atheris you are just attacking the sentient god
Actually, Atheris only ever attacks the Old Testament God.
why is that
Isn’t Old Testament God the same God as the God in the New Testament? Oh wait, there are bible passages which support the idea of God being both, changing and unchanging, so we can choose to believe whatever we like, really 
Which is exactly the problem I have with bible and why I say the best disproof of the bible is the bible itself.
Big target, easy to hit.
The OT God had human characteristics : emotions, weaknesses, flaws. He was later idealized as the perfect omni-God.
Okay, you a problem with the Bible. So stop writing ‘theist’ or ‘theism’ when you are really only discussing the Bible God.
If a theist said that he worshiped an evil god so that his suffering would be reduced … you would not have an argument against that. Would you?
That would be titling at windmills thinking they are dragons.
Atheris is not attacking “God” because you cannot attack a thing which is not evident. He is attacking an idea; a stupid idea.
What other gods are there?
Typical goalpost changing theist.
He’ll be telling atheist next that they are ‘believers’, next.
What god is an atheist supposed to ‘believe’ does not exist today?
I’m talking to Atheris about what he tends to do. Feel free to stay out of it.
And please don’t put words into my mouth. Thanks in advance.
You are guilty of trying to tell atheist that they have faith and belief.
Please quote where I said that.
That’s not careful study of the text, which I said is necessary to decide whether the concepts presented are meaningful or not. This, among other things, requires understanding context. All these lists are doing is picking out statements from here and there and saying “See?! INCONSISTENT!” Like some kind of cheap political ad…
Is that what you want your atheism to be? Cheap political advertising that does no real justice to your opponents position?
Come on, if you want to be taken seriously, then pick a serious inconsistency and develop it contextually.
Even reading over this un-thoughtful list I can easily think of a coherent concept of God to cover all the points made. i.e., God is peaceful, God is warlike. Fine. Both can be true. I, for instance, can be both peaceful and warlike and still be a consistent character. Again, CONTEXT MATTERS.
No, you can’t be both at the same time.
Being warlike means you prefer the state of war.
Being peaceful means you prefer the state of peace.
State of peace and state of war mutually exclude each other. Therefore, you can’t be both warlike and peaceful.
I don’t think the concept of theistic God alone (without any specific monotheistic religion adding traits to it) is contradictory, if that’s what you’re going at.
The only problem I have with such a God is lack of evidence when evidence should be obvious and being counter-intuitive.
You said it to me when in a previous incarnation.
This is a ridiculous line of argument to take when the panoply of different Christians cults from Catholicism, through the endless list of Protestantisms, to the Mormons can agree and are themselves hung up on a range of contradictions and inconsistencies.
You guys can’t even decide if Jesus was god, human or somewhere in between.
Nor can you decide what happens when you die; three versions
- Good go to heaven; Sinners to hell for torture.
- Good go to Heaven; SInners just die.
- Everyone goes to heaven.
Context is irrelevant, because in all three cases the context is death
Okay, so this thread is not about theism/atheism, but rather about the behavior of some theists.
Let me ask you this :
You used the POE to argue against a particular omniGod. Could it be used to argue for a particular God?
IOW, could the existence of evil in the world be considered evidence for an evil God?
Well those are pretty strict definitions. Did you pull those from a dictionary? What makes you think that was the meaning of the words as used in the texts cited? These sound like big assumptions to me. Pretty sure you said you would prefer to enter into reading with an open mind and 0 assumptions…
Being aware of the meaning of a word is an assumption? If so, that’s one assumption that we can’t get rid of while try to objectively evaluate a text.
Or am I supposed to try and define words outside of what they actually mean just to try and avoid an otherwise apparent contradiction? That would be dishonest.
And you said “Did you pull those from a dictionary?” as if you were going to say “Did you pull these from your ass?”, making me think that you have an aversion to dictionaries and objective definitions of words, am I right?