Answers for Atheists

a reply to: TzarChasm

the video you shared is an interesting one. although i have to wonder what happens when the machine that becomes conscious is confronted with...purpose. not only direction, but destination. a finality to its existence, written before it ever knew what destiny is. would such a machine accept that? would such a machine submit to what by that point might seem a supremely foolish and shortsighted endgame? would its understanding of nature correspond with that of its makers? would it even care that it was artificial and not a person by conventional definitions? does this gathering of information promote emotional awareness, or is it simply a chronicle built around a basic function? so many questions raised by an audacious proposition of science fiction. and so few answers.

That's a bit odd you must admit. I thought you didn't like you tube videos?
Maybe you only like the short ones?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

I would. But he would stop me from doing so.
The point you are speaking of is obedience to God.
if God spoke to you what would you do?

if god asked you to rape and murder your children, you would. you would attempt to do so, in the hope that he would stop you at some point, but you would proceed with that faith nonetheless. you just admitted this, and you want to talk about reasoning with us?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a bit odd you must admit. I thought you didn't like you tube videos?
Maybe you only like the short ones?

i said they dont count as evidence, mr devious. please employ your critical reading skills for the long term and not just the time it takes to finish a post and click the reply button. i said it is an interesting video, nothing more or less.

i am more interested (or should i say perturbed?) by the above excerpt that i responded to. no test should require such moral depravity and your willingness to "play along" is just as unsettling as any being who might ask it of you.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: randyvs
Why would I be admitting that? I redacted nothing and you're
getting nowhere with your silly attempt to demonize.

I completely agree...

My guess is that these types of arguments are why the Lord Jesus Christ didn't waste a lot of time arguing.

It's hard to argue with a miracle when it's staring you right in the face.

When you argue with reality, you lose - but only 100% of the time. - Byron Katie.

Jesus? I thought you were referring to our lord and savior, Krishna? After all, the story of Krishna is much older than the story of Jesus, and there are over a billion Hindus in the world, many of which have had personal experiences that they claim also justifies their many gods and religious texts.

Tell me again, why is yours more evident than theirs?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I gave Ghost the answer he hoped for. Of course you are going
to youse that. It's silly and stupid at best. But please, do with it
as thou wilt. I love my and trust my Creator to whatever extent
that is required. Would I actually have to do such a thing by his
command? Abraham and Issac would suggest something totally
different. So you see all I did was take what Ghost tried to do.
And turn it back on him. Despite the risks. What is life, without
risk?

a reply to: randyvs

I gave Ghost the answer he hoped for. Of course you are going
to youse that.

i may be wrong, but i believe he had hoped for an honest one. are you going to say you lied? because thats a sin, and we all know what an upstanding christian you are.

Would I actually have to do such a thing by his
command? Abraham and Issac would suggest something totally
different. So you see all I did was take what Ghost tried to do.
And turn it back on him. Despite the risks. What is life, without
risk?

the question was not whether the command would be given, but whether you would obey it. and you answered.

*shudder*

ETA: from another thread. i feel it is quite fitting in this context.

originally posted by: Klassified

It really is that simple.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i may be wrong, but i believe he had hoped for an honest one. are you going to say you lied? because thats a sin, and we all know what an upstanding christian you are.

All the same, you think you know everything. And then spew bullsh1t about reality.

Ha ha absurdities? And what is it you believe about our existence? I dare you.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

i may be wrong, but i believe he had hoped for an honest one. are you going to say you lied? because thats a sin, and we all know what an upstanding christian you are.

All the same, you think you know everything. And then spew bullsh1t about reality.

all the same, you are avoiding the issue here. but after a twist like that, i dont think there is any need to pursue the discussion further. you made your point and we made ours.

when god says kill, you say, how many and how bad?

see ya round.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh no don't run away just because the going gets tuff.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
I gave Ghost the answer he hoped for.

My hope was that someone that I regularly converse with is both capable of honestly answering a question, and has the moral ability to discern the difference between what is and isn't a morally acceptable answer.

Once again, you go into every conversation with an atheist with a preconceived notion as to what we think of you and what we do with our spare time and how we view the universe.

All you've succeeded at doing is showing me and the other members that you are more than willing to provide a false answer in order to confirm that we think of you as some sort of morally broken thing than than to simply admit "no, I wouldn't attempt to rape and murder my own children".

Why would you actually consciously want us to think that about you and your religion?

This is you, yet again admitting that you purposely lied about your answer.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
I love my and trust my Creator to whatever extent
that is required.

What is your answer?!??! Yes or no?!??! You say "I only gave the answer [you think] ghost hoped for" yet then you immediately state in the very next sentence that you would do whatever god asked?

You're going back and forth with your claim.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
So you see all I did was take what Ghost tried to do.
And turn it back on him.=

How is confirming that you would rape and murder your children on command and without question turning it back to me?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

i may be wrong, but i believe he had hoped for an honest one. are you going to say you lied? because thats a sin, and we all know what an upstanding christian you are.

All the same, you think you know everything. And then spew bullsh1t about reality.

all the same, you are avoiding the issue here. but after a twist like that, i dont think there is any need to pursue the discussion further. you made your point and we made ours.

when god says kill, you say, how many and how bad?

see ya round.

Yup... I think this concludes the thread.

My face hurts from all the face palming anyway.

Enjoy your continued rejection of reality.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Jesus? I thought you were referring to our lord and savior, Krishna? After all, the story of Krishna is much older than the story of Jesus, and there are over a billion Hindus in the world, many of which have had personal experiences that they claim also justifies their many gods and religious texts. Tell me again, why is yours more evident than theirs?

One problem with that scenario: false religion ALWAYS lies.

The reason for that is that Satan counterfeits everything that God does.

This is why religion is probably his greatest masterpiece.

Religion is clearly NOT the place to seek after the truth.

God left us some huge clues as to how to find it though: Ask, seek, and knock...

"Every major religion in the world has been manufactured or infiltrated by the Illuminati to enslave and brainwash society. In essence, religion was the first form of mind control. The indoctrination of the masses by a "Trojan Horse" false religion has allowed the Illuminati to take control and work in secret for many, many years." Link

"Today the religions of the world remain a major tool of the Illuminati agenda. Link

What if I were to tell you, that there is a vast Satanic conspiracy to deceive the masses of every society on earth? What if I were to tell you that the top leaders of the world’s religions were in league with the Devil? Would you think I’m crazy? I would! Yet, the truth is stranger than fiction! You have been lied to my friend. Few people in the world today are aware of just how much Satan has infiltrated organized religion. Link

During my research of Hinduism I discovered that it is actually a manufactured religion created in 1830:

Over the last three years, I have visited several libraries, and diligently studied Hindu theology, scriptures, and books. I spent countless hours pouring over thick works through the night, often hidden in obscure corners of dusty shelves in old libraries, covered in spider webs.

In short, I discovered that Hinduism was an English invention that bracketed several distinct, mutually hostile religions into one umbrella. `Hinduism' or `Sanatana Dharma' did not exist before the English, but was created by them in order to reward the Brahmins for loyal services during Anglo-Brahmin rule

Myth of One Hindu Religion Exploded

Bottom line: religion is simply Satan masquerading as our Lord Jesus Christ.

He is a counterfeiter and a very good one at that...

Hinduism is fiction created by the British. Hinduism is not a single religion. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE." The correct name for what is commonly called "Hinduism" is "Sanatana Dharma" "Sanathana Dharma" was also a 19nth century invention. forums.catholic.com...

Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialists in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travelers who visited India before English rule used the word `Hindu' or `Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states :

" The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. "-- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]

In other words, the founding father of `Hinduism' is an Englishman ! Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu'...The Myth of Hinduism

"it has been shown that the definition of Hinduism is so vague that the whole world fits into the definition of Hindu. Hence, the concept of Hinduism is equivalent to `mankind', and is devoid of any sense."

Myth of One Hindu Religion Exploded

a reply to: Ghost147

My face hurts from all the face palming anyway.

Does your face hurt really? It's killing me!

That's only a joke to show that we all lie.
I'm not special and no different from you. If you've truly uncovered
any thing about me. It should be that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I should make a new thread and call it, Atheism is stupid.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

My face hurts from all the face palming anyway.

Does your face hurt really? It's killing me!

That's only a joke to show that we all lie.
I'm not special and no different from you. If you've truly uncovered
any thing about me. It should be that.

on the contrary, there is a critical difference: neither ghost nor i would ever even consider, for the smallest space of time, harming an innocent (especially a child!) just because a magical voice strongly encouraged it and perhaps threatened retribution if we resisted.

that sets us leagues apart, in my humble opinion.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Wow that makes you so moral. You should thank God you have
the right to ask such a judgemental immoral question. But as an
atheist you don't have to have that morality.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
It's hard to argue with a miracle when it's staring you right in the face.

But it's easy to deny science right?

a reply to: Barcs

theoretically...science would be just as easy to deny as a miracle...

If we suddenly have a brand new sun tomorrow morning...well...you could either deny the "miracle" or deny the "science" that it's possible....

established science...not so much
A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I think the science is pretty well established that another star isn't going to magically appear in our solar system. And if it did, nobody would be around long enough to appreciate the "miracle". Aren't miracles usually something good? Crippled geing healed, the dead returning to life etc... I've never encountered any purported miracles that would wipe out the inner solar system.

a reply to: randyvs

So you're saying that without your specific version of God, people are automatically immoral and bad people?
Interesting.

a reply to: peter vlar

Nah....the "global flood" would have been considered a miracle but not necessarily "good"....as that's a **** ton of water ya know...but yeah the science is established...that's why i said "theoretically"...

A2D