It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Ari Rahikkala]

/me bows down before Tacc

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I can't prove that you're not God, I don't believe you are God though, and I have good reasons for that. The best reason is that there are no reasons at all to prove that you are God.

Can you give any argument that support your claim that you're God?

Can you give any argument that supports your claim that the God you believe in exists? If it is a question of the existence of adherents, then clearly Ari is proof that Tacc is indeed God.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I can't prove that you're not God, I don't believe you are God though, and I have good reasons for that. The best reason is that there are no reasons at all to prove that you are God.

Can you give any argument that support your claim that you're God?

That's very similar to the line of reasoning many atheists have to God.

[Robert]

Dear god Tacc,

I must retract my last message. I do actually believe that you exist. I have seen evidence for your existence (eventhough some evil tongues claim that you're only a forum-bot, a script, created by human programmers).

I even believe that you are a god, since a god is in my definition an autonomous being is a god, and I believe that you are autonomous.

I do however not believe that you are the creator of everything, the source of morality, the giver of visions and the performer of miracles. I am truely sorry if you are and I blatantly cast away your claims without factualy evidence. I hope you'll forgive me in that case and let me enter the Kingdom of Tacc anyway. Hmmm, on 2nd thought, I'm not sure yet if I want to enter the kingdom of Tacc. Maybe I don't want to be there, maybe it's not even a good place to be. In fact I don't care since I don't believe it doesn'te exist.

I do reply to you since you address me personally.
If others, fools, would try to convince me that you exist and I should obey you I would most probably laugh at them and ignore them. I would certainly not spend my days on messageboards claiming that you do not exist. The question if you exist or if you're god, the creator of everything, doesn't really bother me at all, neither positive nor negative.

Imagine how foolish it would be if I would not only deny your powers but also waste my time denying your powers all the time. I mean, I'd better spend my time on stuff that really matters. But since you addressed me personally I do want to reply to you, wouldn't you do the same?

Have a good time acting like you're a god.
You're not the only one, btw. I believe that every human considers themselves to be god, the allmighty. That's a part of the problem called 'humanity'. Fortunately for you the real God didn't shy away from making himself human and die as a human and show how a real human should be. How ironic! The wannabe gods are human and fail to be both god and human. The real God became human and proved to be the perfect God and the perfect human.

May I ask you, are you doing a good job, being a god?

Sincerely, CyberShy, a non-believer! Please punish me!

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Dear god Tacc,

I must retract my last message. I do actually believe that you exist. I have seen evidence for your existence (eventhough some evil tongues claim that you're only a forum-bot, a script, created by human programmers).

I even believe that you are a god, since a god is in my definition an autonomous being is a god, and I believe that you are autonomous.

I do however not believe that you are the creator of everything, the source of morality, the giver of visions and the performer of miracles. I am truely sorry if you are and I blatantly cast away your claims without factualy evidence. I hope you'll forgive me in that case and let me enter the Kingdom of Tacc anyway. Hmmm, on 2nd thought, I'm not sure yet if I want to enter the kingdom of Tacc. Maybe I don't want to be there, maybe it's not even a good place to be. In fact I don't care since I don't believe it doesn'te exist.

I do reply to you since you address me personally.
If others, fools, would try to convince me that you exist and I should obey you I would most probably laugh at them and ignore them. I would certainly not spend my days on messageboards claiming that you do not exist. The question if you exist or if you're god, the creator of everything, doesn't really bother me at all, neither positive nor negative.

Imagine how foolish it would be if I would not only deny your powers but also waste my time denying your powers all the time. I mean, I'd better spend my time on stuff that really matters. But since you addressed me personally I do want to reply to you, wouldn't you do the same?

Have a good time acting like you're a god.
You're not the only one, btw. I believe that every human considers themselves to be god, the allmighty. That's a part of the problem called 'humanity'. Fortunately for you the real God didn't shy away from making himself human and die as a human and show how a real human should be. How ironic! The wannabe gods are human and fail to be both god and human. The real God became human and proved to be the perfect God and the perfect human.

May I ask you, are you doing a good job, being a god?

Sincerely, CyberShy, a non-believer! Please punish me!

That was a very drawn-out way of stating you concede the argument.

[Nubclear]

Indeed. I accept your concession and apology

[Perfection]

YAY! We win!

[Nubclear]

The Allied Atheist Alliance

[Robert]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear


Can you give any argument that supports your claim that the God you believe in exists? If it is a question of the existence of adherents, then clearly Ari is proof that Tacc is indeed God.

The question if the God in which I believe (JHWH, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) can be proven rationally is a far more difficult then rationally prove or at least give arguments for the existence of any god(s) or higher being. That's the first thing I must admit. (and I won't shy away from that) (not so cyberSHY )

I do have rational arguments though, but I understand that it's easy to come with counter arguments. And I do also understand that these arguments aren't full proof, but just arguments.

If it comes to proving the existence of JHWH and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, it more or less comes down to see if the Bible has valuable information that can't be considered to achieved through natural means and therefor have to be received through supernatural ways.

1. the current situation in the ME and Israel. The Biblical prophecies regarding Israel have shown to be very accurate and amazing to this day. "Jerusalem being the key problem of the world, a burden stone for many nations on the earth"

2. They key problem of mankind being identified in Genesis 3 to be the desire of man to be the god of their own life, making their own decisions about good and evil. I think Genesis 3 gives a very very good analyses of our problem. And that's pretty good for a text dating from at least 1000 BC.

3. The down to earth character of the early Biblical text, compared to other texts from the same period. The Bible has never tried to explain natural processes by supernatural means. The God of the Bible is not an explanation of nature, like all (polytheistic) religions of it's time. God is not some antropomorhic being, like all gods of the surrounding people.

4. The message of the Bible is not something a human would make up. Humans would come up with either a moral system that supports the originator of the religion (ie. men can have multiple wives) or it would be a religion with strict laws and rituals. Eventhough many christians (and jews) want to make their religion like that, the Bible is totally different. Not to mention that a human religion would include man who can overcome it's problems and gods who would be allmighty and uncomparable with men. The biblical God is not a hero, he suffers. the main human characters of the Bible are not superheroes, they even admit their own faults and mistakes. That's totally different then the main characters in all other religions. Peter, Paul, David, Adam, Moses, they all have huge mistakes in the Bible. Compare that to all ancient myths, there's a total difference.

Once agian, those aren't prove that 'my God' is the 'real god' and that he exists. Those are just arguments that some may consider (more) valid then others.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Tacc
Indeed. I accept your concession and apology

You're really a ***** of a god.
I don't believe in you, I even denounce you, I ask you to punish me, but you accept my apology. Why do you accept it? Most probably because there's nothing else you can do.

You were even incapable to give me a proper response.
Then I wonder, why did you personally address me if it didn't matter at all in the end? Or did you change your mind? That's not really so divine either. Are you some kind of an old fashioned antropomorphic wannabe god who can easily be slain by men?

[Nubclear]

You were even incapable to give me a proper response.

but you didnt actually say anything

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by CyberShy

4. The message of the Bible is not something a human would make up. Humans would come up with either a moral system that supports the originator of the religion (ie. men can have multiple wives) or it would be a religion with strict laws and rituals.

That is exactly what the Bible is. The bible does not forbid a man having multiple wives, and it certainly has many strict laws (Leviticus).

[Robert]

Polygamy is not forbidden explicitly though it's not allowed either, in the Old Testament. It's more being ignored, contrary to many other religions.

And the Bible does have laws indeed, but those laws have a purpose, to learn man something. The laws are not the goal themselves and in the New Testament we're even reached that the real salvation is not in strict laws.
The bible goes through different stept of revelation. The laws of the Old Testament are a first revelation that's needed to explain later, more important revelation. Like telling children to not cross the street, while crossing the street is not the problem itself but the child can't grab the full meaning of the dangours of the street yet.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Tacc

You were even incapable to give me a proper response.

but you didnt actually say anything

I'm sorry if I estimated your intelligence too high.
I was under the impression that a god like you would get my message, but it was apparantly to difficult for you. No problem at all, but another reason for me to not believe in you

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Polygamy is not forbidden explicitly though it's not allowed either, in the Old Testament. It's more being ignored, contrary to many other religions.

And the Bible does have laws indeed, but those laws have a purpose, to learn man something. The laws are not the goal themselves and in the New Testament we're even reached that the real salvation is not in strict laws.
The bible goes through different stept of revelation. The laws of the Old Testament are a first revelation that's needed to explain later, more important revelation. Like telling children to not cross the street, while crossing the street is not the problem itself but the child can't grab the full meaning of the dangours of the street yet.

Actually, it is indeed mentioned in the Bible. If there is no explicit law against it, one assumes that it is allowed, or else most things in the world would be going against God. And many, many people in the Bible had multiple wives.

That doesn't change the fact that the laws in the Bible are numerous and strict, and disobeying them comes with a severe consequence.