some obvious attempts and others not so obvious. When I respond to your questions you either change the subject or find a loophole out of it. Why can't you just admit that you were wrong in some cases? I won't think any less of you or ridicule you (unless you have it coming due to your arrogance).

I am absolutely adamant that I don't troll you, or anyone else when it comes to religion. Everything I say on here when it comes to religion is right from the heart.