Theists, present your best, most compelling evidence for God

True Christians know and see that you HATE GOD. It's obvious. Your type is all the same.

You can't hide your hatred for God. You prayed to Him, in a time of need, then you HATED HIM when He didn't answer your prayers. How vengeful and spiteful.............ARE YOU!?!??!?!?!??!?!??!?!

 

Show me a single line of scripture were Satan is one who created hell and conducts torture and that God didn't create hell and you will have a point.

Until then, you are simply lying and rationalizing so that you don't have to admit to worshipping evil.

- - - Updated - - -

How vengeful and spireful is God when he sentences people to eternal torture for that thoughtcrime?

 

I never mentioned animals....I pointed out that you are in error if you think christians invented marriage(which you claimed they did). History proves you wrong.


That part about requiring a virgin bride is hilarious...also misogynistic and quite stupid....but funny...

 

EASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LISTEN QUESTERR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How could YOU ever love all the humans who HATE YOU, who pour all their hatred, blame, and contempt into YOU?????????????????

And you blasphemers dare call God "vengeful" and "spiteful"??????????????????????

He LOVES you, despite all your hate, and you call Him "vengeful"?????????


I just can't stand the hypocrisy of atheists and Zio-libs.

 

Yep. If YHWH exists (highly unlikely; I put it up there with Leprechauns and Mothman) and YHWH is omnipotent, then its failure to save people is evil, as it has the means and opportunity to save all from harm and does not do so. If I was standing on the sidewalk of a busy street that a baby was crawling through and I did nothing to save the baby, people would rightfully call me evil for my inaction, as it is trivially easy and minimally dangerous for me to save the child. YHWH, due to its omnipotent nature, faces no hardship nor danger from saving people, yet YHWH habitually lets people die of the most asinine things.

And then condemns them to Hell for eternity for finite crimes, all the while it would still be trivially easy to save them from Hell, as it is the one doing the condemning in the first place.

Yeah, sure, most people do a whole host of petty vices before they die, but so what? And even major crimes, such as genocide, are still finite. Even if Mao was in Hell for a billion years for each person he was responsible for ultimately killing, he'd still eventually get out. Yet, he's there for eternity. And even then, Gandhi, who killed no one and simply disbelieved in Jesus, would go to Hell for all eternity as well.

That's not justice, that's sadism.

Tyrant is the word you're seeking, there.

Because what it is doing is evil.

No, but any deity who closely resembles Nyarlathotep or Azathoth is not really deserving of worship.

Also, I notice a complete lack of addressing the idea that YHWH commanded people to commit genocide and take sex slaves.

 

In your philosophy, God "blames" people for victimless crimes that these people could not have possibly have known were crimes - and God knows that they could not have known it. And in the words of Bill Hicks: "Buddy, I think you were put here to test my faith".

Wow, you can read minds? Oh my god, that's amazing! Conclusive proof of ESP! Quick, what number am I thinking of?

I didn't hate him. I just came to realize that I was talking to nobody, that nobody was there to listen, and that the whole idea of God didn't make a lot of sense. Disbelief is not the same thing as hate.

How can you hate something you don't believe in? And more importantly, you do realize that "loving those who hate you" was a big part of Jesus's message, right? And that throughout history, many Christians have aspired to do just that - many of them are considered to be saints because they died doing just that.

Wait, I thought he was going to knowingly condemn me to an eternity of torture. Make up your mind.

 

I feel God.

Just the way like I feel warmth, sweetness, pain, color and other existing objects of the universe.

 

I don't. So god plays favorites?

 

Some people don't see the colors (or don't see at all). Some are deaf or cannot follow sense of rhytm. Some people tell that sour is sweet. Perhaps this is the reason which explains why some people don't feel God.

 

Yes, except that if we're relying on being able to feel God, and God knows that some people cannot feel Him, then we once again have a great injustice, as God is essentially dooming a decent portion of humanity to be tortured forever through a defect that he programmed in. Jesus, we're either constantly taking the fall for this guy's (*)(*)(*)(*)ups, or he's completely evil.

 

God cannot be unjusty. Because people never felt an unjusty God. As a matter of fact only people who deny His existence dare to claim He is unjusty, which adds even more vividness to such a position and God's existance.

Well. Have you really tried hard? Ever? Really? If you tell that you really tried why should I believe your words without a scientific proof? If you never tried - why are you complaining for someone else that it You who don't feel God?

 

So, God can by definition not be unjust. Therefore, when he does things which are completely unjust by any standards, like creating us flawed and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing us for being flawed, they're somehow made just?

I tried hard for most of my life. I prayed, I went to church, I did everything I could to try to feel God. I believed, despite no evidence to convince me. And if you can't take me at my word about what I believed, then I can't convince you, and there's no point in having a discussion, as we can't have it in good faith.

 

Mmmm. Is there any proof for such an idea?

I don't understand where you take these "standards" from. Can you be more specific? Is it your standards or it is standards which were made a law in one of the countries on request of some powerful lobby?

It's good that You understand so many things and tried it... as you say. But what is the sense to start this conversation then? Are you forced to do that? Do you inderstand that not believing someone is self-sufficient idea which can withstand any arguement?
You made your choice. So please take your responsibility for it. You gave up trying. You started not to believe. A fair approach would be letting the other to make their own conclusions and their own way. If positions of atheism are so strong and logical why is there a constant advertisement for it all over?

 

42 pages and still nothing but blather...no proof except " I FEEEEEEl it".......why don't believers just admit it's a "BELIEF"


NOT


a FACT.....and get on with their lives...and leave others alone with their beliefs...

 

Please, understand us. We have to use arguments which can be understood and this is not that easy task.
Besides, feeling is a fact. If you feel that it aches in your stomack and a doctor would say that there is nothing wrong and there is no any pain - would you use any decent words about this doctor? Yes, I feel it and this is a fact. 80% of this world feels the same a little bit differently (if we consider buddhists believers) and 10-15% haven't yet decided (agnostics and others). So, guys, feel free to find a beeter world for yourself, but this is our world and our feelings. Sorry for that but you have to accept facts which really matter. Just leave us alone with our beliefs and we will figure out ourselves what to do.

 

No, this is NOT YOUR world (there's that ever present SIN of Pride, tsk, tsk)....


I do NOT have to accept YOUR "facts"...( that's the Believer BULLY SYNDROME, it's UGLY)


And godbelievers have NEVER just left anyone else alone with their beliefs so why do you want some "protection"????



"Feeling" is NOT fact....or


I feel that "god" was invented by weak , desperate people who needed a reason for life and so made one up....

 

yes, but no one is saying colors will send you to hell for not believing in them when you cant see them...

if it was just God loves you both equally if you believe or don't believe and will not punish you for not believing, then who cares either way (course then one can not feel empowered over another cause God loves them more)

maybe the deists had it right

http://www.tfd.com/deists

de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
.

 

Well, it seems that you can feel the ill-parts of my personality pretty well. Although I have never concealed that I have to confess it from time to time. Yes. Pride is bad and sometimes in some cases it is my sin. But not there. Being a minor minor part with absolutely no ideas, moral values and history of development, being a part of a group which constantly fights with their fathers and grandfathers, intentionally peeing on their gravestones you dared to claim the whole world as yours. So I couldn't help opposing such an impudence.

You don't have to. Neither do I and 95% of the rest of the world. So try to diagnose yourself rather than someone else. It might seem too christian for you in the beginning, but you will get it hopefully sooner rather than later. It's better to learn it now and from the Internet because other circumstances might be more cruel to your personality.

And you? Are christians surrounding your house washing your family with holy water? Guess not.

It is. It is the only fact which a man knows for sure. But this idea is probably too complicated for you. Bully sindrome you said? I believe you should feel what it is.

And I also love You, pal.

 

The nature of God and colors is a little bit different. If you are not able to feel heat (there is such a neuro illness) - it will not be always warm for you, cax you will eventually lose your hands burnt and your ears and nose in a severe frost. For you will not feel heat at the time you would really need it. The same goes with traffic lights. If you confuse go-color to a stop-color you will eventually come under a truck, which might be not very healthy.
Feelings are given for a purpose.

 

There's the whole problem....believers think feeeeeelings are fact....can't reason or educate that away.....

 

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

 

Really?
So agnostics are people who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. How they can possibly deny the unknowable?!

 

Atheism deals with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. An Atheist doesn't believe in God. An Agnostic doesn't know if a God does or does not exist.

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I do not believe in any gods but also do not know whether or not any gods exist.

I differ from Gnostic Atheists who do not believe in any gods and claim to know that no gods exist.

BTW, you can quote Merriam Webster all day and their definitions are still just the most colloquially excepted one, not necessarily the one that is correct. You need to crack open a philosophy or theology textbook.

 

If half of atheists agree to this statement I would accept it as well.

You just tend to believe (or to think) that beliefs are any different of knowledge.

In order to stop You of making any difference between beliefs and knowledge I have only one question. Which philosopher or theologian I should believe in order to have the RIGHT knowledge of a scientific term. Maybe it is impossible to know the right meaning of a word just the way it is impossible to know God and our mutual understanding is just a coincidence of succesive thoughts of completely different people in other parts of the world?

PS. Until the ultimate revelation from God or prove theory of everything in order to survive and not to make a mistake we have to look into the most accepted dictionary. In US it need to be Webster. You sound as quite knowledgeable person. Catch me on smth different if that's your aim for I have a lot of argualble statements all over. But the one you have chosen is probably the strongest.

 

If it is impossible to know God, then I will never believe in it. Period.

I only believe in things for which I have knowledge based on objective empirical evidence.