• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

Let's say I'm God (whatever that means.) Let's say that for an eternity I was all alone, the only thing that existed. But I decided I needed someone else....

I think your belief that God was alone for an eternity prior to His creation of Adam and Eve is unwarranted. It's certainly unscriptural.

Explain why God would be alone against His will even if there never was any other beings prior to Earth?
 
Let's say I'm God (whatever that means.) Let's say that for an eternity I was all alone, the only thing that existed. But I decided I needed someone else....

I think your belief that God was alone for an eternity prior to His creation of Adam and Eve is unwarranted. It's certainly unscriptural.

Explain why God would be alone against His will even if there never was any other beings prior to Earth?

You are right; God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.

I'm not sure why you imagine that this fact supports your claim for his reality.
 
You are right; God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.

WUT?
I never said God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts and nor do I think that.

Are you confusing me with someone else?
 
But he IS detected, if the miracles of Jesus really did happen. You don't believe they really happened. But just in case you're mistaken about that, and they really did happen, then he has presented himself in a way to be detected by us.

No, if they happened, he has presented himself in a way to be detected by those present at the miracles. The rest of us have to make do with second-hand reports from people living in a time and place where miracle stories were ten for a penny.
 
You are right; God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.

WUT?
I never said God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts and nor do I think that.

Are you confusing me with someone else?

Well you were the one who asked for an explanation of how god could be alone for eternity, while also willing not to be alone.

The inference is obvious. This is a clear result of the putative attributes of your god; And it is, as you point out, in need of an explanation that reason demonstrates to be unachievable.

So as I said, I agree that your god is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.
 
Given the hypothesis of God wanting to save humans, what's wrong about the requirement of some conscious choice by the humans?

Nothing, on the face of it. But then we have to give up any notion of God as a benevolent deity.

A loving mother doesn't ask her toddler (or her puppy) if he wants to be saved from certain death before snatching him out of the road. If she did, he'd likely refuse on the grounds that his ball is in the street. It's the mother's superior knowledge about the situation combined with her love for the toddler that compels her to act, never mind the toddler's free will.

Suppose the mother tells her toddler, years later when he's older and wiser to the dangers of running into the street, that she saved him from certain death even though he didn't understand at the time? How do we suppose he would react? Would he be angry with her for violating his free will all those years ago? Would he be resentful at having been saved from death without his consent? Would he feel cheated because of this gross violation of his freedom?

Of course not. He would be grateful. Likewise, if God truly saved my poor ignorant self from an awful fate that I am too stupid and prideful to see, then later, having come to understand the situation more clearly, I would also be grateful for having my free will violated.

According to the Christian, God is both wiser than we are, and he loves us more than anyone possibly can, but for some inexplicable reason he'll sit on his hands and watch us blunder about in ignorance and pride to our painful deaths. That makes no sense. No loving parent would act like that. No loving pet owner would act like that. Not even perfect strangers would act like that. Richard Carrier tells a wonderful story:

Back in my days as a flight-deck firefighter, when our ship's helicopter was on rescue missions, we had to stand around in our gear in case of a crash. There was usually very little to do, so we told stories. One I heard was about a rescue swimmer. She had to pull a family out of the water from a capsized boat, but by the time the chopper got there, it appeared everyone had drowned except the mother, who was for that reason shedding her life vest and trying to drown herself. The swimmer dove in to rescue her, but she kicked and screamed and yelled to let her die. She even gave the swimmer a whopping black eye. But the swimmer said to hell with that, I'm bringing you in! And she did, enduring her curses and blows all the way.

Later, it turned out that one of the victim's children, her daughter, had survived. She had drifted pretty far from the wreck, but the rescue team pulled her out, and the woman who had beaten the crap out of her rescuer apologized and thanked her for saving her against her will. Everyone in my group agreed the rescue swimmer had done the right thing, and we all would have done the same--because that is what a loving, caring being does. It follows that if God is a loving being, he will do no less for us. In the real world, kind people don't act like some stubborn, pouting God who abandons the drowning simply because they don't want to be helped. They act like this rescue swimmer. They act like us.
(emphasis added)


So what's wrong with the requirement that capsize victims respectfully request to be saved before the rescue team goes to work?

I'll tell you what's wrong with it--it's inhumane.
 
E
You are right; God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.

WUT?
I never said God is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts and nor do I think that.

Are you confusing me with someone else?

Well you were the one who asked for an explanation of how god could be alone for eternity, while also willing not to be alone.

The inference is obvious. This is a clear result of the putative attributes of your god; And it is, as you point out, in need of an explanation that reason demonstrates to be unachievable.

So as I said, I agree that your god is an inexplicable set of incoherent concepts.

Nice try pal.
But Atheos was the one asserting that this was some sort of theological enigma - not me.
I asked Atheos to explain why he/she/zhe presumed that God was unwillingly alone (lonely) and explain why we would presume that God actually WAS alone for an eternity leading up to Genesis.

I don't think either of those (hypothetical) propositions are (hypotheticall) valid neither do I think they are actually true.
 
According to the Christian, God is both wiser than we are, and he loves us more than anyone possibly can, but for some inexplicable reason he'll sit on his hands and watch us blunder about in ignorance and pride to our painful deaths. That makes no sense. No loving parent would act like that. No loving pet owner would act like that. Not even perfect strangers would act like that.
A pet owner treats his pet as a family member and an observer of wild life watches lions or wolves surrounding its prey as they pounce and feasts on the catch. The narrator or the audience says "how marvelous and aventurous nature is!" A perspective without consideration where there is no need to rescue any zebras or antelopes and so on in a wider spectrum of similar scenarios or rather ; best not interfere , as this is the workings of a balancing 'natural' environment.
 
A pet owner treats his pet as a family member and an observer of wild life watches lions or wolves surrounding its prey as they pounce and feasts on the catch.
A biologist loves the lions as much as he loves the impala it's eating. Or, he loves the impala that escapes as much as he loves the lion that goes hungry.

But what parent lets cancer run untreated in their child because they love the cancer as much as they love the kid?
If someone watches their kid suffer and die because it's a 'natural thing' we put those people in jail and call it abuse.
 
A biologist loves the lions as much as he loves the impala it's eating. Or, he loves the impala that escapes as much as he loves the lion that goes hungry.

But what parent lets cancer run untreated in their child because they love the cancer as much as they love the kid?
If someone watches their kid suffer and die because it's a 'natural thing' we put those people in jail and call it abuse.

If this was the case I would agree. Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people. Healthy as in tip top condition unlike myself as I 'm not as half as healthy as I should be (cough cough) and I'm sure I am more at risk than others. Some of these particular parents may be unfortunately ignorant as your mentioned above. My belief is; God has already provided the means against getting cancer. (healthy living).

Unfortunately not all can get the correct nourishment even by having 3 meals a day, like junk food.(A physician I saw once said )
 
Last edited:
My belief is; God has already provided the means against getting cancer. (healthy living).
So...in your eyes, anyone who gets cancer deserves it. Or at least, the fault is theirs or whoever it is denying them sufficient healthy food and exercise and so on...
Those fuckers.
Therefore, it's okay for God to not do a fucking thing for someone who's got leukemia or lung cancer or a brain tumor or whatever.
That's still pretty inhumane, I mean, as a response to suffering, Learner.
 
According to the Christian, God is both wiser than we are, and he loves us more than anyone possibly can, but for some inexplicable reason he'll sit on his hands and watch us blunder about in ignorance and pride to our painful deaths. That makes no sense. No loving parent would act like that. No loving pet owner would act like that. Not even perfect strangers would act like that.
A pet owner treats his pet as a family member and an observer of wild life watches lions or wolves surrounding its prey as they pounce and feasts on the catch. The narrator or the audience says "how marvelous and aventurous nature is!" A perspective without consideration where there is no need to rescue any zebras or antelopes and so on in a wider spectrum of similar scenarios or rather ; best not interfere , as this is the workings of a balancing 'natural' environment.

So God doesn't intervene on our behalf? No warnings to Adam and Eve what would happen if they ate some fruit? No instructions to Noah about an upcoming rainstorm? No dreams to Joseph about how to take advantage of his future? No interfering with the course of history by rescuing Hebrew slaves from Egypt, or leading them to a Promised Land, or dispensing 10 Commandments? Most of all, no grand plan of redemption for all through sacrificial atonement on a particular hill called Calvary?

God just kicks back on his couch and watches history unfold before him, thinking, "I love the Nature Channel"?

That's certainly not the Christianity I was raised in.
 
My belief is; God has already provided the means against getting cancer. (healthy living).
So...in your eyes, anyone who gets cancer deserves it. Or at least, the fault is theirs or whoever it is denying them sufficient healthy food and exercise and so on...
Those fuckers.
Therefore, it's okay for God to not do a fucking thing for someone who's got leukemia or lung cancer or a brain tumor or whatever.
That's still pretty inhumane, I mean, as a response to suffering, Learner.

Right. Anyone stupid enough to be in a boat on the ocean deserves what they get if their boat capsizes, so no one in their right mind would ever risk their own lives to rescue them.

Except for the people who risk their lives to rescue them, whether they deserve to be rescued.
 
So...in your eyes, anyone who gets cancer deserves it. Or at least, the fault is theirs or whoever it is denying them sufficient healthy food and exercise and so on...
No one deserves it! Just as I would say for those close to me who have suffered. Cheap food is affordable to many with little to spend without the right ingredients. More microwave ,undesireable magnetic fields, more chemicals, more pollutants in our modern lives without the reinforcments to aid against these poisons. Therapies can be also hazardous especially to the older folk. All the obvious things you know yourself.

Those fuckers.
Therefore, it's okay for God to not do a fucking thing for someone who's got leukemia or lung cancer or a brain tumor or whatever. That's still pretty inhumane, I mean, as a response to suffering, Learner.

We know how to avoid them. Why keep on the same tradition passing on the hazardous habits to our children who suffer later by what we've consumed and stored in our bodies to which the after-effects is seen in a later generation?
 
A biologist loves the lions as much as he loves the impala it's eating. Or, he loves the impala that escapes as much as he loves the lion that goes hungry.

But what parent lets cancer run untreated in their child because they love the cancer as much as they love the kid?
If someone watches their kid suffer and die because it's a 'natural thing' we put those people in jail and call it abuse.

If this was the case I would agree. Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people. Healthy as in tip top condition unlike myself as I 'm not as half as healthy as I should be (cough cough) and I'm sure I am more at risk than others. Some of these particular parents may be unfortunately ignorant as your mentioned above. My belief is; God has already provided the means against getting cancer. (healthy living).

Unfortunately not all can get the correct nourishment even by having 3 meals a day, like junk food.(A physician I saw once said )

(emohasis added)

Never mind 3 meals a day, there are millions who don't know where there next meal is coming from, or even if it will come. There are whole regions of the world where people can't get or grow the food needed to sustain themselves. Never mind cancer; your god hasn't even provided the means against getting starvation.
 
Never mind 3 meals a day, there are millions who don't know where there next meal is coming from, or even if it will come. There are whole regions of the world where people can't get or grow the food needed to sustain themselves. Never mind cancer; your god hasn't even provided the means against getting starvation.

Oh He has provided "the means" alright. It is man who is not willing to share!
 
No one deserves it! Just as I would say for those close to me who have suffered. Cheap food is affordable to many with little to spend without the right ingredients. More microwave ,undesireable magnetic fields, more chemicals, more pollutants in our modern lives without the reinforcments to aid against these poisons. Therapies can be also hazardous especially to the older folk. All the obvious things you know yourself.

#First world problems.

We know how to avoid them. Why keep on the same tradition passing on the hazardous habits to our children who suffer later by what we've consumed and stored in our bodies to which the after-effects is seen in a later generation?

People get cancer, leukemia, and many other diseases even when they lead "healthy" lives. In fact, in many cases, the only way to avoid disease is not to be born with the genes you have. Or to be born in another part of the world. But go ahead, blame the victim. I hear that's very fashionable these days.
 
hqdefault.jpg

God's provided the means for these kids (healthy living), so his job is basically done.
 
Never mind 3 meals a day, there are millions who don't know where there next meal is coming from, or even if it will come. There are whole regions of the world where people can't get or grow the food needed to sustain themselves. Never mind cancer; your god hasn't even provided the means against getting starvation.

Oh He has alright. It is man who is not willing to share!

Bullshit. There have been famines throughout history, when man was in no position to send aid to help out those affected. Millions upon millions dying of starvation just because of where they live. Your god is a 5-year-old with a magnifying glass and an anthill. His only redeeming trait is his non-existence.
 
Back
Top Bottom