[Jennywocky]

A man walks into a Barbershop. He sits down and the barber asks him what he does for a living and he says he's a Christian pastor.
The barber says," A pastor! Look around you; there's so much bad in this world. No good God would allow so much evil! There's no such thing as God!"
The pastor sits thoughtfully, having no argurment. When he leaves after his haircut, he steps out of the shop, and sees a man with hair down to his waist, sitting on the curb. An idea strikes him so he walks back in to the barber and states, "There's no such thing as a barber!"
The barber says:"Well that's crazy! Of course there are barbers. You just came in had your hair cut!"
The pastor say, "There's a guy outside with hair down to his waist! That means there's no such thing as barbers."
And the barber says, "No, that's just a guy who hasn't been to a barber!"
The pastor says, "Well, evil people are just people who haven't been to God."

Barbers are tangible, definable, explicable, and we've all met them.
No one would argue that barbers do not exist.
God is not tangible, not definable, not explicable, and we can't meet him in any provable fashion.
So the metaphor fails simply in making the case that "God" is like a barber.


I'm not much for the "Too much evil in the world" argument, since when I look at it from the other angle ("let's assume God is evil"), the world would be much more hellish... but it's not. It has its share of pain but some good too.

So we're left either with "God doesn't exist" or "God allows evil/suffering for some reason related to the greater good."

[Nym]

I'm not much for the "Too much evil in the world" argument, since when I look at it from the other angle ("let's assume God is evil"), the world would be much more hellish... but it's not. It has its share of pain but some good too.

So we're left either with "God doesn't exist" or "God allows evil/suffering for some reason related to the greater good."

Or a god like being would have no need for a basis of good or evil and would just do things devoid of a moral compass. Morality from my understanding comes form social interactions with your equal, god would be without peer, (by definition of it's omnipotence.) and thus would have no equals and no need for good or evil. I also have an issue with what I see as a logical inconsistency between having any moral leaning and being omnipotent.

[screamofconscious]

Some people will say that Christians and atheists are equally capable of being, rude, hateful and even violent. I don't agree with this statement.

The leading “mean Christians” are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps (“God hates fags”) The leading “mean atheists” are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (saying “I wish there was a hell the bitch could go to” about Mother Theresa). The problem is: I went to church for 12 years and I’ve never heard a Christian say anything good about Falwell or Robertson, and every Christian I know has contempt for Phelps. Dawkins and Hitchens on the other hand have millions of fans. Mean Christians naturally get weeded out by those with good behavior. Mean atheists rise to the top of the New York Times bestsellers list.

When Christians step out of line and misbehave, someone will always use it as evidence that Christianity is fake. So, failure to live up to ideals invalidates said ideals? Makes no sense at all. Atheists don’t have this problem because there is no universal morality that all atheists agree on. Even things like “A Secular Humanist Declaration” are meant to be lose guidelines in their own words. Maybe people should start using atheist misbehavior as evidence that atheism is wrong.

One of the long threads on this forum argues that the religious are mentally ill. Marino usually echoes this claim. Can you imagine the outrage and tidal wave of insults that would occur if there was an “atheists are mentally ill” thread?

There’s an atheist T-shirt that says “Adults With Imaginary Friends Are Stupid” with the Cross, the Star Of David and the Star & Crescent crossed out. I have never seen a Christian response to this shirt.

One atheist bumper sticker I’ve seen says “God, protect me from your followers!” I’ve never seen a Christian bumper sticker that says “God, protect me from those who reject you!”

Another atheist bumper sticker has Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes pissing on a Christian cross. I’ve never seen one of Calvin pissing on a Darwin fish w/legs.

In the “What religion are you?” poll that PersonalityCafe just held in the spotlight, 2 atheist posts were criticized for rudeness. The number of Christian posts that were criticized for the same? Zero.

The 10 major tyrants of the 20th century were Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Hoxha, Mao, Il-Sung, Castro and Pol Pot. Out of this list of 10, 80% of them were atheists and 90% of them were hostile to Christianity. Atheists make up about 5% of the population in America, but they are ridiculously overrepresented among the worst leaders. That is not a coincidence in any way, shape or form. Christian morality has traditionally stood in the way of tyranny. The Golden Rule: “treat others the same way you want them to treat you” basically makes tyranny impossible, as do the more worldly of the Ten Commandments: “Do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not bear false witness”. Atheism doesn’t have a universal moral code that all atheists should adhere to, so the chances they will slip out of the Christian definition of morality is much higher.

On the internet, it seems the main order of events is for atheists to attack and religious people to have to defend in response. One atheist I know said "atheism is not a positive assertion. It's a denial of myths." Well if it's just a denial and nothing more, why the vitriol when you encounter people who disagree? If atheists are right, then this is all just an April Fools Joke that went on a little too long. No real consequence, right? What are the consequences if the atheists are wrong?

Finally, why do some atheists act like Falwell and Robertson are the end all be all for Christianity? Have they never considered Paul? Peter? John? St. Patrick? St. Augustine? St. Thomas Aquinas? Joan Of Arc? Copernicus? Galileo? Soren Kierkegaard? Leo Tolstoy? Martin Luther King Jr.? and of course Mother Theresa? Perfect examples of intellect, humanitarian and science right there, but they are passed over for the lowest common denominator.

Just some things to think about.

I can't agree that the majority of Christians behave better than other groups. I have been humiliated and chased out of churches for not conforming to their ideas of worship...but I was never disrespectful up until the point that I was chased away. I will admit that people who do that kind of thing usually mean well...the ends just don't justify the means. They probably didn't want to hurt me, they just got so wrapped up in their egos they did more harm than good.

On the other hand, I don't think that athiests are any better. Nothing their leaders do will get me to pay a dime towards their cause, nor do I have any respect for the way they behave. They are just as imflammatory as religious zealots.

I do see a lot of prejudice against Christians, but at the same time, the problems we face are largely created by ourselves....myself included . I also see prejudice against pretty much every other group of people imaginable. Can you believe that my family and friends back in California ask me why on earth I'd want to live in the South because I'm surrounded by racists? It's rather amusing to poke fun at the irony of such a statement though. It doesn't matter who you are or what group your community belongs to. We're all flawed. It's those who genuinely try to make themselves better that will get to heaven. The Bible says that Jesus will tell many of those who thought they were doing right by him that he never knew them. That alone discounts your assertian that Christians are better than athiests.

[thewindlistens]

Can god create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?




An old cliche, I know, but I've never gotten anything other than an insult in response to it.

[Sybyll]

Can god create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?




An old cliche, I know, but I've never gotten anything other than an insult in response to it.

Huh. I've never heard that one before... but does the omnipotence extend to the Judeo-Christian God himself? Because, if it does, he could make himself unable to lift any rock, and according to the Bible, he made the world and everything in it (or shaped it, at least? It's been a while since I read this stuff).

Interesting question; I think my brain shorted out for a while there.

[Kevinaswell]

Gotta love a good paradox <3

[screamofconscious]

Can god create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?




An old cliche, I know, but I've never gotten anything other than an insult in response to it.

Hmmm...it's taken me days of allowing this to run under the surface before coming to a conclusion. The most consice way I can explain it:

God created the rock intentionally too heavy to lift himself. He gives the rock the leverage it needs but the rock must lift itself before it will ever move.

It's hard to make sense of that until one equates an individual human to a rock and leverage to the problems we face.

[Ungweliante]

Yeah. We atheists aren't the monsters society makes of us.

(comic strip)

Great comic, Marino, but don't you think it was just a teeny bit exaggerated?

[Marino]

Great comic, Marino, but don't you think it was just a teeny bit exaggerated?

Yes. That is the ENTIRE point of it, Ung.

[Disciple]

Can god create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?




An old cliche, I know, but I've never gotten anything other than an insult in response to it.

The answer I have heard is God is spirit and is a God of reason. This question violates reason. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I does not happen, why, because God set it up so it would not happen.

Normaly this is a smoke screen question, though I did not sense that with you. So I gave the best answer I know of. (Not that it is correct, that is still subject to opinion.)