Matthew Le God

Stop with the toasters! This thread is about Christmas Blasphemy Duck Rape Me! 😉

Do you not think it is true that not every question is well formed and can be answered? If so... why? What smell is indifference?

If I dream of Lord Voldemort... does that mean he exists?

What is wrong with answering a question with a question. If a question is ill conceived and the premise the question is built on is unsound then a question is often the best response. Not every question can be answered.

I don't know, but if there is an all knowing God he would know. Yet he chooses not to. So despite what Christians claim about God wanting everyone to know he exists, he doesn't want me to or millions of other non believers. So that claim is clearly false.

A Christian under 1 Peter 3:15 has a duty to justify their belief. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:15&version=NIV

This Twitter account is followed by Simon Peach of the Press Association...

1) It is if you ignore answering questions 2) How do you know God is intangible? 3) What is a more reliable path to truth than science? Faith is not a reliable path as you can believe anything based on faith, both true things and false things. 4) Do you think people should be presumed guilty of crimes and up to them to prove their non guilty status? Is that really a sensible mindset? 5) It is puzzling how many more times I have to tell you... I have not claimed the non existence of God. Not believing a claim has met it's burden of proof is not the same as claiming something doesn't exist. I have tried to explain this numerous times and you still haven't grasped it!

Cork left for Swansea, Rodriguez left for West Brom Neither of them were regulars for Saints at the time, so not really comparable with our (former) captain leaving for Tottenham.

1) Are you denying the burden of proof is on the person making the claim? 2) 'We are in a Church of England country' - do you think the UK is a theocracy? 3) 'Christianity is the focus in most schools' - what does that mean? 4) 'millions worldwide believe in a God' - argumentum ad populum really!?

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.