Samuel Rodrigues said:
Thanks guys! Looks like no one cared to refute the images that I put up. Is it just that you can’t?
>Muh problem of evil
Free will. God gives us a choice. If there was only one option (good/serve God), it wouldn’t be much of a choice, now would it? Hence the existence of evil and why God allows Satan to do his thing.
Once again you can take your pick over what “hell” really is. Dante and many others like to think of it as permanent separation from God. Many consider this torment because of the believe in an innate need for God we have. A need that many fill with other things (wealth, power, other religions, in the case of /r/atheists, arrogance and pride, etc.). There’s also the beleive that in hell, you get everything you could ever want, you just never get any sense of fulfillment from it.
Even if hell is fire and brimestone, I don’t get why people always get so caught up by it. I could get the “tyrant” and “evil God” arguments if you actually had to do something to get out of it. You have to do nothing. God gives a expiration free pass to paradise and the only thing you have to do is accept it is acknowledge what He has done for us (dying for our bullshit, creating the universe, etc.).
It’s like if people bitched about how evil the government is for creating jury duty when all you’d have to do to get out of it is say hey, can I not have jury duty? There’s a part of me that thinks God created hell and went, “Man, there’s no way they’d ever choose that when all they have to do is accept who I am.” and then sits there slack jawed every time someone picks hell over heaven because “no loving God could ever create a place like that!”
>some guy I’ve never heard of
When we were in charge? Oh, he’s referring to the shit that happened in the 1600s. I guess if we’re whipping out “sins of the father” arguments, I can pull up Stalin, Hoxha, and all those other wonderful atheists who’ve done not so pleasant things throughout history.
>“I am an atheist because I think science can disprove God.”
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Of course, this is part of the never ending ride of religious arguments. Who’s denying? And who’s accusing? I think most people, Christian and atheist alike, acknowledge there’s no way to “test” God. If He created the universe, why would he be bound by following its laws?
One thing I will never, ever forget was the day I watched one of those Science Channel shows (I think it was The Universe) and the episode was about the multiverse theory. After they talked about the “bubble” and “string” ideas, the narrator went on to say that these scientific theories may require some “faith” to believe. It made me realize that many “scientific thoeries” are completely untestable. They require just as much faith as the very God their supporters like to deny.
>appeal to authority poster
Wut. It took me fifteen seconds on Google to show how was not an atheist. Same for Einstein.
>inb4 “agnosticism is atheism” argument
I don’t know who any of those others are, nor do I care. We could argue how great slavery is because the founding fathers, and many brilliant 19th century people backed it. In fact,
There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.
>“You came up with the idea, you proof it.”
Again, never ending circular hell of which side is the “denier” and which is the “accuser.” Pretty much the same exact thing as above.
The belief that there are tiny things that make you up that rapidly vibrate and move around. The only thing holding you together is this invisible force that repeals other invisible forces--that’s how everything is separated from everything else! Oh, and when you cut one of those tiny things in half, it creates a huge explosion that will destroy all the other tiny things in the area. Isn’t it amazing how ridiculous you can make anything sound when you simplify it?
The best part is it’s not even correctly mocking Christianity. God doesn’t remove an evil part of you when you accept him. Human nature and sin is always present. If it wasn’t, /r/athiesm wouldn’t have half the topics berating Christians’ “hypocrisy.” Jesus also isn’t “his own father.” The Father and the Son are two distinct parts of the Trinity. There are things only the Father
knows (the date Revelation will go from the last four episodes of Evangelion over to End of Evangelion, for one), things only the Son could do (the “zombie” part as was so eloquently put for the creator of the universe deciding to take one for the team), and stuff only the Holy Spirit can do (guide us in the post-Christ world).
>There is no evidence that either is based on real events
Yeah, like the Hittites. They’re just a made up Bible civili--oh wait, they discovered they were real.
The flood was completely fake, except it has now been mentioned in three separate, and completely independent civilizations.
Somehow, Israel and the Jews just popped into existence one day.
Sennacherib referencing his attack on Jerusalem against Hezekiah was just an autocorrect error.
Every single modern historian (and ancient ones like Josephus) are just delusional in their belief Jesus was a real person.
It’s almost as if there’s evidence to show these things really did happen, and that’s why it’s non-fiction.
And, of course, reality is always realistic
>Freedom of Speech
No arguments on this one. Freedom of Speech is one of the most important tenants of modern society, even if it does lead into flame wars and fallacies.
The Bible never specifies how many animals were on the ark, only that there were “two of a kind” (or seven, counting the sacrifice animals). Common fundamentalist doctrine holds that “kind” refers to a common ancestor of the various species (i.e. there was a single “cat” that branched off into the various species today). After the flood, *micro*evolution combined with genetics took over and gave us the many species we have today.
Regarding supplies, take your pick. The Bible never goes into detail the year+ on the ark. God could have supplied them directly (as he did to the Israelites in the desert, Elijah in the wilderness, and Jesus with the 5,000 and 4,000) or they could have had an epic fantasy-style adventure, leapfrogging from remaining landmass to landmass while supplementing it with fishing and rainwater.
Now that I’ve fallen for the bait, I’ll have to save the Blue Screen “not knowing Bible trivia =/= not following the Bible” response for tomorrow and how that Pew survey’s complete bullshit.