Quote:
Now, lets move onto the next part. It is true that I use consciousness instead of conscience, but by consciousness, I mean consciousness of evil. In other words, conscience. Now, your law of approximation to eternity sounds cool, but it is retarded. Mankind hasn't existed for eternity. You can misquote all sorts of things from your calculus textbook, but sometimes, common sense just prevails. Second, what you say next is completely idiotic. You say that since man has existed for close to eternity, it approximates to eternity. No atheist believes that. We believe that modern man has existed for a few thousand years, no more. That is not at all close to eternity. There could still have been an eternity of cause and effects, but none of them influenced us or out conscience, because WE WEREN'T AROUND FOR IT. You don't respond to my example of the omniscient robot, so your entire argument falls based on that.
Silly rationalizing. Consciousness is awareness of one's self, surroundings and so forth, even conscience, but you never specified conscience even once to show you had been mistaken and sloppy in reading and now trying to cover up your mistake. Funny. Indeed, it is retarded to shut your mind down to the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, man's existence would have been derived from that past and approximated within it to approach an infinity for our purposes. There is no way around this for you to escape this common sense. Using your own words, you are being idiotic, again, shutting your mind down to proper thinking. Whether man came into existence yesterday or 10 million or 10 billion years ago makes no difference; for, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects man yet still would have existed from that past of approximating to eternity and no longer still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience. And God is not an omniscient Robot. It is His prerogative to choose when to create and input His redemptive design in His appropriate time span before the new city and new earth is attained all of which is done righteously according to His good will and nature. All you are doing is manifesting your hostility towards Him without just cause. That is why Hell exists. God accounts for those who reject His mercy towards your corrupted nature. You can't be annihilated because you are made in His image, so you will be resurrected for Hell. How sad for you.
Quote:
But let's move on to the next part, Step 3. You accuse me of attacking qualities that are not God's own. And yet, I provide you with numerous examples of what god did and said, and they are his own. Your only response to what they did is that "they were killing their children as sacrifices." Now, obviously, they didn't kill all their children. Some of them had to live for the race to continue, and they must have known that. So, what your god decided to do was to kill EVERY ONE of them. Instead of only killing those who were guilty, he decided to kill all of them, even the babes who were to be slaughtered anyway, and those who weren't. What a dick. And yes, I found no fault with any of the 66 books of the Bible. Besides, of course, the disgusting examples of bigotry, hatred and intolerance condoned by your dickhead of a god. And, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, the obvious fallacy with Noah's Ark. Now, the next line is the part that really gets me. With religion, everything has to be perfect. All the things which you believe, down to the last syllable, must be true. After all, they are supposed to be God's word, are they not? So, in other words, if just one thing is found to be wrong, you have to throw it out, because then you know it is not the word of a perfect god. You pretty much accept that Noah's ark is bullcrap, because you don't really make any kind of a challenge to it. Therefore, everything ought to be thrown out.
I did not say you attacked God with qualities that are not His own, but rather that is the point of Step 3 not to make that mistake which so many do.
Quote:
Second, the minimal facts argument is faulty at best, because of the nature of religion, which I just described to you. However, you are using it wrong. You go right from dismissing Noah's Ark to assuming that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact. You know nothing of the sort. That is, unless you can prove why he is better than these gods: Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Agasaya, Athtart, Baal, Baku, Brahma, Camalus, Chac, Ea, El, Emma-o, Eos, Frigg, Gaia, Gu, Hai, Hoderi, Ibis, Jord, Kane, Kapo, Kari, Ki, Kojin, Lares, Maeve, Marduk, Manua, Maui, Maya, Miro, Mixcoatl, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanaja, Neith, Nott, Ops, Oro, Pales, Phoebe, Ra, Rhea, Septu, Seth, Seti, Shu, Sif, Valkyries, and Yu-huang, to name a few. And even if you do manage to prove that he is a more virtuous or loving god than any of the other gods out there, you still need to explain why that proves his existence. A more desirable myth is by no means a true one. Any god who is said to have powers of creation is just as easily a creator of this world as yours is.
You are the one mentioning Noah's Ark. I am just responding to you and also telling you that the MFA is the key, not all the periphery items you bring up. Jesus is telling us MFA is the key, so we hinge His authority and power on His proof of His resurrection. Only Jesus entered into creation and atoned for the sins of the world by His death and showed the power of His resurrection fully documenting it. Nobody is more well documented in antiquity than is Jesus so you can't contend against the historical Jesus on that basis. You will have to try another tactic, though I am sure you will fail there also. By comparison you can Jesus is the One and Only Uncreated Creator.