Matthew Le God

Some in the thread have claimed he does exist. Those making a claim have the burden of proof.

Beliefs impact actions, actions impact other people and wider society. He should also be able to answer as the Bible states... "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

I really doubt that. I'd be intrigued to know what @Raging Bull would say it would take for him to stop believing the Bible is literally true. IIRC he seems to think that it is literally word for word true. Where as I've said numerous times now, I'm not claiming there is no God. And if I am provided with good evidence God exists... I will believe God exists. So I'm very much open minded, but unlike @whelk and @Raging Bull I apply rational levels of analysis of what constitutes sufficient evidence to believe in something.

I don't think they are Southampton fans. Plus they are completely close minded. I'm hoping @Raging Bull and @whelk aren't either, but the signs aren't good.

Beliefs impact actions, actions impact other people and wider society. Religious beliefs can lead to things like I linked to earlier with children dying because their parents prayed for them rather than seeking medical treatment. Ok that is relatively rare, but is one of many harmful impacts irrational belief in deities can lead to.

Getting to the root of them and when you do that you often find they are built on foundations of sand and circular reasoning.

It is epistemology, not taunting. Nor am I 'going out of my way'... I'm on my phone. 😉

Because many Christians beleive 1) the story happened & 2) God is 100% kind and loving. But those things are not compatible with each other. They can't both be true.

1) That is an ill formed question. I don't believe there is claim about a God that has met it's burden of proof. Therefore why would I believe 'he' is responsible for stories in an old book? 2) My point was quite clear and you ignored the question... Do you you agree that killing innocent babies is not compatible with being 100% kind and loving? Stop ignoring questions!

Because it is a massive conflict with the claim he is '100% kind and loving'. Do you you agree that killing innocent babies is not compatible with being 100% kind and loving?

I did not say it wasn't a story. I said 'the Bible says he does'.

Fictional Egyptian first born ones during the time of Moses. Every single fictional baby during the global flood.

People under a delusion that a baby murdering God is '100% kind and loving' do not deserve empathy regarding that particular aspect of their life.

Why is pointing out massive flaws in God's 'kind and loving' character 'disrespectful'? I'm not making it up that the God of the Bible murders innocent babies... the Bible says he does.

Lord Voldemort murders fewer innocent people than the God of the Bible. Is Lord Voldemort less evil than God? vs (he also unlike the God of the Bible does not endorse slavery, homophobia, sexism or rape)

It is a story, there is no external collaborating evidence it actually happened. Is Lord Voldemort responsible for his actions in a story... or is JK Rowling responsible for writing them?

Paranoid

The story in the old book says the kind and loving God did that particular mass murder or innocent children.

Do you agree there is difference between saying...? a) X does not exist b) I don't believe X has met it's burden of proof Constantly throughout this thread people claim I've said a) but I haven't. I say b) and it is very different from a).

I'm not going to bother biting on this particular hook for the 8th time.

Yet again... I am not claiming God doesn't exist 🙄 I don't know how many more times I can say this to you before in sinks in!

Saints got a fee rising to £17m for Matthew Targett

Itchy

1) At no point did I claim every religious person is a Christian. But most religious people on the planet are in religions that have a creator God at the heart of them. 2) You seemed to be suggesting that I was wrong to say people did pray for children to get better and then those children died. I've shown they do. 3) Again you seemed to be saying that no-one prayed for themselves. They clearly do, so what is my 'complete lack of understanding'? 4) You do not 'fully understand what I've said' as time after time you show that you haven't and instead have twisted my words. The last few posts of yours highlight that.

That is not arrogance. It is asking for you to show me my mistake so if I'm wrong I can learn from it. I want to beleive as many true things and as few false things as possible. So I am more than open to change my mind if you provide a good reason for me to do so. So far you haven't however.