Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 11:49 AM)RobbyPants 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 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


(19-10-2014 11:24 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  God-damn right I do.

Jesus Christ, you two...

Jesus Christ on a stick.............................. just like in the bible
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
20-10-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(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.
Recently my sister and I were having a religious conversation and we got onto the topic of heaven and hell. I was all set to bring up this very point, but was waiting for her to finish speaking. Then she said, "...and you will be in hell and I guess that will be alright somehow and...". Gasp Had it not been my own sister making that remark, I probably would have had a better response, but my heart sank to the floor when I heard her say that and all I could seem to muster was a sarcastic, "that just sounds like the best happy drug there could ever be" to which she replied "I didn't appreciate that remark". Facepalm Yeah, I pretty much checked out of that conversation after that. Dodgy

(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?

If I created a robot and it started blowing things up, who would be to blame? Me, obviously. But when God creates a flawed angel, everyone blames the flawed angel. Satan and hell... they're just God's way of avoiding taking responsibility. Well really, it's believers' way of avoiding blaming their beloved gawd.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 06:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  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.
And, of course, they have a reply to that which is we can do evil in heaven and thus have free will, but we just won't do evil because God's glory will be so obvious that we won't want to. (And then they jump through some serious hoops when asked why God didn't just put us in that situation right from the start rather than bothering with this side trip on Earth.)

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 12:10 PM)Impulse Wrote:  And, of course, they have a reply to that which is we can do evil in heaven and thus have free will, but we just won't do evil because God's glory will be so obvious that we won't want to. (And then they jump through some serious hoops when asked why God didn't just put us in that situation right from the start rather than bothering with this side trip on Earth.)

The "best" answer I've gotten on this (and by no means a good answer), is that God has to test us. The reason he has to test us is so that he can know who his real friends are. Cuz who wants fake friends?

That's right: the reason we're allowed to rape each other is so God can know if he really has friends. Jesus Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
20-10-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 12:19 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:10 PM)Impulse Wrote:  And, of course, they have a reply to that which is we can do evil in heaven and thus have free will, but we just won't do evil because God's glory will be so obvious that we won't want to. (And then they jump through some serious hoops when asked why God didn't just put us in that situation right from the start rather than bothering with this side trip on Earth.)

The "best" answer I've gotten on this (and by no means a good answer), is that God has to test us. The reason he has to test us is so that he can know who his real friends are. Cuz who wants fake friends?

That's right: the reason we're allowed to rape each other is so God can know if he really has friends. Jesus Christ.

Right, except he already knows because he is all-knowing, making this mortal existence nothing more than a perverse circle-jerk for his own amusement and/or pleasure.

We are god's comfort-women. Hooray?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-10-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 12:19 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  The "best" answer I've gotten on this (and by no means a good answer), is that God has to test us. The reason he has to test us is so that he can know who his real friends are. Cuz who wants fake friends?

That's right: the reason we're allowed to rape each other is so God can know if he really has friends. Jesus Christ.
Yup, makes perfect sense since one wouldn't expect an omniscient God to already know who his/her real friends are.

Oh wait... Wink

EDIT:
Nvm, I should've read EvolutionKills post first.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
20-10-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 09:19 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  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

On what basis are any of these claims made?

Theology is a non-subject full of non-knowledge and non-fact.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-10-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 11:34 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(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!".

Wow, I read that whole thread, I wondered how a theist would respond to that -they didn't. I don't know where the "he wants a deeper relationship" nonsense came from, but he eventually ran out of excuses after your post 140.
I don't know why it enrages me so when I hear these arguments, I think it deeply offends my innate sense of justice.
Let's see, I want a relationship with a frog, so I put him on a table and start poking it with pins. The frog may learn the deeper truths of the nature of it's tormentor through that. What kind sick, twisted POS comes up with this stuff? Evil_monster

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, 04:09 PM
RE: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
(20-10-2014 03:00 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Wow, I read that whole thread, I wondered how a theist would respond to that -they didn't. I don't know where the "he wants a deeper relationship" nonsense came from, but he eventually ran out of excuses after your post 140.

AlphaMale lurved that argument. He didn't really change his stance; he just stopped saying it here. He still posts at AF.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 04:13 PM
Re: Why don't counter-apologetics use these arguments?
I've seen those plenty of times.

The 2nd one reminds me of the related question... how do you tell God is the good one and satan is the bad one?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: