A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Quote:I chose to respond to the Bible as the repository of great truth.

Myths and fables are not great truths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
13-03-2015, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 01:50 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(13-03-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 02:00 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The injection is why should miracles be accepted based on faith? It's literally the method of scamming that internet money thieves and other scam artists use. You proclaim you have the evidence, but say it's only there in the past, you can't see now. Maybe you'll be able to see it when you already give in and accept it.

The only way I would sensibly accept these claims of a personal god is if it blatantly and frequently would demonstrate miracles on a world wide scale for people not just an arbitrarily picked group. If there was routine random writings in skies in all languages and relifting or reanimating dead, amputees, or sending messages to people individually and on grand scales in every way to advert it being just pockets of delusions for people, then miracle would be seen as valid. A single person attesting to a miracle is what you already know, terrible evidence.

And some people proclaim that would violate free will which somehow they think is valid. Despite there is evidence in the bible if it were true, that several droves of people have direct evidence of God and his power and yet use their "free will" to disobey him. From The Israelite under Moses, to Lots wife, or Satan, and more... that's deliberately false for any proposed objection to god acting in the way he supposedly did in the past with his ways he could in the present. To accept anything on such low tier levels of reasoning and evidence is to be willfully gullible for no good reason.

Chas is closer to correct, the miracles are claims of an ancient text(s) and not my "choice by faith" as you wrote. I'm ascribing the characteristics of rationality and reason to the scriptures.

Quote:The only way I would sensibly accept these claims of a personal god is if it blatantly and frequently would demonstrate miracles on a world wide scale for people not just an arbitrarily picked group.

Therefore, you have a bias. It has to be miracles 1) your way or the highway 2) contrary to everything I've posted--not to "prove" faith but to authenticate speakers as canonical and accurate. Convenient but damning. I didn't choose to become a worshipper of the Great Father because of miracles, I chose to respond to the Bible as the repository of great truth. The same option is available to you but your "my way or the highway" is not good.

I'm not sure I got your point about free will. I believe people may obey or disobey God for salvation of their free will. Would you mind restating? Sorry for being so dense.

I'm not proclaiming anything about YOU, or YOUR reason to becoming or thinking things. What gets brings you to such a self inclusive manner of viewing things? You would improve in manners of communicating here if you read more openly and didn't make assumptions like that. The same applies to the free will section, nothing is there based entirely on what you would think, it's an statement in replay to other responses that occur on the subject.

Your reading comprehensions is showingly terrible ins this thread. Just like previously your complaint of being called a "mainline Denominational protestant" when nothing of that sort was said. You're showing a lack of understanding how terms and labels come about. Even if no theists existed, I'd still be an atheist though the label wouldn't mean anything to me. You are still apart of the movement of protestant and as long as the catholic/orthodox system exists the alternative Christian believes of wide ranges fit it. That's not saying you're a member of a DOMINATION; it's that you represent the group of those who aren't X therefore you are Y. You are ALSO non-denominational and whatever else you claim as well. You ought to learn to understand things on levels outside of your perceived notion of them.

I do have a bias to using testable reason, and yes that's the only form of testable reasoning out there is altered physical events. I do not believe almost anything is conformable but it would require mass groupings of confirmation, such as the effect of gravity existing. I really only limit it to that type of system because if it isn't that, it's either a deity withholding itself or not able to do it. An argument of "its in the book you can find it" means the descriptions of events such as miracles in there can be seen as real if you expect it. Though the indication they exist then but don't exist now in those same scales makes that system absurd. It highlights poor standards of evidence and justification. This just is more weak cases for the tricks of Satan or God making things opaque. Those are the techniques of charlatans. If a god was as described and worthy of respecting, it wouldn't need to resort to tests or deserve obedience. Why that's consistently accepted as truth is twistingly strange.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(02-03-2015 09:54 AM)claywise Wrote:  I hate this tack by Christians:

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

But in a way, it represents a classic mode of "argument" they like to use: The fact that we cannot/do not see something or evidence for something is powerful confirmation that it exists.

In other words, the fact that there is no evidence of a devil should frighten you into accepting that there is a devil.

I remember this logic (and I use the term logic very loosely) being used in that Finding Bigfoot show on Discovery...

Basically one of the guys said "The lack of evidence for the Sasquatch's existence, is evidence in itself of its existence, because Sasquatch are notoriously illusive..."

Facepalm

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
13-03-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
I would think that if god and satan did exist, Satan's ultimate trick would be creating religion. And that the true test of life would be to deny religion. Therefore only atheists would go to the kingdom of heaven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(13-03-2015 05:32 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  I would think that if god and satan did exist, Satan's ultimate trick would be creating religion. And that the true test of life would be to deny religion. Therefore only atheists would go to the kingdom of heaven.

And if Jesus was real, and there were only atheists and Christians...? What would Satan's "religious move" be in Xianity is truth?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(13-03-2015 01:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Chas is closer to correct, the miracles are claims of an ancient text(s) and not my "choice by faith" as you wrote. I'm ascribing the characteristics of rationality and reason to the scriptures.


Therefore, you have a bias. It has to be miracles 1) your way or the highway 2) contrary to everything I've posted--not to "prove" faith but to authenticate speakers as canonical and accurate. Convenient but damning. I didn't choose to become a worshipper of the Great Father because of miracles, I chose to respond to the Bible as the repository of great truth. The same option is available to you but your "my way or the highway" is not good.

I'm not sure I got your point about free will. I believe people may obey or disobey God for salvation of their free will. Would you mind restating? Sorry for being so dense.

I'm not proclaiming anything about YOU, or YOUR reason to becoming or thinking things. What gets brings you to such a self inclusive manner of viewing things? You would improve in manners of communicating here if you read more openly and didn't make assumptions like that. The same applies to the free will section, nothing is there based entirely on what you would think, it's an statement in replay to other responses that occur on the subject.

Your reading comprehensions is showingly terrible ins this thread. Just like previously your complaint of being called a "mainline Denominational protestant" when nothing of that sort was said. You're showing a lack of understanding how terms and labels come about. Even if no theists existed, I'd still be an atheist though the label wouldn't mean anything to me. You are still apart of the movement of protestant and as long as the catholic/orthodox system exists the alternative Christian believes of wide ranges fit it. That's not saying you're a member of a DOMINATION; it's that you represent the group of those who aren't X therefore you are Y. You are ALSO non-denominational and whatever else you claim as well. You ought to learn to understand things on levels outside of your perceived notion of them.

I do have a bias to using testable reason, and yes that's the only form of testable reasoning out there is altered physical events. I do not believe almost anything is conformable but it would require mass groupings of confirmation, such as the effect of gravity existing. I really only limit it to that type of system because if it isn't that, it's either a deity withholding itself or not able to do it. An argument of "its in the book you can find it" means the descriptions of events such as miracles in there can be seen as real if you expect it. Though the indication they exist then but don't exist now in those same scales makes that system absurd. It highlights poor standards of evidence and justification. This just is more weak cases for the tricks of Satan or God making things opaque. Those are the techniques of charlatans. If a god was as described and worthy of respecting, it wouldn't need to resort to tests or deserve obedience. Why that's consistently accepted as truth is twistingly strange.

1. I didn't say you said anything about me...? I was asking re: free will.

2. My point was respect, not labels. I've chosen along with many other evangelicals to not be identified as a Protestant, I don't appreciate the excesses of Luther and Calvin either! A small shred of respect would accept me for the label I choose rather than re-re-re-lecture me as to what Protestants and Catholics are. I know what they are. The reason why they are called evangelicals and fundamentalists is they are not Catholics and Protestants.

3. Speaking of respect, you made an interesting claim here:

Quote:If a god was as described and worthy of respecting, it wouldn't need to resort to tests or deserve obedience

a) How would you "test" such a being to know if they are god without employing any tests? How would you know they are a god?

b) What other being that is not a god has immense power, but if you faced them, would not receive your obedience? I can see where you would not respect someone who has a gun to your head, but why would you not obey them? Your claims seems odd here to me.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-03-2015 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 05:32 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  I would think that if god and satan did exist, Satan's ultimate trick would be creating religion. And that the true test of life would be to deny religion. Therefore only atheists would go to the kingdom of heaven.

And if Jesus was real, and there were only atheists and Christians...? What would Satan's "religious move" be in Xianity is truth?

That's bullshit. Jesus being " real" don't necessarily make christianity true. And your are a protestant.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 05:56 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-03-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 01:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm not proclaiming anything about YOU, or YOUR reason to becoming or thinking things. What gets brings you to such a self inclusive manner of viewing things? You would improve in manners of communicating here if you read more openly and didn't make assumptions like that. The same applies to the free will section, nothing is there based entirely on what you would think, it's an statement in replay to other responses that occur on the subject.

Your reading comprehensions is showingly terrible ins this thread. Just like previously your complaint of being called a "mainline Denominational protestant" when nothing of that sort was said. You're showing a lack of understanding how terms and labels come about. Even if no theists existed, I'd still be an atheist though the label wouldn't mean anything to me. You are still apart of the movement of protestant and as long as the catholic/orthodox system exists the alternative Christian believes of wide ranges fit it. That's not saying you're a member of a DOMINATION; it's that you represent the group of those who aren't X therefore you are Y. You are ALSO non-denominational and whatever else you claim as well. You ought to learn to understand things on levels outside of your perceived notion of them.

I do have a bias to using testable reason, and yes that's the only form of testable reasoning out there is altered physical events. I do not believe almost anything is conformable but it would require mass groupings of confirmation, such as the effect of gravity existing. I really only limit it to that type of system because if it isn't that, it's either a deity withholding itself or not able to do it. An argument of "its in the book you can find it" means the descriptions of events such as miracles in there can be seen as real if you expect it. Though the indication they exist then but don't exist now in those same scales makes that system absurd. It highlights poor standards of evidence and justification. This just is more weak cases for the tricks of Satan or God making things opaque. Those are the techniques of charlatans. If a god was as described and worthy of respecting, it wouldn't need to resort to tests or deserve obedience. Why that's consistently accepted as truth is twistingly strange.

1. I didn't say you said anything about me...? I was asking re: free will.

2. My point was respect, not labels. I've chosen along with many other evangelicals to not be identified as a Protestant, I don't appreciate the excesses of Luther and Calvin either! A small shred of respect would accept me for the label I choose rather than re-re-re-lecture me as to what Protestants and Catholics are. I know what they are. The reason why they are called evangelicals and fundamentalists is they are not Catholics and Protestants.

3. Speaking of respect, you made an interesting claim here:

Quote:If a god was as described and worthy of respecting, it wouldn't need to resort to tests or deserve obedience

a) How would you "test" such a being to know if they are god without employing any tests? How would you know they are a god?

b) What other being that is not a god has immense power, but if you faced them, would not receive your obedience? I can see where you would not respect someone who has a gun to your head, but why would you not obey them? Your claims seems odd here to me.

Thanks.

You need to think outside your perspective at times and not view it in the way you take the concepts. Your opinion and choice isn't the only view. You're going to be labeled in ways you don't agree with, everyone is at a point. To be defensive over it out of a desire for respect shows off immaturity. Especially when you say, you're calling me "mainline denominational" which was never said or implied,. What reason should you be respected? You don't deserve respect when your conduct is deplorable. If you kept saying I'm agnostic and not atheists; I wouldn't jolt out at you and say I am not a Huxley Agnostic! It would be along the same lines, saying you're saying something about me that you never said. You wouldn't be indicating it was as specific as I took it. It would be me at fault for interpreting your comments that way.. but would your labeling or "lack or respect" affect me? No, so it really is an needless point that makes me come off as irrational.

Not sure what you're asking about the tests... as it seems you think use of test was about testing god. I'm just saying GOD uses tests, e.g. Job. That was a test. Widdling down to X amount of good men left in Sodom and I'll spare it. It's little tests and games God plays in those texts.

You would obey someone simply because they exert power over you? I would think that is a far more telling scenario and frightening for humanity. It's boiled down to a view of authority. It's going to be a different view, some people VALUE the moral figure of authority/traditions/purity/etc. and others sometimes don't. I don't it as sensible to obey or respect because they are more powerful than me. That's an emotional position lead by fear or subjection. I don't obey governments or laws based on them being authority.. I obey laws that are judged by examining the criteria of what I deem sensible logically. I don't often obey Jaywalking laws when I'm in rural or low traffic suburbs, but I'll obey jaywalking laws in metropolitan cities because I see the purpose and effect there on greater scales. I don't obey every law officer I see, if one is acting foolish I don't deem him worthy of respect simply because of some authority. If a different polieman exerts well mannered authority, I do obey him.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-03-2015 05:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 10:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. I didn't say you said anything about me...? I was asking re: free will.

2. My point was respect, not labels. I've chosen along with many other evangelicals to not be identified as a Protestant, I don't appreciate the excesses of Luther and Calvin either! A small shred of respect would accept me for the label I choose rather than re-re-re-lecture me as to what Protestants and Catholics are. I know what they are. The reason why they are called evangelicals and fundamentalists is they are not Catholics and Protestants.

3. Speaking of respect, you made an interesting claim here:


a) How would you "test" such a being to know if they are god without employing any tests? How would you know they are a god?

b) What other being that is not a god has immense power, but if you faced them, would not receive your obedience? I can see where you would not respect someone who has a gun to your head, but why would you not obey them? Your claims seems odd here to me.

Thanks.

You need to think outside your perspective at times and not view it in the way you take the concepts. Your opinion and choice isn't the only view. You're going to be labeled in ways you don't agree with, everyone is at a point. To be defensive over it out of a desire for respect shows off immaturity. Especially when you say, you're calling me "mainline denominational" which was never said or implied,. What reason should you be respected? You don't deserve respect when your conduct is deplorable. If you kept saying I'm agnostic and not atheists; I wouldn't jolt out at you and say I am not a Huxley Agnostic! It would be along the same lines, saying you're saying something about me that you never said. You wouldn't be indicating it was as specific as I took it. It would be me at fault for interpreting your comments that way.. but would your labeling or "lack or respect" affect me? No, so it really is an needless point that makes me come off as irrational.

Not sure what you're asking about the tests... as it seems you think use of test was about testing god. I'm just saying GOD uses tests, e.g. Job. That was a test. Widdling down to X amount of good men left in Sodom and I'll spare it. It's little tests and games God plays in those texts.

You would obey someone simply because they exert power over you? I would think that is a far more telling scenario and frightening for humanity. It's boiled down to a view of authority. It's going to be a different view, some people VALUE the moral figure of authority/traditions/purity/etc. and others sometimes don't. I don't it as sensible to obey or respect because they are more powerful than me. That's an emotional position lead by fear or subjection. I don't obey governments or laws based on them being authority.. I obey laws that are judged by examining the criteria of what I deem sensible logically. I don't often obey Jaywalking laws when I'm in rural or low traffic suburbs, but I'll obey jaywalking laws in metropolitan cities because I see the purpose and effect there on greater scales. I don't obey every law officer I see, if one is acting foolish I don't deem him worthy of respect simply because of some authority. If a different polieman exerts well mannered authority, I do obey him.

I understand. I will obey when someone points a gun at my head and you will disobey. This is why I'd never ask you to keep my pets or babysit my children! And why you keep seeing a gun in God's hand instead of flowers and candy.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-03-2015 11:13 AM)Leo Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And if Jesus was real, and there were only atheists and Christians...? What would Satan's "religious move" be in Xianity is truth?

That's bullshit. Jesus being " real" don't necessarily make christianity true. And your are a protestant.

If Religion is BS, why call me a Protestant? Be consistent--and sincere.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: