"god is above our minds" and my way of arguing.

Recently my encounters with theists have ended with them not responding anymore or them saying "god isnt subject to our logic, he is above our minds." i have a big problem with this. When one makes the claim to me that god exists, they are making a claim. The rational way by which to assess any claim is with logic and reason. That's what i always try to do. I look at their premises and conclusions and i make inferences about them, where their argument stems from, and i am always, before anything else, able to see any flaws in the argument. Now comes the difficult part, the articulation of my response. i have become more and more aware over the past month that articulation is key here. I try to find an articulation of my reasoning that most appeals to their sense of reasoning. If i were to just throw it out there in my reasoning they generally nitpick and are somewhat dishonest or unfair in their evaluation of my argument. i suspect its a defense mechanism for their beliefs or something like that, because compartmentalization isn't uncommon with theists. I used to do it as well but as I thought about it more and more i started to see flaws. Anyways, once i articulate my response well enough in my head or through discussion, they stop responding or say god isnt subject blah blah blah. this is where i get pissed.

1. They make a claim and present an argument for it.

2. I take it apart.

3. they say the thing their claiming is above our minds.

Here's why i get pissed. on 3, they firstly presuppose the thing their claiming exists, secondly, they don't treat it as if its a claim they're making to me, and third, they end all discussion and progress by shutting down all ability to listen to reason. I get why they say this and i understand their reasoning. To them god already exists,

to me he doesn't. he must exist outside the universe or on another plane of existence or some shit like that. Lets just say outside the universe, now if god did exist, i would say we cant apply our understanding of logic to him, because we don't know how things work outside the universe. The universe is our reality and our reality has rules which we base our logic and reason on. We cannot imagine something we don't know of. We don't know of any example which no logical rules apply. So we cant imagine a place where they don't apply. A being existing outside of our universe/reality could not be said to be subject to our logic because we don't know what the outside of the universe is like. That's if a being like that exists. Something that actually exists is obviously different from a claim of existence of something. A claim of something which isn't subject to our logic, is subject to our logic. The claim is subject I mean. This is because its a claim, the thing in the claim has not yet been demonstrated to exist, hence why its a claimed existence of something. So we can use reason and logic to assess the claim of existence of something which isn't subject to our logic and reason, so we do assess it. then they claim it isnt subject to our logic. They fail to realize we are talking about the claim, not the thing. the something in the claim has logical flaws, we present the flaws and say the claim doesnt make sense. they then presuppose its existence and say its not subject. 

i then say "well then dont expect me to believe a claim of something i cant apply any reason to. your claimed god is logically impossible from my understanding and you havent proven he exists, nor could you to any extent because he is above our minds if he exists and therefore belief in him and non belief are on the same level because neither of them matter if he is above us. belief is in our minds and i choose not to believe because it doesn't make sense to me and if such a being existed then his being above us means his existence wouldn't matter in any way to us." 

main point: dont try to use reason and logic to convince me of somethings existence if its above our minds and my logical objections dont matter to you.

oh boy we got alot. 3 discussions.

i see it as a waste to separate the discussions ive recently had into different blog posts. so i will posts them all in this one. they will be separated of course.


Arguing with a hypocritical "intolerant facist" ignoramus.

It started with this comment he made and later he made another which caused the argument to shift. his first one:

It's interesting to observe how the Godless use foul and abusive language in print as a way of emphasising their annoyance, whereas Christians don't feel the need to retort in kind. The key here is self-control and decorum. This is testament to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the fruit of which Paul talks about in Galatians. Lack of self-control and foul language is the bane of society.

vermentinu

and thats what sparked it.

im justtrollinalong. i will be crunching multi part comments into one comment. the character limit on youtube is not fit for discussion very well, unfortunately.

 in the middle of the following comments he posted this:

 "Recently Britain was named 'The best place for gay equality in Europe'. That is because members of militant homosexual pressure groups have wormed their way into positions of power and influence in order to pursue their wicked agenda, which is to destroy the God ordained family unit and marginalise Christianity. They have largely succeeded, which is why the UK is a moral cesspit. The 'LGBT lobby are, by and large, a bunch of intolerant fascists."

@vermentinu
its interesting how you put bad meaning to words and do so within the realm of theology and then use the meaning you put to our words to condescend us by implying we have no self control and basically say "hah you heathens have no verbal self control!" we dont try to avoid using words which are simply exclamations. we dont try to condescend people based on what words they use. we dont pretend to not be irritated by people who misrepresent and condescend us while displaying stupidity.
so you give negative meaning to words we say which you base out of your theology which we dont believe, basically attempting to make the rules and then condescend us and insult us subtley and elevate yourself under false pretense of your beliefs.
"hey you said turtle! silly turtlists, i believe its bad to say that word so it must be true so that means that youre below me because my beliefs dictate everybody elses standing that isnt in my group. you turtlists have no control!". lastly, i want to point out that your condescension and insults toward people who dont believe like you are the same as the "retorts" you speak of that we apparently use and you dont. notice how you call britain a "cesspit" and use words like "wormed their way" and are so narcissistic as to assume that its only to "destroy" YOUR beliefs with "wicked agenda" when youre so deluded that you fail to see they just want equal rights and safety from the persecution of YOU PEOPLE.
oh yeah one more thing. notice how you say they "wormed their way" to "destroy" with their "wicked agenda" and then you call THEM the intolerant facists. it seems to me that given your way, you would be the facist. yeah im sure they are just bullying christians all over the uk right? no they arent. but you justify your disgusting behaviour by saying "but its against god!" thats your belief, not theirs. and yet you still try to make them applicable to your beleifs. unbelieveable!

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong
"we dont try to avoid using words which are simply exclamations."
That's because the Godless are selfish in this regard. Believe it or not, there are still people who don't like to hear swearing in public - it brutalises and cheapens society. Those who swear in print are very likely to do so in public. It is simply a question of not giving a damn about what other people think.

vermentinu

@vermentinu
oh really? am i likely to swear in public? because i swear on the internet? so i guess us godless heathens have no respect for other people simply because we said something on the internet, as if people dont act differently on the internet than in real life. if im around people who i know dont care, then yeah, i swear. and im not talking about just in public, the context of what i was talking about was in all respects because that was your meaning so way to strawman. youre avoiding
the point though. you said you dont retort with "foul language like us because you have self control" you fail to see that you retort even worse though by condescending and insulting those who dont do what you want and then call them "facists" and "foul language" isnt worse than being hypocritical and unfair and subjecting people outside your group to the rules of your group. im pretty sure "fuck" only bothers you because of your beliefs which you clearly imply. youre despicable.
and let me tell you why youre despicable. "those godless gays with their wicked agenda destroyed the uk christian system! those intolerant facists!" but clearly we can derive from this paraphrased quote that given your way, you wouldnt allow gays and you are intolerant of them and are narcissistic in that you think they are out to get you simply because they want equal rights. you sound like you would outlaw them and it was that way. id say thats more facist than wantin equal rights.

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong
"you sound like you would outlaw them..."
Clearly Christians don't all speak with the same voice on the topic of LGBT rights, so MY personal opinion only is that Britain had the balance about right in the 1950's, and that homosexuality should not have been decriminalised in 1967. However, what is clear from numerous testimonies from ex-homosexuals is how God changed them when they become convicted of their sin. Jesus never leaves them tormented in their iniquity.

vermentinu

@vermentinu
ROFL THANKS FOR PROVING ME RIGHT you want it criminalized but you call them the intolderant facists and then you attempt to justify it by saying "but there are ex homos who said god made them better!" yeah well THEY ARE IN YOUR GROUP! you give no evidence of any such thing occurring and you justify YOUR facism by saying some of the people from the group your persecuting were better when they joined your group! but the ones that suicide because you tell them theyre evil dont matter! oh and "jesus never leaves the tormented in their inequity" BULLSHIT! what about the christian missionaries that are out converting people int third world countries? the people in aids infested parts of africa that turn to jesus but dont use condoms because the missionaries told them "its for carnal pleasure which is sinful" so the aids continues to spread easily. theyre starving and dying and they have "jesus" but they sure are being tormented by inequity!

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong
"but the ones that suicide because you tell them theyre evil dont matter!"
Who said anything about telling homosexuals that they are evil? 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). God's wrath against mankind is made clear in Romans 1:21-32. The first work of the Holy Spirit is the conviction of sin. It is an indisputable fact that once a homosexual is convicted of Sin the Holy Spirit works in their lives and changes them.

vermentinu

@vermentinu
gay camps that parents send their gay kids to. gay kids that made fun of for being gay. many of them have committed suicide and another large margin have been brainwashed to delude themselves into thinking that they arent actually gay and that its right to choose to be straight (if there is any choice to it). and again you judge them based on YOUR BELIEFS and act like youre the one in the right. they are still just beliefs. your beliefs give you no jurisdiction over others.

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong
In the UK being gay is virtually compulsory! The point is that even a country like Britain where homosexuals have 'won', most people intuitively know it is unnatural, although it is illegal to say so. Children should have one father and one mother, not two fathers/mothers. The higher rate of suicides, depression and drug taking amongst homosexuals in the UK is not a result of the church, whose influence is negligible.

@JustTrollinAlong
"...and then you call THEM the intolerant facists"
There is proven historical correlation between homosexuality and fascism. I'm more than happy to debate this issue with you if you are minded to do so.

vermentinu

@vermentinu LOL NO youre trying to avoid my point now. you didnt acknowledge my points. you said "but i can prove they are the facists!" are they in favor of criminalizing non gays? are they in favor of criminalizing those who do whats against their beliefs? oh wait they dont have a system if belief. are you doing the above two? YES. they arent persecuting the out group, YOU ARE! my point is that youre being a hypocrite by thinking the same way you accuse them of. AND YOU HAVE YET TO SEE THAT!

JustTrollinAlong

he then responded to somebody else

@TheRealityofNature
""without fully realizing that evolution has done 10x worse"
@1r34kh4v0k is entirely right on this matter because you need to consider the abortion. Last year, Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service carried out 100,000 abortions and were paid some £60million to do so, mainly through the NHS. In total, more than 180,000 abortions are carried out every year. This is atheistic genocide.

vermentinu 19 hours ago

@vermentinu
prove that a fetus is a human life. i dont care about suicide or depression or drug use. there are higher rates of child molestation within the catholic community. does that mean that all catholics are bad? no. and its irrelevant still because you havent demonstrated what would make the criminalization of gays justified. you make a bald assertion about it being unnatural inuitively and that is also irrelevant. who says unnatural is bad? isnt this very computer unnatural? yeah.

JustTrollinAlong 18 hours ago

@JustTrollinAlong
Too many diverse points to deal with in one go - I'll respond separately tomorrow. Cheers.

vermentinu 18 hours ago

 many militant homosexuals are pushing for now. It is a gradual process: start with decriminalisation in 1967 where the age of consent was 21. Then agitate for the AOC to be lowered to 16 in accordance with hetrosexuals: when that fails appeal to Europe and have it forced through despite vehement opposition. The campaign now is for the legalisation of buggery at 12.

vermentinu

@vermentinu militant homosexuals? where is the evidence that shows they are trying to make the age of consent be 12? or "buggery at 12"? show some evidence. i see nothing wrong with making it 16 personally. kids around my age are bound to do it regardless unless they are completely sheltered from the world until adulthood. you say gay leads to facism. wheres your evidence for this?

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong

As I said, it is a gradual process to alter public opinion and to use EU laws to bypass public hostility. The AOC for homosexuals equated to buggery for obvious reasons. The Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (PVND) are one example of those pushing the agenda, as is OutRage! where Peter Tatchell is leading a campage for the homosexual AOC to be lowered to 14. Tatchell defended an academic book called 'boy-love'.

"you say gay leads to facism"

That's not what I said. What I said was: "There is proven historical correlation between homosexuality and fascism", which is not the same thing. The links are indisputable - a good introduction is 'The Pink Swastika - Homosexuality in the Nazi Party'. In fact this issue is quite topical with the recent John Galliano trial.

vermentinu 

@vermentinu

unless he represents the group meaning hes a leader of it. one member pushing for something doesnt mean the entire group is. furthermore, even if that group were pushing for it, it doesnt mean all gays want it or even pushing for it. stop grouping people together.

14 doesnt seem to bad either. not what i would want and its kinda young but thats the age that most sex starts. many kids that age do it. why make it illegal. im not gonna go to some pink swastica crap. there were gay nazis, so what? there are gay communists and gay capitalists. i dont see how they're correlated. you only said "they're pushing for 12!" no you are just making an assertion again. provide the evidence. one person defending a book and pushing for it isnt evidence.

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong

"i dont see how they're correlated."

That's because you've not studied the subject - If you chose to do so, it's hard to argue otherwise. Obviously homosexuals have the same range of political views and anyone else, but that is neither here nor there. The media dare not report studies which show child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis. Dr Judith A. Reisman, PhD is an leading authority.

"it doesnt mean all gays want it or even pushing for it."

The silent majority are an irrelevance to the liberal elite. The UK is an elective dictatorship ultimately governed by Godless, unelected EU bureaucrats. Only 29% of Britons support full EU membership, but we are not allowed to have a referendum. In a BBC poll 84% of the public voted against the AOC being lowered from 16 to 14, but there is no chance that these pressure groups will take any notice of that.

Britain 2011. If I was to approach a Police Officer (assuming I could find one) and say to him: "Excuse me officer, but I disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle and I personally don't agree with the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised homosexuality', then I'm liable to be arrested and charged with being 'homophobic', but if I was a Muslim saying they should be stoned, or a rapper talking about shooting them, it would be 'Islamophobic' or 'racist' to challenge me.

vermentinu

@vermentinu

can you provide link to the pole? you still didnt provide evidence that the aoc is being pushed to be lowered to 12. all you did was say there is a guy from a group whos defending a book and pushing it, and i hardly consider that evidence that there is a homosexual elite in the uk pushing for it. provide evidence of such an elite group, and provide evidence that they are pushing for 12 being the aoc.

Also, please provide evidence of such a law that allows them to arrest you under the pretense of "homophobia" and with the way you have been talking thus far, i would say youre homophobic but i wouldnt arrest you for it.

Also,  im having trouble finding that pedophilia thing occurring more commonly among homosexuals by that reisman girl. please send me a link or something

JustTrollinAlong

@JustTrollinAlong

"Homophobia" is a ridiculously contrived word anyway - see my post to TRofN. A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God - that is just one example. He was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress" which is what I would be charged with if someone took issues with my views. There are innumerable examples of Christian persecution in the UK.

"im having trouble finding that pedophilia thing occurring more commonly among homosexuals by that reisman girl."

CHILD MOLESTATION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT - Steve Baldwin and associated references.

I've already cited some of the pressure groups. Consider that Just one in 100 people in the UK say they are gay or lesbian, the first ever survey of British sexual identity has revealed (the Office for National Statistics (ONS), this is just 1.5% of Britons. The research showed that 95 per cent said they were heterosexual, 1 per cent gay or lesbian, 0.5 per cent bisexual and 0.5 per cent other. These figures are well short of the ones used by pressure groups.

"i would say youre homophobic but i wouldnt arrest you for it."

This ridiculous word is used to mean anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, in which case I suppose I am. However, I certainly don't hate homosexuals - you cannot be a Christian and hate anybody, but that does not mean you have to agree with them and their lifestyle. I'm glad you wouldn't arrest me, but then again the US still has more or less free speech which the UK does not.

vermentinu 

@vermentinu

yeah that is harrassment! if somebody told me i was gonna burn forever if they didnt abide by their beliefs i would be pretty pissed off and alarmed! its downright offensive. that is why i get so angry when i meet new people and they try to convert me because they say i will go to hell. that is harrassment. its a threat! "believe what i do or else you will burn forever when you die!" thats a threat sir, it doesnt matter if your belief, youre still threatening them.  pt 2. so there is no law that prohibits you from asking about homosexuals and i find it incredibly dishonest for you to have said that based on the aforementioned case. if somebody tells me im gonna suffer if i dont do what they want or abide by their beliefs, it doesnt matter what the circumstances of my suffering are, they are still making a threat and just because its part of a religion doesnt make it not a threat so it was harrassment. 

@JustTrollinAlong

"that is why i get so angry when i meet new people and they try to convert me because they say i will go to hell."

That's not the kind outreach that our church does, and I'm sure that applies to most churches. But regardless of that, why get angry if you don't believe hell exists? I get threatened with Islamic hell all the time when debating with Muslims but it doesn't make me angry because I know they are just misguided.

vermentinu 

@vermentinu

i get angry because they are threatening me for not being in their little group. you completely avoided the point. instead of addressing that what the preacher did was harrassment and not the same as the situation you said you would be arrested for, you just asked my something which has no bearing on my point. the paper you linked me to had no sources, anything on there that could be called evidence is circumstantial and from the 90's, and it is completely biased and dishonest.

JustTrollinAlong 

here is the website he gave http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MolestChild-BaldwinS.html

here is a response i found that actually does cite sources
http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

the evolution has done worse thing came from this next argument. i will continue to update this one as it progresses though.

"Evolution is evil! no im not talking about evolution being evil."

so it started when this guy made a comment and it went from there. i interjected in the middle of it and the kid from my "expansion on the 2nd argument" post shut up pretty fast.

Just wanted to stop by and make sure the Christian Cult of Child Murder was still going strong! Good job baby killers, keep praising your middle eastern masters!

LeoWolfComedy 3 days ago

@LeoWolfComedy WHAT!!! Christians don't kill babies. We are AGAINST abortion. It is plain, mortally wrong, and God made everyone for a reason. I'll pray for you!

BuddyChesnut 3 days ago

@BuddyChesnut
Christians might be, but your god slaughters babies left and right. in fact, if you're innocent, and you hang out with a bunch of people who use their free will, and you live in the OT times, you're toast.
your god will burn, drown, or any other of a number of genocides.
Actually, what you're against is not abortion so much, but really just fundamental information. You're told what to think and, since you've been told, you see no reason to question it - fail.

TheRealityofNature 3 days ago

@BuddyChesnut Wrong moron. Yahweh DEMANDED the murder of "Suckling Infants" in 1st Samuel. Your "God" is the God of baby killing! He is the MASTER of late term abortion. You don't even know your own religion.

LeoWolfComedy 3 days ago

@LeoWolfComedy Have you forgotten the "evolutionist's incident" in the early 1900's? You don't even know your own religion!

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
*I* don't know what it is either....
lol - while you're teasing together the shreds of your story of the evolutionists incident into something you regard as a intelligent argument (will it involve declarations of proof for supernatural powers based on newspaper clippings again?), stop by your nearest dictionary and check out "religion" okay mate?
ta.

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature In the early 1900s, evolutionists managed to get a bill passed in America that prohibited marriage and reproduction of "inferior human beings."By inferior, they meant any mentally handicapped, sick, people without an education, and overall people of lesser health-even kids.They forced sterilization of these people against their will and urged all upper class white Americans to reproduce as fast as possible. Their reason for doing so was simple, they had been taught evolution.

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
Well I'd consider that immoral!
isn't it a good thing we don't live in the start of the 21st century any more!?
what other irrelevant andecdotes can you vomit all over youtube?

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature Except the underlying fundamental of evolution these people were acting on is actually the very driving force that you believe to be happening in nature today. So, you believe evolution to be immoral?

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
evolution is a dumb process - it is neither moral nor immoral. to ask is to betray a breathtakingly inadequate understanding of the process.
Hitler also used evolution to validate his Aryan race - I'm surprised you didn't bring that up too.
That people use the discovery of metallurgy to fabricate guns to murder people hardly means "metallurgy is immoral" - what a stupid connection to make.
To validate bigotry on a dumb process is also as stupid connection to make.

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature I brought up Hitler, the Cambodian regimes, the French Revolution, and the Soviet Russia earlier. I was just giving yet another example. To say that evolution is neither a moral nor immoral process gets taken to a whole new level when you start to justify such actions because of that process. It is no longer "a dumb process that is morally neutral."

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
"I brought up Hitler, the Cambodian regimes, the French Revolution, and the Soviet Russia earlier"..
and? are you purporting that these were not driven purely by power?
"To say that evolution is neither a moral nor immoral process..."
erm...
okay.. is the sun rise a moral or immoral process?
yes, I REALLY DO want you to answer this question!

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature No, I was stating that when LeoWolfComedy loves to hop on the bandwagon to point out everything "evil" Christianity has done - he's doing so with a black eye towards evolution. Yes, the sun rise is neither immoral or moral - but you don't see people doing 'morally neutral acts" that include forcing sterilization to those where "the sunlight does not reach."

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
you are.. incredible.
After right before you admitting that it's stupid to label a process as moral, you actually go and do it anyhow.
A process HAPPENS - DEAL with it!. People's sometimes try justify their immorality on observed phenomena - does that mean the phenomena is bad? what? what the fuck are you talking about you moron!?
The fault is the PERSON, not the phenomena!.. holy fucking jesus shit, can you BE more fucking inane?

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature That's exactly the point I was trying to show LoeWolf. He likes to jump on and say "Christianity was the cushion behind these genocides!! Christianity is so bad, oh no Christianity, Woe are Christianis because they're so evil!!" without fully realizing that evolution has done 10x worse.
I think it would make more sense if you honestly just stayed out of debates that you're not in :-)

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
"without fully realizing that evolution has done 10x worse"
you are, my friend, so incredibly stupid, it defies comprehension.
I'll assume that when you write words, you actually don't know what it is you're writing.

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

@TheRealityofNature You have to excuse me, I forgot you were unable to put together an idea if it isn't exactly spelled out in every word in a sequential manner. What I actually meant was that as LeoWolf desperately tries to muster up an argument against Christianity, he blatantly and ignorantly ignores the fact that evolution has been used as a cushion, just as Christianity has, for massive amounts of genocide - some of which are far worse than those that used Christianity.

1r34kh4v0k 2 days ago

@1r34kh4v0k
I understand your point. I know you feel I jumped in on a conversation where you felt Leowolf was slagging on your bigoted, hypocritical faith.
The fact that any observed natural process is used to justify any genocide is not the fault of you, me, your god, or your cat. but it's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
do you expect us to "apologize" for a natural process? excuse it? un-discover it? it matters not at all who uses it for what - IT EXISTS!

TheRealityofNature 2 days ago

i jumped on ireakhavoc here.

@1r34kh4v0k

oh evolution is a dumb process that is amoral. you just argued that it starts to have moral reprucussions when its used to justify "such actions". those are your words. you are therefore necessarily implying that we give morality to things because if something starts out not having any morality and then it gets morality once we use it as an excuse for something, then you are necessarily saying that anything we want can have morality and that we can assign morality to things. lmao

youre saying that it doesnt matter if x is amoral. if we use x to justify actions that have moral reprucussions, the morality of our actions if therefore reflected on x.

so if i take a rock and hit you in the head to beat some sense into you, and i justify it by saying the wrong is senseless so it might cancel out your senselessness, then that therefore makes the rock immoral because my immoral action gives the amoral rock morality.

one word--ridiculous!

JustTrollinAlong 1 day ago

@JustTrollinAlong I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, but all I was saying is that its hugely hypocritical to say "Christianity is evil because of what it has been justified to do" without fully acknowledging the same for evolution.

1r34kh4v0k 23 hours ago

@1r34kh4v0k
it wouldnt be hypocritical even if that were the argument that leo were making. but it isnt and its not hypocritical either. i already refuted your argument that evolution has moral reprucussions. christianity was made by people and evolution was not. evolution is an actual natural process that occurs. christianity is a system of belief, a religion made by people, its not naturally occurring, and it has no empirical or reliable evidence to support it. the two arent the same.

JustTrollinAlong

he then said "all i was trying to say was that christianity isnt evil, it has just been made a cushion for evil things" and he removed his comment a few seconds later and didnt post about it again and here is what i said and the part where he removed his comment.

Comment removed

1r34kh4v0k 1 day ago

@1r34kh4v0k
LOL i love how you removed your comment because you knew you were wrong. you said "To say that evolution is neither a moral nor immoral process gets taken to a whole new level when you start to justify such actions because of that process. It is no longer 'a dumb process that is morally neutral.'" so clearly you werent just trying to show leowolf that "christianity isnt bad, it is just used as a cushion for genocide." and you deleted your comment hoping to not look like a liar.

JustTrollinAlong 23 hours ago

so now you know where vermentinu got the "evolution 10x worse" thing.

i will update this if it progresses but i doubt it will.

"just try it"

this is a short conversation ive had with my friend that i know on xbox. we messaged through facebook.

him:

Hey I read your first blog and it said "God created hell" your argument is good but in the Bible it says he didn't create hell. The fall of Lucifer, thats who made hell. Lucifer(satan) he wanted to be powerful than God so he convinced others angels how this was a good idea. So God didnt like this idea so he kicked them out of heaven which was like 40% of all the angels in heaven. So Satan created hell which the angels that came with him, he renamed them to demons and they try to attack people by tempting them and finding their weaknesses. Which they have done to you. Martin Jesus saves! And he really wants you to come and be in the kingdom of God! Please just trust me this. It's real!

me:

right i know the story. im also thinking this is trevors mom because of the soft tone of speaking in the message, that and trevor isnt this confrontational. anyways i hope you know what youre getting yourself into. i know the story of your theology. i will point out the problems with what youre saying and your theology in general. ive discussed/argued this with somewhere around 120 christians. i know all the counters.
i would first like to note that im an atheist and dont believe any god exists. im strictly speaking within the realm of your theology.

god created hell indirectly or directly. by your message he created it indirectly. if god is omniscient (aka knows everything or is "all-knowing") then he knew satan would rebel. being that hes god, he is also omnipotent or "all-powerful" if one has power over everything then one holds responsibility for everything, this is because if everything is under their wing being that everything came from them. from that i infer god is ultimately responsible for everything. if one has the power to save but doesnt, then they're cruel in my opinion. your counter will be "but god wants to save you! but he gave you free will and you have to choose to let him save you!" i'll counter this since i know you will say it. he gave us free will but he has the power to override it being that he's all powerful. he also knows everything and therefore he knows the future. so he knew from the beginning everything that anybody would ever do and he had control over all of it. he knew everything that he did would ultimately affect what we ever did but he set up the circumstances in such a way that many people would go to hell.

so in semation, he knows and has control over everything, therefore everything is ultimately his responsibility. if i have a soul then it must have come from him because he made everything. from my understanding of your theology, the soul is all your feelings nd thoughts. idk if the mind and soul are responsible or the soul is just the brain after death but regardless, the soul doesnt exist unless god created it and so if he essentially "designed me" then id say hes responsible as well, this is only another evidence im presenting for my argument. lastly if that isnt the case, its proven that people are a product of their genetics and their environment they are raised in. people have no control over either. peoples thoughts and decisions come from their nature and the nature of somebody comes from the above, meaning somebody's nature is the product of things beyond thier control. people arent responsible for what forms their decision making processes and therefore they arent responsible for their decision making processes and therefore people arent truly responsible for the decisions they arrive at.

this only matters with regards to god. people in our society still require punishment because its necessary for our society to function. people must be "held responsible" for their actions. but with god, he essentially lets us suffer for how and where we are born knowing all the things that will ever happen in our life as a result of our genetics and environment or "nature and nurture" and lets it happen. so if i go to hell, then he let me be born with genetics and environment that he knew would ultimately result in my going to hell. and then he lets me go to hell knowing he could have saved me. but he blames me for not doing what he knew i wouldnt do, which is believe an unbelievable story from a 2000 year old book depicting a logically impossible god. the only response to this is "but god is above our human sense of logic" this is silly because the only way i can sensibly assess a claim is with logic and reason, if you claim your religion is true and that your god exists and he wants me to be saved but then say that i shouldnt assess it with logic or reason and should just "believe" then thats absurd because then i have no way of separating your claim from any other. if i should discard logic and reason with a claim just because you say its beyong my logic and reason, then i should believe everything i am told, according to that rationale.

i say the best thing to do with a claim that is said to be "beyond reason and logic" is to ignore it. so when you say god exists and he wants me to be saved, i assess it with logic and reason and your claim seems absurd to me. if you say i shouldnt assess it with logic and reason then i'll ignore you.

hopefully you can see my reasoning behind my disbelief in your god, religion, and theology.

him:

And just one more thing is that it says in isaiah 55:8-9 God is saying this “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,”declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.




me:

yes of course. thats the same thing as saying "you cant use logic and reason to judge my claim that god exists' except you mask it by using a quote from the bible. you: "god exists but dont try to think about it or question it because hes above our thoughts and ways. it says so right here in the bible.




him: 

We can't comprehend His ways because are minds don't have that ability. It makes sense in His mind. Think about it this way. Like I know that your going to school tomorrow but I don't know what choices your going to make. It's like that. I know it's hard to grasp




me:

me: but you havent showed that any god exists so why should i believe you? and how am i supposed to determine whether or not it makes sense if i dont think about it
you: "look it says hes above our thoughts so just believe it and dont question it!"
me: "telling people not to ask questions is a good way to cover up a lie. the truth doesnt fear investigation"




him: 
Just do this for me. If your so sure that he isn't real, turn everything off in your room make it completely silent and ask this question to God (according to you he isn't real so he wont respond so just try it) God if your real show me. Then be completely silent an let your mind go blank and try to listen.
just do it for 10 mins.




me:
my mind cant go blank. i have adhd and bipolar. i have constant racing thoughts. if you believe he will answer then you can easily imagine something popping into your head as an answer. if god answers then it shouldnt require such a process to get him to show hes real. i will do it though. btw im not sure he isnt real, i just dont believe hes real. i will listen for 30 minutes tonight just to be sure. i'll tell you what happens.




him:
Ok thanks dude.


next day.


me:im heading home soon, but i want to say something first. you clearly want to convince me to believe. i understand why you want that. however i think its unfair because i assume you arent willing to stop believing in god where as i am willing to start believing. if this is the case then the conversation is over even though i will still try that thing. you tell me god exists and he loves me. i pointed out how nothing about the thing your claiming is real makes sense in any way. your claimed "god" is logically impossible. i can clearly demonstrate this. your only response is "but hes above our minds". 

that is not in any way a valid response and its actually insulting to me. if i claimed that i will be a god when i die and then you pointed out how thats impossible and then i said "the process of my path to becoming a god is above your mind so anything you say doesnt matter" you would be frustrated that i just said something and then kept it from being proven wrong by saying its immune to criticism.

when you claim something exists that makes no sense and then you say it doesnt matter whether or not we think it makes sense to us because its "above" our understanding of "sense". in order for you to say that and it be valid, you must prove it exists.

your attempt at doing this is to get me to ask something i dont believe exists to show itself. if i asked you to ask my imaginary friend to show you it exists, you would feel silly asking it.

also i would like to say that if i then went a step further and said "now that you believe in him you worship him now right?" the point here being that even if a god does prove his existence to me, i would then hate god because anything that would let people suffer forever is cruel.

i dont care what the circumstances are, nobody and nothing could ever deserve infinite anything, whether it be heaven or hell.

is there anything anybody could ever do to you that would make them suffering forever be justified? now really think about this. imagine the worse thing somebody could ever do to you thats actually possible. imagine how long you have been alive. now, compare that to 100 years. compare 100 to 1,000,000,000. compare 1 million to 1 trillion which is 1,000,000,000,000,000. now think about 1 trillion years, compared to eternity. eternity is infnite. there is numbers that could ever represent it. ITS FOREVER. never ends. imagine your life compared to 1 trillion years and just know that 1 trillion years is literally nothing like mathematically it would represent nothing at all, 0, compared to eternity. most people live to about 70. the highest age recorded is 120. or around there. our lives are finite. the highest punishment somebody has got for a crime is like 200 life sentences. thats like 2,000 years for a crime even though they would die long before that. is gods justice the better justice? i dont think so. i argue that nobody could ever do anything to deserve eternity of ANYTHING. all of my deeds are finite. my life is finite. heaven and hell are apparently infinite. anything we do could never amount to infinity. my life is not even a 0.000000001 compared to infinity. so mathematically, i say that anything eternal is actually infinitely unjust.

i would never ever no matter what think somebody deserves infinite anything. nobody deserves a heaven or a hell. and letting people go to either would be just as cruel as sending them there.
i am not an infinitely loving being. your god apparently is an infinitely loving being. im finitely loving, and yet im loving enough to where i would never let anybody have anything eternal or infinite because they dont deserve it. your god is infinitely loving, and yet he lets us finite beings have eternal things. therefore, i say im more loving than your god. but how does that make sense right? obviously your god is either not infinitely loving, doesnt exist, or is infinitely cruel as well. those are the only 3 possibilities that are logically possible.

you will then say that hes above us. thats a pussy thing to do. you arent acknowledging that what youre offering me makes no sense. youre believing in something that makes no sense. and you saying "hes above us" proves that it makes no sense to you either, but you dont look at it that way because you have been trained not to by people at your church, your parents, and everybody that has taught you your religion. your religion was taught to you. you would not be christian if you were not taught to believe it. if you had some way to make it make sense, then you would offer it. you read my argument and responded because you thought you could make it make sense to me because you saw that it didnt make sense to me. then i showed how it doesnt make sense, you had nothing that would make it make sense, so you said it doesnt have to.

so you offer something that makes no sense to you or i and then disregard it by saying you believe in it even though it makes no sense because within your nonsensical belief, you also belief that it doesnt have to make sense to believe it. but then what separates you from insane people? if you allow yourself to believe something that is nonsensical then you have nothing to separate your belief in god from a belief in an imaginary friend that has become real. and people who believe imaginary friends are real are considered insane unless they are children because children are irrational. but obviously you dont believe everything that doesnt make sense, only that specific belief. so the only real reason you believe it must be that you just want to believe it. and you want to believe it because you were raised to believe it.

thats not a good reason for belief, just because you want to isnt a good reason for anything, ever. and being that you then want to convince me of it, that seems insulting to me that you offer no other reason why i should believe other than you want me to believe.

so instead of believing things just because you want to whether or not they make sense, how about you try to believe things that make sense? i personally think its best to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. and when something doesnt make any sense at all, the usual response should be to not believe it.

i am willing to change my views, and will try asking your "god" today when i get home which should be soon. because i want to believe as many true things as possible. i wont worship your god until i am given good reason why, but that can only come if and after i believe he exists. im willing to investigate even though i have tried many times before when challenged. im willing to change my beliefs because thats the honest way to live, thats the rational way to live, but are you willing to change your beliefs?

if you are not, then you should go back to the dark ages and not try to learn anymore about anything if you dont care about what you believe and arent willing to change. progress is impossible without change me a little later:  i did it and here is what happened. i sat there for about five minutes i think, in the dark with electrical devices off. i began to see a light at first, then a voice spoke to me and told me to open my eyes. i was in heaven and god told me not to be scared. he told me everything would be okay and that i wont have to wory annymore. i have been saved. jk nothing happened after sitting there for like 11 minutes.


him: See your comparing it to logic God isn't logic. And we also don't deserve heaven because we have sinned and he is perfect which is true. And He isn't cruel. He gave us a free will because he didn't want us to be robots. And it's nothing like an imaginary friend go to the book store and get a couple books that is just about heaven and hell. Here are the book titles "Heaven is for real" "30 seconds in hell" "60 minutes in Heaven" and even look on the web dude on all the account how people have experienced God. 

And to just say that he wasn't real where would we go after we die?

Why would I be telling you this if I didn't believe huh? Ya it doesnt sound logically correct but I have experienced God and he showed me the way of like Martin I used to asthma I uses to take this medicine call advair every day and every night I have almost died twice from asthma. I asked God to heal me for about a week and guess what I'm healed! He opened up my lungs. What does science say happened? They can't explain it they say it happens in life. So many scientist don't believe God exist is because it doesn't line up with logic.
And also when you were trying to listen what was going throughout your mind the whole time?

me: i can write a book right now about how i experienced something that isnt real. thats not evidence. anybody can write a book with a seemingly real experience. just because somebody says they experienced something doesnt mean what they experienced was real.

eternity in heavern or hell could never be deserved. he obviously is cruel if hes gonna let me suffer forever simply because i dont believe he exists. thats the most cruel fucking thing i can imagine. dont give me crap about we dont deserve heaven because i already know that and i just said that, we dont deserve hell either. nobody deserves anything eternal. we dont have free will if god exists because he already knows everythng therefore he knows the future and so he knows everything we will ever do even before we are born. how is free will possible if all my actions, decisions, thoughts, everything i will ever do is already known before im even born? i'll tell you, it isnt possible, free will is impossible if all my actions are known.

i dont believe we go anywhere when we die. we go in the ground and stay dead. which means that this life is infinitely more valuable than if we just get another eternal life. besides, eternity is the ultimate torture, after a while everything gets boring i dont care what it is, do it for long enough and it will be boring. eternity would be ultimately a nightmare because eventually everything would be boring, imagine not being able to enjoy anything.

oh yeah wait you will say we are perfectly happy when we go to heaven. well nobody is perfectly happy here so if anybody becomes perfect anything, then it stops being them. if i go to heaven and become perfect, then whatever is in heaven is no longer me. im not perfect and i wouldnt want to be. being imperfect is what makes life worth living. if we were perfect then we would have no room for improvement so heaven sounds worse than hell to me. there may be fire and suffering in hell, but at least i'd still have my humanity.

i had asthma too and i actually used advair as well. thats the thing where you inhale the power after you pull that lever thing which crushes it up right? it might have been different when i was 13. anyway one day my lungs just opened up too, but it was because i started growing and my lungs grew with me, i also started exercising more which helped. no god necessary. you prayed and after a few weeks it was better. thats circumstancial evidence. thats not real evidence. if you were healed the very instant you prayed and there was some cross on your chest then you might have some evidence. science probably cant explain it because you probably didnt go to a proffessional doctor who studies the nervous system. people grow out of really bad asthma all the time. what happened to you wasnt a miracle.

and yeah, people who use logic are the most rational. irrational people are the ones who make irrational decisions. studies show that religion is bad for society altogether. i can look up the actual case study they did over like i think it was 50 years on societies around the globe and the less religious societies were the most productive.
random thoughts were going through my head just like always. my mind was cloudy and "loud" just like it always is. nothing happened. it was kinda dissapointing. i mean i didnt expect anything to happen because i dont think any of that stuff exists but it would have been cool if something happened. like if a being from another dimesnion that just fucked with us by playing "god" contacted me and let me know he trolled everybody all day everyday. i think that would have been funny. but nothing happened. nothing new went through my mind.

him:Try it again today and say God if your real show your self to me then try to really listen and if that doesn't work this discussion is over

me: lol that makes so much sense! "if it doesnt work then the discussion is over" the discussion is already over if thats the case. you just want to convince me that god exists. clearly you wont listen to reason or even try to address any points i make so the discussion is already over.even if a god existed and he proved he was real to me, i would hate him for being such a cruel monster. only a total dick would make it so anybody who doesnt do what he wants gets tortured forever. and only a jealous asshole would care if people that are like insects to him didnt believe in him. im not gonna waste my time again. because even if something did happen, like i said, i wouldnt worship him. im not gonna worship something just for making me because thats a dick thing to do. loving parents dont make their children worship them. your parents dont make you worship them for bringing you into the world do they? would they let you suffer forever if you didnt love them? of course not because theyre still your parents and they still love youy. we are all apparently gods children and yet he clearly displays the behaviour of an abusive parent. "oh your big brother who came before you was good but then he made me mad so now you and all your brothers and sisters that wiill be born must suffer forever if you dont do exactly what i want" but then you will say he forgives, he only forgives once you do what he wants. "yeah i forgive you billy now that you are doing exactly what i want" its like a bully who is willing to be nice if you give him your lunch money. thats no god i would ever want to be with. good talking with you i guess.