[Vindictus]

This just in, every person that invents a word is literally Hitler. You realise that 'meme' has a different usage on the internet that Dawkins never intended?

I'm also really tired of seeing Communist states mentioned whenever atheism comes up. Those people weren't killed because of atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. How many died under Nazism? Because Hitler used christian rhetoric to justify some of his behaviour. The crusades as well, religious wars justified through religion. Your buddies in Israel, how many wars have they fought over the last 60 years? Countless.

Many more people have died due to religious wars than because of atheism. I challenge you to find a case of an atheist killing someone because they're religious. It hasn't happened because there isn't some atheist fantasy book that tells you who you should kill, such as the Bible, Koran and Torah.

You are so full of shit its amazing. Go to Albania, which was officially declared a completely Atheist State in 1967, and EVERY house of worship was closed, and anyone who owned any religious material could be given extremely long prison sentences, and anyone who spoke of it in public was shot. Even the USSR never went quite that far.

Your challenge is easily defeated. The State Atheists made it policy that religious people, starting with the clergy, were to be killed outright, or otherwise dealt with such that they would be removed as a threat to the State. In China, and in North Korea, worship of the Leader (especially in North Korea where it is still going on) has replaced traditional religions, and practice of those religions has become difficult if not impossible.

God, if you had a brain you would seriously be a danger to yourself. Go read some history, and then come back and maybe we can have a conversation. MAYBE.

You're still missing the point. Atheism is not a philosophy or creed, it's simply a stance on God. Atheism can't kill people because it has no rules, no holy texts, no commandments.

Because extremist ideologies happened to be atheist does not mean they murdered people in the name of atheism.

[Rushy]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

[Ghost of V]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

I'm convinced that Tom Bishop is Jaakov.

And how are we getting trolled when we're aware of it? At least I think most of us are aware of it.

[Vindictus]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

Eh, if you count getting any response as getting trolled. No one is angry (except maybe Yaakov). I've been intentionally trying to shit up the thread as well.

[Particle Person]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

[Ghost of V]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

Because his intellect shines through sometimes. He's clever, and someone as clever as Yaakov could not be so die-hard about a belief that has no supporting evidence. At least that's my opinion.

Not to mention his liberal use of profanity would make his Jewish mother turn in her grave or smack him across the head if she's still alive.

[Rushy]

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.

[Particle Person]

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.

Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "for the sake of it".

[jroa]

Also, both Tom and Yaakov complain about their dumb phones. 

[Rushy]

Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "just for the sake of it".

I didn't make that claim.

[Shane]

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.

Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "just for the sake of it".

As a human bean I resent this

[Lord Dave]

This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.

He puts a lot of effort into it.  And we're entertained.  I'd call him a comedian, not a troll.

[Vindictus]

Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?

He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.

Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "for the sake of it".

incoming thread split in 3..2..

[Rushy]

He puts a lot of effort into it.  And we're entertained.  I'd call him a comedian, not a troll.

You can be both. Troll is a method of interaction, not necessarily a personality or profession.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Well you did make the thread of "ask a jew" and yet you couldn't provide an answer to a very simple question, you just blindly follow that rule without a second thought.

What happens to a Jew if they knowingly wear mixed threads and do not seek forgiveness?

Why does anything have to happen?

Alright, so you didn't bite for the whole Moon business, but here's another one.

So according to genesis God created the universe in 6 days. On the first day he creates light (without a Sun since he makes that on the 4th day, mind you) and darkness (1:3).  On the second day, God creates a solid roof to separate the waters from the heavens which is called the Firmament (1:6). On the third day, God created plants by letting "the Earth bring forth" the plants instead of just zapping them into existence (1:11). Now at this point God says something like "yeah, this is good" (1:12). He's pleased with his creation thus far, so afterwards on the 4th day he creates "two great lights" which are the Sun and Moon (1:14 yes, still lumping the Moon in as a light because that's what is insinuated). There are a few days left (mostly he makes stars and some other shit) but I'm going to skip those because they're irrelevant to my point.

So, the light issue is dealt with. The light came from God's own emanations.  As the divine being, he has (at least in Kabbala they teach that he has) I believe 9 emanations. I may be wrong on the number, however. But I am no Kabbalist. I know very little about it. All I know is that the Rabbis postulated that the Light of God was literal, and emanated from him until the Sun was made.

How did the Earth produce any plants without Sunlight? God created plant life on the third day, and then on the 4th day he created the Sun and Moon. Notice how the Bible says "let's the Earth bring forth" plants. These plants weren't just materialized by God, they were grown. Logically we'd have to assume that these growing plants used the process of photosynthesis, but that would have been impossible without the Sun to help them.

Actually, the Rabbis resolved that problem by arguing that the earth received light from the divine emanations of god until such time as the two great lights were made. In other words, God himself produced the light from within his emanations that he used to light the earth.

And keep in mind that God "saw that it was good", despite the fact that he didn't even create things in the right order. He created life before the sun and moon were created, which is absurd because without the sun life could not exist on Earth. God is a moron.

[DuckDodgers]

So there are no repercussions at all for not following God's laws?

[Rushy]

So there are no repercussions at all for not following God's laws?

Well in the old testament he killed people on the spot for not following his laws. Obviously he doesn't give a shit anymore.

[Rama Set]

Rama, until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap.

millican.org/papers/2004OntArgMind.pdf

I haven't got time to read 29 pages. Summarise, please.

Summary: Anselm's argument is wrong.

The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones.

No you can't, you can only give me flawed syllogisms and hopeful principles.  You have not offered anything in the way of proof that God empirically exists.

Nor have you offered anything in the way of proof that he doesn't.

The burden of proof is on you.

You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.

It is not my job to even try and prove the negative.  The burden of proof lies on you as the positive claimant.  I just rebutted Anselm.  If you wanted to start making clear arguments about God as a prime mover or some such, I am happy to rebut those as well.

It is indeed your job. Since atheism is in fact a new invention, and that mankind has, for the bulk of his history, been religious, it is the duty of those who would challenge that to give their reason why, especially given the horrific toll in lives that atheism has had on the world just in one century.

This is incorrect in a lot of ways.  Please learn about burden of proof and get back to us.

If you have to resort to claiming that your arguments are "obvious" or that I am "stupid", you obviously have lost the argument.

Telling you that you are stupid is not abusive. its a statement of fact. It in no way indicates losing anything. It is a statement of information.

Funny that you inserted the adjective abusive.  Anyway, keep digging in to your irrational fallacious hole.

[Ghost of V]

If God is such a perfect divine being why is everything that he makes so damn complicated? Why do I have kidneys, liver, a heart, etc? Why couldn't he just make us energy based lifeforms? I don't think this would have taken away free-will, because we wouldn't know any better. Why couldn't he give us the same capacity for learning and free-thought, but make it so we don't have to deal with diseases and health complications? This seems like the optimal way to go when creating something that is based on your own image, because I'm guessing that God is not affected by disease and other health issues.

If God made us in his image, then why didn't he make us in his image? Why aren't we floaty spirit-like energy based lifeforms immune from the trappings of flesh?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...