ITT: Bad quotes

[Anonymous No.9248946]

[Anonymous No.9248948]

he has a point

[Anonymous No.9248962]

>implying it's a bad quote
no
>inb4 le fedora kek muh allegories

[Anonymous No.9248976]

>>9248946
This isn't a bad quote

[Anonymous No.9248980]

All these quotes structured like this have caused me to drill down to the real problem with atheist/theist dialogue. Atheists begin from the proposition that God doesn't exist, right? So they say "Why didn't God do this?" "Why hasn't God done this?" They put forth these ideas that seem logical and straightforward to them, and they press them onto God. On the other hand, theists proceed from the idea that God exists. They don't have to question God's existence, he's really real and actually present in the universe (or outside it, as it were). Therefore, to them, asking why God doesn't do such-and-such is a strange question, because it's like asking why your friend or your neighbor or some politician hasn't done such and such. Why hasn't Merkel done this? Why did Bono do that? The answer is that we can't always fully answer. We can deduce things logically, and we can hazard guesses, but we can't answer definitively because we can't peer into their minds. It's the same with God. There are other ways God could have done things than the way he did them. Why didn't he do them those ways? We can postulate answers, but at the same time we can't know for certain, and we never will--at least, not until we meet God face to face.

That's the dynamic I see with theist questions vs atheist questions. Theists treat God as a real, actual entity, and as such, are willing to admit that he may have reasons and motives they can't fathom.

[Anonymous No.9248992]

>>9248980
...meaning...you're agnostic?

[Anonymous No.9249004]

>>9248992
lol no, I'm a devout Catholic. God works in mysterious ways, which we can't always know. We must trust him, and have faith in him. If we do, things will turn out all right in the end.

[Anonymous No.9249017]

>>9249004
>tfw god works through you when you buttfuck prepubescent boipucci
>tfw mysterious ways

[Anonymous No.9249036]

>>9248946
He's entirely correct. Christianity has some good points but that aspect of it is batshit.

[Anonymous No.9249045]

>>9248980
this is a fair point, but if fedoras actually bothered to read literature they would understand why Dawkins's position is so ridiculous.

>If Hillary Clinton is 'so corrupt' then why didn't she just have Bernie assassinated? Checkmate Drumpftards!

[Anonymous No.9249046]

because his son is not his son but human chose to bear the sin and became his son

in a preserve way torture was his price for god as father

[Anonymous No.9249064]

>>9249017
Most enlightened societies have sexualized young boys.

[Anonymous No.9249082]

>>9248980
That would be fine and dandy if theists didn't also claim benevolence and omnipotence which is obviously impossible considering the epicurean argument. If god is just another annoying neighbor or lying politician then fuck him wholeheartedly. Your faith is a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.9249085]

>>9249082
You'll grow up one day, lad.

[Anonymous No.9249091]

>>9249064
Well, if you want to go into details, then antique societies have sexualized adolescents, not children you sick fuck. It's also quite funny how you seem to go against christian moral in rationalizing pedophilia through appeal to authority. Truly a good goy. Have a taste of His flesh and a sip of His blood, bubbale.

[Anonymous No.9249092]

>>9249082
K

[Anonymous No.9249094]

>>9249004
Truth is not relative to your beliefs. Whether something makes sense or not, whether something is logical or not, true or not - it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a Christian when you think about such a problem, there is only one truth.

Consider this, if you will. When you ask why someone does a thing - it is true you don't know his mind, his motives. That does NOT mean you cannot make judgements about his actions. If your neighbor kills a man, would you answer "Oh, we can't peer into their minds, so we'll never know for certain why he did it"? Would you say, "It is best to assume he acted righteously, and that his actions were necessary"?

No. You would demand an answer, and if he couldn't provide one, you would condemn him. Yet when we ask the same of God, to explain to us, to share with us a reason why, and do not receive an answer, we do not condemn God. We fault ourselves and backtrack and say, "God's motives cannot be understood by man". We rely on our ignorance to justify our willful ignorance. It is not wise nor correct nor does it lead us closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.9249099]

>>9249082
Coming from me (>>9249094), someone who lacks any sort of faith, I would like to say that your attitude is helpful to no one, and with it you only push people who disagree with us farther from being able to see our position and relate to us. Shame on you.

[Anonymous No.9249101]

>>9249085
Nice ad antiquitatem. Come back to argue when you are less retarded.

[Anonymous No.9249110]

>>9249099
>you only push people farther away from irrational bullshit that has no unique function in modern world, baka
Oh no, I feel so bad for you.

[Anonymous No.9249116]

>>9249110
I never asked for nor want your sympathy, but thanks

[Anonymous No.9249126]

>>9248946

if you don't immediately see that quote as inane, bad propaganda, you're utterly retarded

literally stop being dumb, you people are a fucking travesty

[Anonymous No.9249130]

>>9249094
>You would demand an answer, and if he couldn't provide one, you would condemn him.

So you condemn him for not providing an answer, or for his action?

[Anonymous No.9249138]

>>9248946
>from an objective point of view
>ideological bias is objective

[Anonymous No.9249139]

>>9249126
>another naive poltard gets assblasted by basic logic applied to christian mythology

[Anonymous No.9249141]

>>9249045
>these are the people who bitch about muh allegories
yikes

[Anonymous No.9249145]

>>9249126
You first ask for an explanation, and then consider if it is valid and reasonable. Following my analogy, your neighbor is not condemned until he is asked why he killed the man. If he says in self defense, and facts support him, then he is not condemned. If God is asked, for instance, why innocent children suffer starvation and death - and his only form of answer, his holy book, does not provide one - then, for his action, I condemn him.

[Anonymous No.9249151]

This post >>9249145 was meant to be addressed to >>9249130

[Anonymous No.9249156]

>>9248946

There is no logical reason to believe in the christian god.

I don't care how many fedora memes you post, this is utterly true. believing in the christian god is really as asinine as believing in thor.

now, it may be possible that our universe has a creator, but it's something we know utterly nothing about. and even if it did have a creator, that doesn't necessarily imply that creator is omniscient.

[Anonymous No.9249167]

>>9249156
If you aim to sway the minds of others, do not put on a megaphone the boiled down version of your ideology. Talk specific points and refute specific claims, no person of faith will give a comment like this a second thought after they read it.

[Anonymous No.9249168]

>>9248980
>>9249004
How far god would need to go for you to question his actions? If he fucked you in the mouth and then shit on your chest, would you say - "well... he works in mysterious ways"?

If Merkel would sacrifice her doughter to let her forgive the Poles starting WW2 but the doughter was actually the same as mother and she wouldn't really die, but fly to nazi heaven... Would you say this shit's retarded or that Merkel works in mysterious ways?

What I'm getting at is, problem with christianity is often beyond believing something without proof. It's getting away with illogical bullshit. Belief without proof is one level of mental sloppiness. Not being triggered by contradictions of the bible is inability to reason.

[Anonymous No.9249185]

>>9249167
>implying a 'person of faith' is willing or able to comprehend logical arguments
>implying this comment was directed at christfags and not the doubtful
top yourself cultist

[Anonymous No.9249188]

>>9249167

Why couldn't they think about how they'd respond to that claim?

If nothing else it could push them to question if they can come up with any kind of material proof for their beliefs

[Anonymous No.9249197]

>>9249138
Some ideologies are objectively better than others so yes.

[Anonymous No.9249207]

>>9249185
>>implying a 'person of faith' is willing or able to comprehend logical arguments
You're not better nor smarter than every person of faith like you think. In different circumstances, you would likely be a person of faith, and the same is likely true for me.
>>9249188
I didn't say they couldn't, but rather they most likely wouldn't. You do not challenge a fundamental belief system by knocking out the cornerstone, you chip away from the top.

[Anonymous No.9249218]

>>9248948
>>9248962
Read jung

[Anonymous No.9249221]

>>9249218
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9249229]

>>9248946

Gee. Dawkins, presupposing that that had happened, don't you think experiencing human suffering and fucking coming back from death is an important part of the narrative you're omitting?

Atheists pat themselves on the back too much when this is considered a lucid point about religion. Bad quote indeed

[Anonymous No.9249231]

>>9248980
The point of the specific argument you're responding to (which is far from the only one atheists present) is that god's behavior is inconsistent with the traits that christians attribute (as facts) to him. I wouldn't expect Bono to be a serial killer but it doesn't undermine my worldview if he is because while I know with 100% certainty that he does exist I don't know with 100% certainty that he's not a serial killer. Christians "know", in the same way they "know" he exists, that their god is benevolent. Because of this they can and should be pressed to explain how they rationalize that in light of his behavior (or lack thereof). If they can't they should question their faith.

[Anonymous No.9249232]

>>9249185
>christfags and not the doubtful
Not the guy, but those sets overlap.

[Anonymous No.9249245]

>>9249167

I am simply asking for a logical reason to believe in the christian god.

there is not one. there is not a single good reason.

[Anonymous No.9249260]

>>9249229
I don't really get your point, if God is omniscient, he already knows what it is like to experience human suffering. And yes, Christ's resurrection is an important part of the Christian story, but how does that affect the moral argument Dawkins presents?

>>9249245
You didn't really ask for a reason to believe anything, you just made some claims. I was only suggesting that if you were making those claims to try and affect others, there is a better way to do it.

[Anonymous No.9249264]

>>9249245
Read Lane Craig

[Anonymous No.9249271]

>>9249260
knowing and experiencing are different. I could say that because God is omnipotent, he willed himself to experience terrible human suffering as a gesture of love and forgiveness to human kind (which is what happened)

[Anonymous No.9249278]

>>9249231
Faith is a strange thing. It's a knowing beyond knowing. It's "the evidence of things unlooked for, the belief in things not seen."

I know, and don't know why I know, but I do. That's faith. That is the whole story of the Bible. It's the thread that unites the Old and New Testaments. It's the push and pull: faith in God, and then God rewards faith. I can't tell you why, exactly, I believe, only that I do. And I believe that my faith will be rewarded, in the end.

[Anonymous No.9249279]

>>9249207
>You do not challenge a fundamental belief system by knocking out the cornerstone, you chip away from the top.

Regardless of how well thought out and approachable the arguments are, I'm sure a comments section on a b& thread in this shitty corner of the internet is hardly the place to propagate that information. There is plenty of low barrier to entry criticisms of theism widely available on the internet online. Honestly I don't think atheists have a responsibility to proselytize at all and they certainly don't on a 4chan thread as argumentative and memey as this one.

[Anonymous No.9249283]

>>9249260
let's also consider how patently funny an atheist positing a moral argument against the Christian God is

shit, "ethics is illusory" is a quote from the Dawk himself

[Anonymous No.9249284]

>>9248946
>>9249036
Neither you nor Dawkins understands Christianity. Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. God is omnipotent, so He could have forgiven our sins some other way. He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why or how doesn't actually affect the belief that Jesus died for our sins. To draw a tangible comparison, you may not know why or how the universe exists, but that doesn't have any bearing on your belief that it exists

[Anonymous No.9249285]

>>9249260
>but how does that affect the moral argument Dawkins presents?
Because jesus is god so its not like god is letting an innocent bystander suffer in place of him?

[Anonymous No.9249292]

>>9248946
Even though he is an atheist, he seems to have cultivated a massive cult of personality surrounding himself that resembles a religion

[Anonymous No.9249302]

>>9249271
Okay. So we could say that is what God did. That still does not address the issue that Dawkins talks about in his quote. Why would he need to do it?

>>9249279
I never said anyone had to do anything. I only said if your objective is to turn someone's opinion, this is a more effective way to do it. Plus, there is no such thing as a forum where it is inappropriate to not criticize

[Anonymous No.9249309]

>>9249285
Sorry, but I don't think your comment has anything to do with the problem. Dawkins asks why it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die for man to be forgiven of sins. It has nothing to do with a bystander suffering or the fact that Jesus is God.

[Anonymous No.9249320]

>>9249278

I don't want to turn this into a muh ideology meme discussion but if you can't come up with any tangible evidence for what you believe I don't see how you can refuse to question those beliefs. If you "don't know why you know" do you have any way to be sure that haven't just been tricked by societal pressures or whatever? And if not I think faith alone is an insufficient justification for refusing to at least consider this as a possibility.

[Anonymous No.9249326]

>>9249271
>he willed himself to experience terrible human suffering as a gesture of love and forgiveness to human kind
Didn't asked for it and would only make me feel miserable. I am bad because god had to suffered for me and now I owe him.
How is needless suffering a gesture of love anyway?

[Anonymous No.9249329]

>>9249302
>I never said anyone had to do anything. I only said if your objective is to turn someone's opinion, this is a more effective way to do it. Plus, there is no such thing as a forum where it is inappropriate to not criticize
Point taken and I guess I agree with you if they first post you responded to was actually trying to change minds. It struck me more as a rhetorical meme statement than the start of a serious discussion/debate

[Anonymous No.9249330]

>>9249309
try actually reading Christian texts instead of doing stoner philosophy based on the superficial aspects of Christianity to which you are privy.

[Anonymous No.9249335]

>>9249284
>He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why
have you read the Bible?
If not you should try it. Paradise Lost might help too.

[Anonymous No.9249337]

>>9249284
>Jesus died for our sins
How did he die if he still exists? That's not how you die, that's how you fake death.

[Anonymous No.9249342]

>>9249284
>God is omnipotent, so He could have forgiven our sins some other way. He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why or how doesn't actually affect the belief that Jesus died for our sins.
That's pretty weak, my dude. The sacrifice of Jesus for Man's sins is based on primitive ideas of sacrifice being necessary to appease an angry God and/or Jesus's disciples doing damage control after their prophet got BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9249345]

>>9249330
Please consider that your comment here does not address the question nor answer it, nor my criticism of it. And for the record, I am thoroughly acquainted with the Bible and have read it many times, being seriously educated in it since childhood.

[Anonymous No.9249346]

>>9249292
People are sheep. But it's better when they follow someone that says: "think for yourself".

[Anonymous No.9249347]

>>9249309
>moral argument
You questioned the morality of the situation you retard.
>reasons why this had to happen
┐(￣ヮ￣)┌

[Anonymous No.9249350]

>>9249329
It probably was that I'm just on a personal crusade right now in this thread

[Anonymous No.9249357]

>>9249347
Yes, I questioned the morality of it. What was your answer to my question again, if you will? Or just point me to your answer?

>reasons why this had to happen ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌
Sorry, I fail to see the humor or irony. I'm all ears if you can explain it to me

[Anonymous No.9249371]

>>9248946
It comes from the idea, which is somewhat wrong, that God is perfect. They are arguing, if God is so perfect, why does he do these seemingly imperfect things.

[Anonymous No.9249375]

>>9249345
i cant force you to open your heart and mind to Jesus, only you have that power. Consider giving him a chance to work in you.

[Anonymous No.9249377]

>>9249371
Sorry, meant to reply to >>9248980

[Anonymous No.9249385]

>>9249375
I will seriously consider your position, if you will seriously consider me. I will think on the value and merit of faith if you will consider the criticisms against it.

[Anonymous No.9249400]

>>9249357
Ugh
>Or just point me to your answer?
K, Dawkins basically questions the morality of god sending his son to suffer for us. However, Jesus is god so basically god is doing the suffering himself. Therefore it is not immoral (idk, i don't really believe in morality)
>Sorry, I fail to see the humor or irony
There really was not humor i guess. You google it. Theologians have formed different reasons for it. If you think i know, sorry senpai. You can ask god when you die if he's real.

[Anonymous No.9249410]

>>9249320
I have bleeding Eucharists and weeping statues and the very voice of God on my side, to be fair. People are healed of incurable diseases and the Sun dances in the sky.

But all these are window dressing. They don't get at the true core of what it means to believe in God. That's a matter for the depths of the heart. That's where we find "The peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding." That's God's greatest gift, but also his most ubiquitous one. He gives it to all who believe.

And, I suppose, that's why I believe so strongly. I have, in the past, questioned my beliefs. I've challenged them. Those questions have always been answered with that same peace. It's like the gentle calm after a storm at sea. From it, I know that God is with me, and I haven't been abandoned.

That's just me, of course. Every person is different. Different people have different experiences. I can only attest what I've experienced as an individual. I only know how God has revealed himself to me, and also to others in ways that leave evidence.

[Anonymous No.9249413]

>>9249400
(idk, i don't really believe in morality) Okay. Well I encourage you to think about what it is you believe more. Because saying you do not believe in morality is saying that you do not believe is right and wrong, or good and evil. And if you don't believe in that then I have a hard time understanding your faith in the Christian God. Just think about my criticisms and try to search yourself for some better answers.

[Anonymous No.9249420]

>>9249410
Fair enough. You believe in God, then, because of your personal experience. Thats a bit different than faith. You can call it faith if you want, but faith by definition is believing something without a reason. I guess the only thing I have to say to that, is that a God that reveals himself to some people, and not to others, is no God I will willingly worship. My heart and mind are open. If God willed it, he could reveal himself to me in a way that would make me believe. I know exactly what it would take. But he hasn't, and I doubt he ever will. And that kind of God, who will send me to hell when there is another way, is no God for me.

[Anonymous No.9249430]

>>9249413
Im a Christian? When did I say that? Damn, i guess you learn something new every day. I was just pointing out the flaw in Dawkins' fedora shit that you are too retarded to think critically about.

[Anonymous No.9249436]

>>9249420
I wouldn't call it different from faith. I'd say that it's a faith which has been rewarded.

But for the reward, the faith has to come first. The reward follows the faith, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.9249439]

>>9249410
I guess I understand what you're saying. It's somewhat frustrating that it puts you into a position that is basically above argument but I'm willing to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.9249448]

>>9249430
You: "Because jesus is god"

said in this comment >>9249285

Thats the defintion of being a Christian, friend.

>>9249436
I don't see how it isn't different. Faith is believing without a reason to believe. So do you believe regardless of your experience, or because of it? It can't be both.

[Anonymous No.9249485]

>>9249448
I was merely stated it in the christian sense. I never stated i believed in the myth and even showed i was at least agnostic about it here >>9249400
>if hes real
But i hope you at least see the flaw in dawkin's statement in that regard, buddy

[Anonymous No.9249490]

>>9249485
I don't see it, and don't think you ever gave me a reason to.

[Anonymous No.9249519]

atheism is somehow more infantile than satanism

[Anonymous No.9249526]

>>9249490
Im interested now. What is the moral problem then?

[Anonymous No.9249534]

>>9249526
That God should require himself by tortured for the sins of humans to be forgiven by himself. Why must Christ suffer and die for our sins to be forgiven?

[Anonymous No.9249554]

>>9249534
Oh i see. I thought you were trying to say that god's suicide mission was somehow morally objectable like Dawkin was, as he seemed portray jesus as not god, thus god condemning an innocent person for no real reason. This was your "moral" bit I read earlier that I was arguing against.

[Anonymous No.9249602]

>>9249385
I have. Unless you buy into the superdeterminism worldview (I don't know anyone who does in practice, and it's an equivalent if not greater leap of faith than believing in some higher order than the natural one), Christian theology (not the kind you'd gather from a cursory reading of the New Testament) is the only thing that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.9249636]

Can a theist please give me empirical proof of God's existence.

[Anonymous No.9249645]

>>9249636
>empirical
read up on epistemology

have fun fumbling blindly though the world if the only knowledge you're certain of (within a 95% Confidence Interval) are Jeopardy! factoids. That is, if you're actually an empiricist and don't just claim to be one.

[Anonymous No.9249646]

>>9249636
Somewhere In Alabama, someone is typing
>LOGICAL POSITIVISM

[Anonymous No.9249651]

>>9249082

> fine and dandy if theists didn't also claim benevolence and omnipotence

Ahh yes, I had the same thot when I read that explanation. Bc that is the difference btw God and our neighbor (our neighbor cannot end suffering at his whim).

But then I realized the retort to this, you forgot one thing: omniscience! You can't claim to know if ending suffering would actually be in our best interest! You only assume it would while also admitting you don't know everything. While god, if the theists are to be believed, has the better perspective on how to use his powers and whether he should end suffering, because he can know the outcome of doing this.

To an atheist, this is an absurd point, perhaps. As an agnositc, I find it a fair point, though I will admit it is a rather disappointing and unsatisfactory answer to the question of why an all powerful god doesn't just end suffering (bc maybe me need suffering u don't know bc ur not omniscient... hmmm yeah, not liking the answer but i must yield to the logic)

[Anonymous No.9249654]

>>9249646
Stop it. It's Maryland.

Stop trying to be Tyler. Everyone knows my name.

[Anonymous No.9249656]

>>9249645

lol, the only correct response

also, are there any comedies, either book or movies, about such a character as this? I think it would make for a bretty funny character study of such an individual (a true empiricist)

[Anonymous No.9249679]

>>9248980
Anon, I completely agree with you. And it really is a play with words. Atheist vs theists is a lot like that and they think they mean the same thing, when their heads are so different they can't understand the meaning of the others words.

I'll give you this image to illustratemy point. I also think this is true to political debates and frankly almost all debates.

[Anonymous No.9249700]

>>9248946
This is the equivalent of asking "Why didn't Socrates just escape prison when he had the chance?"

[Anonymous No.9249708]

ITT: People accurately meeting OP's requested topic

[Anonymous No.9249710]

>>9249708
lmao XDxddxxxDdd Good one anon!11!!!11

[Anonymous No.9249732]

Well, why didn't he just forgive them?

[Anonymous No.9249735]

>>9249708
Fuck OP and fuck you. Fuck you twice if you are OP.

>oh no thread derailed mommy thread derailed!

[Anonymous No.9249741]

>>9249735
>>9249710
mad

[Anonymous No.9249751]

>>9248946
Because God is perfectly just. Being perfectly just means He NEVER lets sin slide. Ever. All sin is punished. Do something bad? You get punished. So how do you reconcile that with the fact Humans are incapable of living an entire life without sinning tens of thousands of times? Have someone bear the burden and pay the price for them.

[Anonymous No.9249756]

>>9248946
this isn't a bad quote tho.

[Anonymous No.9249762]

>>9249126
>No argument

wow its fucking nothing

[Anonymous No.9249887]

>>9249751
So if I go kill you and your whole family, all the judge has to do is appoint some innocent child to suffer for me, or better yet, suffer himself. Great answer pal.

[Anonymous No.9249913]

>>9248946

>be me
>OP
>never post on /lit/ because I know that I'm currently a literal brainlet and I don't want to muddy the waters
>see this quote
>think about it for approximately two seconds
>"eh that sounds kind of stupid for some reason, don't know why though lmao xD"
>ah what the heck, why not make a "bad quote" thread
>post it
>waters: muddied

Never again, /lit/. I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.9249920]

>>9249913
Well, have you figured out why yet?

[Anonymous No.9249937]

>>9249679
>>9248980
the point of these arguments is that, according to christians, god is perfect and all powerful but also a loving and personal god. They also believe he is the source of our morality.

So if god did something we consider immoral, then something has gone wrong somewhere. Either he's contradicting the law he gave us (and is a tyrant), we're wrong about what he wants, or he's completely unfathomable to us and worshiping his is pointless. For all we know he might not want to be worshiped.

[Anonymous No.9249950]

>>9249920
I think I was initially not impressed for no real reason other than the fact that he used the phrase "deeply unpleasant idea." It just seemed to suggest that he was admitting his reaction was more of an emotional response than a logical one. "This idea is unpleasant. Therefore, it must be wrong." I know that isn't what he was really saying. I may have also been annoyed by him saying that what he found unpleasant was "surely objective" and all of that.

[Anonymous No.9249960]

So young. The question isn't "does god exist", but rather, "why do we depend on God?"

[Anonymous No.9249978]

>>9249960
No you dolt. The question is, "Why do kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?"

[Anonymous No.9249987]

>>9249887
Nice straw man.

[Anonymous No.9250002]

>>9249978
>Cheetos
Mahjigger

[Anonymous No.9250005]

>>9249987
Please explain how.

[Anonymous No.9250012]

>>9249700
Checked & checked

[Anonymous No.9250898]

>>9249168
>shit on your chest
I wonder what His diet consists of.
>fucked you in the mouth
Now that's a bit better! <3

[Anonymous No.9251307]

>>9249420
>My heart and mind are open
Which is another way of saying you're gullible and weak minded and you need a psychological security blanket.

[Anonymous No.9251419]

>>9249156
>There is no logical reason to believe in the christian god.
There is no logical reason to believe anything, we can only have a "reasonable reason" to believe in something. We always have to make a leap of faith, but some leaps are more reasonable than others.

[Anonymous No.9251456]

You know I always thought of Jesus as just god's way of saying "I'm not better than you" more or less.

And I find it strange that people believe he died for our sins and continues to bear the burden indefinitely.
I mean he's still just one guy right?
Couldn't anyone die for the sins of another? Couldn't anyone be wrongfully accused in the same way? What actually makes Jesus so special?
It does seem like thats a little rude to all those other people who were wrongly crucified but nobody ever cared about.

Also you guys ever think about what god or Jesus would have done if none of that stuff even happened?
What if they saw Jesus' powers and wisdom and decided he should be their king instead?
Would god have to be like "yeah alright you guys seem pretty cool, I'm just gonna make all your lives great for the next few millenniums now"?

[Anonymous No.9251475]

>>9249400

You haven't understood Dawkins' point.

The point isn't that it was immoral for God to make Jesus suffer, the point is that Christian doctrine states that it was necessary for God to send Jesus down to earth so that he could die for man's sins.

Dawkins is asking why a god who is both all knowing and all powerful would need to send Jesus? Why didn't he just forgive mankind's sins since that's by definition within his power?

Why also did he wait until such a late point in human history to send Jesus to forgive man's sins when he could have done it from the start if he's all knowing and all powerful?

[Anonymous No.9251609]

>>9248946
>What is the first law of Equivalent Exchange?

[Anonymous No.9251693]

>>9251456
God is perfectly just and infinitely dignified. In other words his justice is objective and consistent. He is holy and creates things that are holy.
Therefore the only way for humans to be redeemed and made innocent, despite being eternally bound to sin and death, is for God to forgive them personally. The problem preventing salvation is the fact that humans are unable to serve the punishment of becoming unholy in a holy creation. How can an undoubtedly corrupt and destructive race, that cannot become what it wants or escape death, be able to return to what God created perfectly? Who is so perfect that they can earn the forgiveness of God despite being unable to live anything like God? Humans can't become perfect on their own and cannot deserve living perfectly, so how is God able to restore his relationship with humans?
Jesus is a substitute for mankind. He is a substitute on behalf of Man, sent by God, to live our sentence and pay the penalty for our sins. Jesus is the appropriate sacrifice for the sole reason of being the Son of God. He is God and has been with God forever in the same power. In God's knowledge of the future and history from before time began, the Son of God existed for the purpose of redeeming humankind and therefore bringing God's people to redemption and permanent perfection.
The reason that Jesus is the only candidate to receive the punishment of God is because he is the only person who is as holy as God. God is therefore able to forgive Jesus, because the punishment can only be fairly carried out by somebody who is as just and holy as God. Jesus must then also be human in order to absorb this exact punishment for humans, instead of for God. God cannot receive punishment because he is innocent and Man cannot receive punishment because he is powerless. The only possible way to heal mankind is for God to deliver his punishment on a person who is both Man and God. This person is powerful enough to pay the infinite penalty for all humans, and do it on their behalf as a human.

[Anonymous No.9251706]

Is it really too much to ask for just ONE of these pop-atheists to have read the bible?

[Anonymous No.9251741]

>>9248946
Quote translation:
>"Hi! I haven't taken the bare 30 minutes required to read the conceptualization behind the Passion of Christ, one of the most thoroughly-discussed topics of the last 2 millennia, yet I feel qualified to say it is silly."
Every time Dawkins opens his mouth it is to announce his ignorance and lack of curiosity

[Anonymous No.9251764]

>>9249519
the satanist blames the fucking leech that is the working class for daring to stifle his personal enterprise and wishes for a capitalist utopia where no one can stop him from selling kids into slavery

[Anonymous No.9251895]

>>9248946
>Have a few "schizophrenic" breakdowns
>Read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus
>Have a few more
>Religion basically makes sense now and I'm comfortable LMAOing at fedoras.

TFW I get more and more convinced that I'm part of a secrit special illuminati club. It's kinda funny. One day I'll let people read my diary desu.

[Anonymous No.9251918]

>>9251895
Based Linda.

[Anonymous No.9253037]

>>9248946
The funniest thing about this thread is that the quality of the theological discussion, both theist and atheist, goes further than Dawkins or Nye or Tyson have ever gone. And that isn't saying much. Pop atheism: not even once.

[Anonymous No.9253049]

>>9253037
Dawkins is child like fedora tier. The heart of "The God Delusion" is literally "If God made the universe, then who made God?"

There really should have been a "Checkmate, theists!" after such an insipid comment.

[Anonymous No.9253068]

>>9251456
I don't know how you got that from reading the bible, or hearing bible stories, so I have to assume you relied on some other sources.

Jesus is literally demonstrating "I am better than you in every way possible" throughout his entire life. Would you expect that God would not be better than his fallen and depraved creations?

Forgiveness has a cost. Someone has been wronged. An injustice has been done. As God is holy, just and righteous, these things do not get swept under the rug. His holiness, justice and righteousness demands that every single sin be accounted for and dealt with.

So here's the deal. The Law is the Law of Sin and Death. You sin, you die. No exceptions. And since "sinning" is "not being as God", all human beings but for Jesus have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

So God just judged the human race, justly condemned us all for joining satan's rebellion, righteously demanded that we all pay the price of our own sins, and we will all die and go to hell.

Such an outcome would be holy, just and righteous, as God is holy, just and righteous.

tbc

[Anonymous No.9253084]

>>9251456
So here we are, a fallen race of spiritually dead human beings, in rebellion against God and not being capable of even seeing God without dying. We all sin, we all die, we all go to hell forever as we are all immortal once conceived.

But God is not only holy, just and righteous. He is also Love, and Grace, and Mercy. So before he made the world, he decided that he would pay the penalty of every single human being's sin up on a cross, suffer the wrath of the Father upon each sin, and die, taking all of those sins to the grave. God's justice, holiness and righteousness thus satisfied, God now in his Grace and Mercy can offer mankind the free gift of his salvation, which is himself. His Holy Spirit. The Breath of Life that caused Adam to become a living being, and the Breath of Life that fled Adam and Eve, causing them to be spiritually dead. And produce spiritually dead children.

So by one man, Adam, all were condemned; by the second Adam, Jesus, all may live with God forever in heaven, if they choose.

So choose. Make the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross taking all of your sins onto himself, suffering the wrath of God for all of your sins, and dying in your place effective to save you from death, and eternal death.

Choose Jesus, and life, and good, and heaven.

You'll never regret it.

[Anonymous No.9253110]

>>9253049
It's a perfectly valid criticism of cosmological argument in that first cause's existence is presupposed. Dawkins is an idiot, but not wrong.

[Anonymous No.9253179]

He was right about this one

[Anonymous No.9253185]

>>9253110
He is both a fool and wrong.

God revealed himself as an eternal spirit being. I Am. He has always existed, and he will always exist.

The assumption that God must be a created being because he exists is foolish and incorrect.

[Anonymous No.9253191]

>>9253179
Couple that with Socrates and you'll start getting somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9253333]

It's a parable to promote forgiveness (and greater unity) between Christian nations. That's it. Man killed God's son, and God forgived, so why shouldn't Charles the Bald forgive Ludwig the German from killing his?

It was a watershed moment in social norms. Tribes were regularly tied up in retributive warfare with their neighbors- and still often are, but now God has something to say about it.

[Anonymous No.9253389]

Surprised we made it this far without anyone namedropping Mere Christianity, but it's refreshing nonetheless. Unfortunately some weak arguments from both sides, step it up guys.

[Anonymous No.9253410]

>>9253185
>accusing argument of logical inconsistency
>hur muh revelations as evidence
Fuck off and kill yourself, retarded brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9253411]

>>9253179

>at this point in human history we still do not have a definition of knowledge that withstands scrutiny

What did neoatheist "human" scum mean by this?

[Anonymous No.9253527]

>>9253110
The first cause's existence is not presupposed, but is "proven". However the argument only works with a loose and flawed notion of causality.

[Anonymous No.9253535]

>>9253527
I dare you to explain what you meant by this.

[Anonymous No.9253554]

>>9253535
With what? The first or the second part of what I said?

[Anonymous No.9253697]

>>9253333
bah bah bah smiles from reason flow don't steal your neighbours chickens

[Anonymous No.9253722]

>>9249218
Too bad the majority of Christians don't. The whole archetypal/symbolic view of religion is fine and dandy in theory, but in practice religious people tend to interpret everything literally. It's like communism in that sense: seems fine in theory but a mess when implemented.

[Anonymous No.9253736]

>>9249082
>epicurean argument
There are good counters to that desu.

[Anonymous No.9253742]

>>9253736
umm...like???

[Anonymous No.9253749]

>>9253742
You've google, dontcha?

[Anonymous No.9253752]

>>9253749
not falling for that...

[Anonymous No.9253759]

>>9253752
...Well, at least you've got bing, right?

[Anonymous No.9253767]

>>9253759
if i bing counters i'll find plenty of anti-atheist blogs with counters, but how can i find the *good* ones?
which do you consider *good* counters?

[Anonymous No.9253773]

>>9253767
I'm here to shitpost, not to explain shit.

[Anonymous No.9253803]

>>9253773
sift through the chaff for me or else i'll assume there are no good counters

[Anonymous No.9253808]

>>9253803
I'm not on door to door duty right now, call me later.

[Anonymous No.9253836]

>>9248980
Discussions of why god did X or Y are mistaken and based on a faulty theology.

Divine Aseity and the joined constraints of Omnibenevolence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence mean that God does not have a "mind" in any human-like sense of the world, nor does he have "free will." God is not a temporally mutable being.

[Anonymous No.9253846]

>>9253836
then why do christians stress so much that jesus is a personal god who you can have a personal relationship with?

[Anonymous No.9253895]

>>9249082
This.

The reason atheists don't like to give any ground to theists is that, almost invariably, if institutions or groups or tribes of any sort collectively assert that there is a god or gods, they will not simply assert he or they exist. They will also assert that god wills for us to do this or that, to be straight, to abstain from alcohol or pork or beef, or to mutilate out daughters, to obey a king, to go to war, to toil in the fields, to enslave the darkies, etc.

[Anonymous No.9253918]

>>9253803
Five seconds of googling you lazy bastard: http://strangenotions.com/turning-problem-evil/
>>9253846
The two are not mutually exclusive.