Are you a God Fearing Christian?

I could walk in the kitchen and thank the cook...

But if you want to use this metaphor, what 'food' has god cooked for us? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Well he hasn't cooked you food literally but he's given you life. That's the best answer I can give you.

Jim

Well he hasn't cooked you food literally but he's given you life. That's the best answer I can give you.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I don't have any credible proof that's the case. At all. Look A god might be up there, but he's not the abrahamic god. And whatever or whoever he is, he's an asshole. 5k people died in Nepal. Where was god? Helping someone in Orange County find their fucking car keys? If he's omniscient, then he would have foretold people who wouldn't believe without seeing. So you're telling me that instead of making himself known, he plays hide and seek while my eternal life supposedly hangs in the balance? What kind of asshole would do that?

I don't have any credible proof that's the case. At all. Look A god might be up there, but he's not the abrahamic god. And whatever or whoever he is, he's an asshole. 5k people died in Nepal. Where was god? Helping someone in Orange County find their fucking car keys? If he's omniscient, then he would have foretold people who wouldn't believe without seeing. So you're telling me that instead of making himself known, he plays hide and seek while my eternal life supposedly hangs in the balance? What kind of asshole would do that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Tragedies aren't Gods fault. Do you think life is some sort of luxury resort vacation?


Jim

You seem to like that, don't you, Assup? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Great comment. Especially for a guy who refers to anither poster as his "sweet ass!"

I've actually studied religion more since I left it than I ever did when I was religious. Ironic. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Look a god might be up there, but... whoever he is, he's an asshole. 5k people died in Nepal. Where was god? Helping someone in Orange County find their fucking car keys? If he's omniscient, then he would have foretold people who wouldn't believe without seeing. So you're telling me that instead of making himself known, he plays hide and seek while my eternal life supposedly hangs in the balance? What kind of asshole would do that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes undercunt, you've studied the subject and it shows. Your comments are amazingly deep and profound. For instance, no one has ever before asked the question why does God let bad things happen. You are breaking new ground and expanding the frontiers of ontological inquiry. Keep it up!

.

Tragedies aren't Gods fault. Do you think life is some sort of luxury resort vacation?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

No? But he gets credit for all the good things... so he's just an asshole, like I said. He's either omnipresent and omniscient or he isn't. If he is, he picks and chooses which kids die from cancer, if it's really him that saves the ones who survive. Either way, he's a fucking asshole and not something I want any part of.

Yes undercunt, you've studied the subject and it shows. Your comments are amazingly deep and profound. For instance, no one has ever before asked the question why does God let bad things happen. You are breaking new ground and expanding the frontiers of ontological inquiry. Keep it up!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Do we want to get back to how you thought we were debating two separate things when discussing Pascal's Wager and whether god exists?

The fact that you think asking the question of why a god would allow suffering is somehow simple and not worthy of debate, illustrates your profound lack of knowledge on the subject. In the bible, we find that our suffering has three purposes.

It is meant to bring us closer to god. In the midst of our suffering, we are meant to seek him out.

It is meant as a test of the strength and truth of our faith. We are even commanded to count everything as joy in James 1, verse 2.

Thirdly, the suffering is meant to focus our eyes on eternal life and the 'riches' that await us in the afterlife.

So, let's posit that he creates a world in which he knows our human nature and knows we will fuck it up, so that we inevitably turn to him and cry out for help. We are promised some golden city in the sky for our faithfulness.

How is this any different than building a cruise ship you know won't make the journey, bringing along life boats, but only letting those in who bow before you and worship your name? Fuck that.

I'll gladly debate religion with you. I'll illustrate your mistakes and how you're a fucking idiot. Gladly. You have nothing but your insidious and creepy desire to somehow tie me to some former member you're obviously infatuated with.

The fact that you think asking the question of why a god would allow suffering is somehow simple and not worthy of debate... Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, suffering is a great mystery. Why does God make us endure your presence on eccie every day? If God was good and merciful he would never put us through that kind of agony. It tries our faith. I see your point, undercunt.

Yes, suffering is a great mystery. Why does God make us endure your presence on eccie every day? If God was good and merciful he would never put us through that kind of agony. It tries our faith. I see your point, undercunt. Originally Posted by lustylad

Further illustrating that you have absolutely no answer and are completely beyond your depth. Is that you? IB?

Further illustrating that you have absolutely no answer and are completely beyond your depth. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're the one who has no answers, undercunt. When confronted, you turn to wikipedia. Then you are too stupid to read beyond the first sentence and figure out that the wiki page contradicts your argument, as I pointed out in post #165. Are you ready to shoot yourself in the foot again? Do you have any toes left?

You're the one who has no answers, undercunt. When confronted, you turn to wikipedia. Then you are too stupid to read beyond the first sentence and figure out that the wiki page contradicts your argument, as I pointed out in post #165. Are you ready to shoot yourself in the foot again? Do you have any toes left? Originally Posted by lustylad

You're the one who thought pascals wager and the existence of a god were two different things. You haven't pointed out jack shit, you gruberized odumbo sodomite.

No? But he gets credit for all the good things... so he's just an asshole, like I said. He's either omnipresent and omniscient or he isn't. If he is, he picks and chooses which kids die from cancer, if it's really him that saves the ones who survive. Either way, he's a fucking asshole and not something I want any part of. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You don't want any part of God. Instead you want to adhere to the idea that we got here from no where.

Jim

You're the one who thought pascals wager and the existence of a god were two different things. You haven't pointed out jack shit... Originally Posted by WombRaider

Only a sloppy imbecile who is completely bereft of all reading comprehension skill would fail to notice that the difference between Pascal's wager and proof of God's existence was mentioned in his own source:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Your own wikipedia source agrees with me that Pascal's Wager and whether God exists are two separate issues:

“Pascal... did not advance the wager as a proof of God's existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is impossible to avoid for any living person.”

Of course, if we could prove God exists, then the probability would be 100%, and the probability of no God would be zero – in which case, there wouldn't be any need for a decision matrix like the one Pascal gave us. (The same holds true if we could prove God doesn't exist; just reverse the percentages.)

Is that too nuanced for you, dipshit? Originally Posted by lustylad

Evidently in your stunted intellectual state there is no room for comprehension or nuance, undercunt. Too bad you also lack the background in mathematics and probability theory to pretend to speak intelligently about Pascal's Wager.

.

You don't want any part of God. Instead you want to adhere to the idea that we got here from no where.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're not really framing it correctly. It's not that I think there's a god and I want no part of it. I don't think there's anything to even reject in the first place. Nothing other than anecdotal evidence has ever been put forward for the existence of a god. You're willing to put your faith in something that has NEVER been right versus something else(science) that has been proven correct many, many times about a variety of different things?

You should really check out Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing". It's a really fascinating read and he makes it easy for the layperson (me) to understand the actual science behind what they believe. Using the framework of a beginning and end might not even be the correct way of looking at it.

Only a sloppy imbecile who is completely bereft of all reading comprehension skill would fail to notice that the difference between Pascal's wager and proof of God's existence was mentioned in his own source:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager




Evidently in your stunted intellectual state there is no room for comprehension or nuance, undercunt. Too bad you also lack the background in mathematics and probability theory to pretend to speak intelligently about Pascal's Wager.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You fucking idiot. We were talking about apologetics using the wager as a way to prove the existence of god. Who's lacking understanding and nuance now, dipshit. Of course you want to turn it around now after you've been handed your ass repeatedly in this thread. You're now trying to turn it into something that deals with mathematics and probability. You lack the knowledge of religion to debate me proficiently on these grounds. But by all means, keep digging that fucking hole you ignorant slut.