Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2014, 10:38 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 10:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You'd think that after God tried the whole 'Free-Will' thing with the angels and it bit him in the ass, you'd think he'd have learned his lesson before making humanity, but no... Dodgy

Don't forget the nephilim; if they weren't a giant cock-up, nothing was.

Well, let's not forget he followed that major cock-up with the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world (Noah's Flood), which did fuck-all to ultimately remedy the situation. Because conceivably if it had worked, then we wouldn't have needed the miraculous birth, tortuous death, and resurrection of Jesus now would we?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-10-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Don't forget the nephilim; if they weren't a giant cock-up, nothing was.

Well, let's not forget he followed that major cock-up with the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world (Noah's Flood), which did fuck-all to ultimately remedy the situation. Because conceivably if it had worked, then we wouldn't have needed the miraculous birth, tortuous death, and resurrection of Jesus now would we?

You make a God-forsaken argument. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 10:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, let's not forget he followed that major cock-up with the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world (Noah's Flood), which did fuck-all to ultimately remedy the situation. Because conceivably if it had worked, then we wouldn't have needed the miraculous birth, tortuous death, and resurrection of Jesus now would we?

You make a God-forsaken argument. Drinking Beverage

God-damn right I do.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 03:12 AM by Ace.)
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
the fall happened because two idiots ate an apple that makes people almost as smart as god and therefore doomed all of humanity

question 1, why did god put them in the same place with the damn bad fruit growing tree ?

question 2, if god knows what will happen then why doesnt' he do anything to alter the future ?

question 3, why didn't god create/place/plant the tree somewhere where no one could ever get it or find it so adam and eve could never be tempted ?

question 4, if god never wanted anyone to eat that fruit then why in ****ing hell did he create that damn tree in the first place ?


also had a theist tell me that original sin makes sense, he says if someone tells you that doing something is wrong its automatically wrong because you were told its wrong and their descendents should inherit these parents mistakes, I just wanna *personally censored for obvious reasons*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 05:42 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Don't forget the nephilim; if they weren't a giant cock-up, nothing was.

Well, let's not forget he followed that major cock-up with the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world (Noah's Flood), which did fuck-all to ultimately remedy the situation. Because conceivably if it had worked, then we wouldn't have needed the miraculous birth, tortuous death, and resurrection of Jesus now would we?

The Nephilim Rolleyes

Why did god make angels with dicks? Why did he make their sex organs fully capable of inseminating and impregnating human females? Facepalm

This is something you could bring up to a believer that would quickly elicit the "mysterious ways" excuse-and maybe embarrass them for believing this idiocy.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  Let me know what you guys think of these arguments, and what you think apologetics might respond with?

This isn't a guess; these are actual responses I've gotten:


(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  1. For people who believe in heaven and hell, how could you be happy in heaven knowing your friends/ family are being tortured for eternity in hell? Almost everyone has to agree this would not make them happy, meaning Heaven cannot be a perpetual paradise, and thus, the idea of Heaven is flawed.

There is no suffering in heaven, so people don't dwell on (or even know!?) about the suffering of others.


(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  2. Who created Satan?
Obviously an argument in the discussion of 'why is there evil', but for everyone who says Satan is responsible for evil (and not God) how do they respond to this?
Even if they then use the free will escape: Satan would have had to have betrayed God in the 2nd week (after seventh day but before Eve ate the apple)... which would make God a massive failure if he couldn't keep his 'creation' safe for even a couple of weeks?

Free will, of course. This is pretty much the stock answer to the problem of evil in modern apologists.


Bonus points if you can figure out how the two above responses cause problems with each other!
If there is no suffering in heaven, then this means that no one is causing harm in heaven. If people don't cause harm in heaven, it's because they either always choose to do good, or they are not able to do harm.

In either case, free will is irrelevant and the existence of heaven basically shoots the apologists stock answer right in the foot. Oops.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
20-10-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 06:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  Let me know what you guys think of these arguments, and what you think apologetics might respond with?

This isn't a guess; these are actual responses I've gotten:


(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  1. For people who believe in heaven and hell, how could you be happy in heaven knowing your friends/ family are being tortured for eternity in hell? Almost everyone has to agree this would not make them happy, meaning Heaven cannot be a perpetual paradise, and thus, the idea of Heaven is flawed.

There is no suffering in heaven, so people don't dwell on (or even know!?) about the suffering of others.


(19-10-2014 06:17 PM)tnels01 Wrote:  2. Who created Satan?
Obviously an argument in the discussion of 'why is there evil', but for everyone who says Satan is responsible for evil (and not God) how do they respond to this?
Even if they then use the free will escape: Satan would have had to have betrayed God in the 2nd week (after seventh day but before Eve ate the apple)... which would make God a massive failure if he couldn't keep his 'creation' safe for even a couple of weeks?

Free will, of course. This is pretty much the stock answer to the problem of evil in modern apologists.


Bonus points if you can figure out how the two above responses cause problems with each other!
If there is no suffering in heaven, then this means that no one is causing harm in heaven. If people don't cause harm in heaven, it's because they either always choose to do good, or they are not able to do harm.

In either case, free will is irrelevant and the existence of heaven basically shoots the apologists stock answer right in the foot. Oops.

I was listening to Andrew Garber's podcast Atheist Roundtable last week and he made a great point that if you believe there is free will in heaven, then you admit it is possible to make a world with free will without suffering.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
20-10-2014, 09:19 AM
Re: RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
The claim I've heard isn't that we don't forget who or what we were. They claim our attitudes and thoughts change. For instance, you'd remember that burning ember was your loving spouse, but now you've transcended those pesky human feelings. Now you just shrug it off because they chose to be a horrible person. (No kidding, I was told that.)

One claim I heard that actually made sense to theists is that we're actually in Hell or Purgatory now. Seems that we've already lived and died. Now we have had our old lives wiped and are trying again.

I just can't believe the logic and reality twisting needed to explain this crap. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
20-10-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 07:04 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I was listening to Andrew Garber's podcast Atheist Roundtable last week and he made a great point that if you believe there is free will in heaven, then you admit it is possible to make a world with free will without suffering.

I made a thread about that about a year ago. Cue twenty pages of apologists saying "Nuh uh!". That's seriously as strong an argument I've heard toward the contrary. That, or a bunch of "Yabut he had to test us, cuz reasons!" or similar word salad which could just as easily be summed up as "Nuh uh!".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
20-10-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(19-10-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, let's not forget he followed that major cock-up with the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world (Noah's Flood), which did fuck-all to ultimately remedy the situation. Because conceivably if it had worked, then we wouldn't have needed the miraculous birth, tortuous death, and resurrection of Jesus now would we?

You know, that's a really good point I never thought about.

Christian apologists always talk about Original Sin, and what a big deal it is. We've been carrying it around since Adam (and not Eve? WTF?), so we need a Jesus to fix that for us.

So, how does Noah and all the flooded people fit into this? Noah was still born with original sin. God decided to spare him, but apparently, he wasn't good enough to snuff out Original Sin. What about all those God drown? Couldn't he have sent a Jesus to save them instead/too?

I've noticed before how stupid those two stories are, and how the apologetics just get creepy, but I've never actually put them up side-by-side like that. I've heard Christians talk about how they like reading the Bible repeatedly because they still catch something new each time*. Apparently this isn't just limited to the adherent... Evil_monster


* This is also why I still like watching Fight Club. Also, it's far better written, and much less violent.


(19-10-2014 11:24 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-10-2014 10:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  You make a God-forsaken argument. Drinking Beverage

God-damn right I do.

Jesus Christ, you two...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: