Matthew Le God

I find it hard to believe any believer doesn't accredit their deity with more attributes than that.

The claim many make that it is pefect design from an infallible, all knowing, all powerful deity falls apart if there are some that fall below standard. It isn't just some that fall below standards, all human eyes are wired badly if they were created. A good design would be for them to not have the blood vessels pass in front.

Belief without definition is an oxymoron. You can't belief in something by definition if you can't define it. This is basic stuff badger! 🙄

Would you agree that me (and millions of others) who have poor eyesight renders a belief in perfect design to be nonsense? Many Christians use the human eye as evidence of creation, if it was designed it is a fuck up and god is inept.

Deeply flawed as those people who state their belief also have their own definitions for their god. Problem is no two definitions of god are the exactly the same. Each person creates their own definition of 'him/it/whatever'.

1) Creators of South Park 2a) You can't have the 'hump' with something you don't believe has met its burden of proof for existence. 2b) (or not 2b) Short sightedness isn't a 'good design'. If there was design... it is inept. He should have been tasked with designing fjords like Slartibartfast!

1) You asked me what it would take for me to belief. That can not be done until the 'thing' has been defined. What God is it you want me to say what proof it would take for me to believe, what attributes does it have? 2)

1) Take it up with Matt Stone and Trey Parker 2) I wear contact lenses and have children

I have no need to berate my mother about it, because she does not belief in a god.

It is a flawed question until the God has been defined. It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is.

1) Why is it? 2) Nope, you must try harder with your petty insults

Well that would certainly help. Because the human eye is terribly designed if it appeared into existence. It is wired backwards and is not efficient at all. It is how it is due to evolving from what was originally a flat bed of light sensitive cells which eventually formed a ball.

That is a primary school playground level of an answer. 'He did it first Miss'

Why should you tip toe around a belief system with such abhorrent commands at its core? I've had discussions with beleivers outside the forum about it despite you claiming otherwise. The CoE have cherry picked the scripture to such an extent it is now about strawberry jam and summer fates.

I think you will find you bumped the thread this weekend, not me.

Many claim that God is 'all knowing', in which case he would be aware of what level of proof is required to satisfy every human on the planet. If he does exist, he has chosen not to provide the level of proof he knows it would take and instead opted for a system of an old book that was translated and mistranslated into multiple languages and allows for schisms to occur, that is a pretty inept way of communicating a message.

If they do then they don't understand what burden of proof means. Because it cannot be circular... i.e. the old book is true because the old book says it is true.

You are yet again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I don't claim there is no God, I don't think any God claim has met it's burden of proof. There is a difference between those two positions and you and others in this thread fail to grasp this. That is not being convinced about being right, as I have not made a claim.

1) You didn't counter any of the post. 2) I have had these discussions with JWs in the street. So you are wrong.

1) You think he'd reply? 🤔 2) JWs are just brainwashed, Westboro Baptist Church in that photo take it to a whole new level. Are you suggesting I should fly out to them and have a Louis Theroux chat with them?

1) How do you realistically propose I talk to him? A moral duty based on what? 2) You claimed 'I bet you'd never dare confront a 'believer', I said I have with JWs in the street. That counts and it wins your bet.

1) That isn't a realistic suggestion. 2) I have talked to JW's in the street standing by their bookstands about it. Of course we hit a brick wall and they couldn't provide anything other than a circular argument... 'The book is true because the book says it is true'.

They are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians. The duck rape thread is going around in circles again! 😉😁

I've never said 'all Christians support genocide'. But to a degree they do, they choose to bend over backwards trying to make excuses how a global flood isn't genocide. Or that killing the first born Egyptian babies is not evil etc etc.

That is completely and utterly flawed. So what if I find the bad bits, you have failed to see it in the context it is done for. When I've talked about God of the Bible committing genocide, supporting slavery, sexism etc, that is to show that the claim made by many Christians that God is 100% good. All it requires is to find even one evil thing God has done to show he is not 100% kind and loving. It is very easy to find many things from the scripture to show it is not 100%.