I have no problems with it as long he was just using it to say being or entity or similar.
That's great, so fucking what? It doesn't make it less absurd.
Is misquoting me wrong?
How is it? If it were, there would have been no need for Satan to "trick" Eve -- evil would have simply come into play automatically.
Since an external source was needed to bring evil, according to the story, it wasn't at all a part of creation.
People aren't born "evil". Without external influences, there would be no evil now. Evil is learned.
So dishonesty is ok in order to teach. Got it.Oh please where did I make you look bad?
I was doing something any schoolteacher might to help you understand something.
Was not Satan created by God?
So dishonesty is ok in order to teach. Got it.
Do you have a real response now?
See ya.This thread only proves Hitchens was right. The intellectual dishonesty of the theists trying to shift the burden of proof takes so many form. Adnauseam.
Edit: Should consider this thread dead. Nothing to see here, folks.
So was Jesus.
According to the Bible, Jesus was always perfect, and was never "evil".
See ya.
...and?
I agree with Hitch's intelligence and whit, but I've longed stopped watching "debates" about the existence of God.
One person pointed this out to me as to why these debates are ultimately pointless:
Imagine that a rock is floating past Pluto right now...but its too small for us to see using current scientific instruments. Staging debates and "arguments" for and against that possibility does NOTHING to change the objective reality that a rock either is or isn't floating past Pluto at this moment.
I see "debates" about God's existence in a very similar fashion. Good or bad arguments for or against the objective existence/non-existence of God does nothing to alter either reality -- logical/illogical arguments does nothing to change either fact.
...so it goes with debating about God's existence/non-existence.
What do you mean "and"?
Weren't you trying to make the point that evil is the result of creation?
If that were the case, Jesus would have been evil by default, but he wasn't....which supports the point that evil didn't affect perfect creation unless they made the choice.
Free will was total and complete. That's the only way they could willingly obey God. According to the bible, Jesus chose to follow God, debunking the idea that evil was somehow inherent.
This thread only proves Hitchens was right. The intellectual dishonesty of the theists trying to shift the burden of proof takes so many form. Ad nauseam.
Edit: Should consider this thread dead. Nothing to see here, folks.
I have no one on ignore. Sure, stupidity sometimes deserves a non-response, but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis by simply not replying.
It puts my point into context, bruh.
It is moot whether Jesus was not Evil. The very existence of Evil is the problem. A perfect creation could not choose imperfection. Regardless who did it or how they chose it.
That has nothing to do with his point.What you describe is Russell's teapot and was used to display a point that they burden of proof is on the person claiming.
In other words the burden of proving Gods existence is on the person who states it as so and not the burden of the person who says it isnt so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
You're now conflating "evil" (which is learned) with imperfection (which is inherent) -- not the same thing.
Regardless, every single time something's inconvenient for you, it's "moot" -- or in other words, you're simply hand waving counter points.
Meet modern atheism....
Atheists usually want both of those proven to them in one step.1. Evidence of Gods Existence
2. Evidence that if God exists he is anything like they describe with their religion
Again, if a Perfect God makes a Perfect Creation then imperfection is not a possibility. There is no way for the imperfect Evil to exist.
His argument is like saying an infinite God couldn't create a finite universe.No ones talking about "imperfection" other than you, because you recognize the need to save face.
No ones talking about "imperfection" other than you, because you recognize the need to save face.