JimR says:

Alfred! Alfred! Don’t leave yet… If you believe in fairies clap your hands.
Tink just drank Peter’s poisoned medicine!

… Thanks qb, scripture from the book of Peter Pan always lifts my spirits.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

JimR & qb, should these American soldiers in the video who are handing out Bibles to people in Afghanistan also be directed to distribute translated copies of Peter Pan?

God tells me it’s the fair and balanced thing to do.

Kanga bill says:

Which god does ‘Looking4Truth’ et al refer to? The muslim god, the christian god, the hindu god, the buddhist god, the jewish god or some other deity?
They are all just figments of these Dick-Heads imaginations.
Grow-up and start thinking for yourselves, and don’t be led by these snake-oil salesman!

qb says:

#65 Looking4Truth. Think of two situations. One, you have a dollar in your pocket. Second, you imagine that you have a dollar in your pocket. In both cases, the “concept of dollar” is the same, but the existence is not.

The concept of God exists (we’re debating it, eh?). The concept does not necessitate the existence, quite the opposite. All things being equal (and I think that’s what you’re arguing), then God does not exist. The “concept of God” is not weakened by the lack of it’s existence – however it doesn’t even come close to making it necessary.

The arguments that an orderly universe requires a thoughtful creator, or that we see movement and effects around us so there must be a prime mover – both really rest on the above argument.

The moral creator argument is better. We tend to live virtuous lives and seek a higher good. This, to my mind, a stronger argument that God should exist. However, the counter argument is that this is simply a demonstration of practical reason. We survive better individually and as a species if we co-operate and live good lives. Occam’s razor is applied and the counter argument wins. What this means is that morality on it’s own has no need of religion.

So usually it falls back to uncertainty coupled with faith to seal the deal. Personally I find that insufficient but a belief system made from pure faith is something I can’t argue against and, believe it or not, I personally respect. However, most believers who want to argue the existence question (e.g. faith based science) forget that the burden of proof lies with them, and not the atheist.

Hyperkinetic says:

“Hey, Alfred1, if it makes you feel any better, I wish the Rapture had been yesterday.”

Me too. We’d finally be rid of all those annoying, self-righteous christians.

Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

Jesus hates Muslin, prefers polyester.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#58 Alfie Ralfie Malfie,

if you want to prove Christianity is as dangerous as Islam…tell them what you really think about Allah…be sure to leave your correct address…

I blog anonymously for a reason. Radical Muslims aren’t the only reason. Radical Christians scare the hell out of me too.

If they only pray God show the truth (Christ ) to you…then you proved your point.

You are such a fantastic complete and utter ass that you can’t even say truth without the assumption that truth is Christ. By what argument do you assume so? Because a fictional character said so? How could you possibly know that Allah is not the truth? Nor Zeus. Nor Odin. All have the same evidence to back them up.

If I have time…I will respond…to rational questions…

Malfie, you wouldn’t know a rational question if it bit you on the nose. And, you sure as hell wouldn’t have a clue how to respond rationally.

Paddy-O says:

# 77 billabong said, “Get these morons out of the military.The whole “I kill for Jesus crowd” scares the shit out of me.”

Why don’t you sign up and ask one of them to leave?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#65 – Looking4Truth,

#63 Can you prove that God doesn’t exist?

First, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Provide at least some evidence of god. There is none.

Second, the best argument for god is that the universe exists so someone must have created it.

This fails for at least two reasons:

1) Quantum mechanics denies such cause and effect. Things pop in and out of existence all the time at the quantum level. The universe at the time of the big bang was in a quantum state, so could have popped into existence perfectly in line with one of our most proven scientific theories.

2) If god is required to create the universe, then a god god must be required to create god. And, a god god god must be required to create the god god. And so on. The hypothesis flies right up its own asshole in endless recursion.

The god hypothesis fails for being a logical impossibility.