advocate666: Reyginus IQ as a christian : 48
Reyginus IQ as an atheist : 92


Guy you almost doubled your IQ just by pretending. Please don't go back.

Obi onye ara!! Leave me alone o!

thehomer:

So God is a delusion, a mental construct. Good. How about the Holy Spirit? Is it also God?

It is a distinct portion of the delusionary god. When the delusionary god supplies the placebo he is supplying the holy spirit. Like a fictional doctor offering through a nurse(Jesus) drugs(holy spitlrit) to administer on an in-patient.

advocate666: Reyginus IQ as a christian : 48
Reyginus IQ as an atheist : 92


Guy you almost doubled your IQ just by pretending. Please don't go back.

lol.......there should be a before and after commercial for religion


-before; he was a creatard, believed in witches and wizards
-now; he is teaching kids about evolution, he is good at logic, he reads science journals and is up to date on world politics

Logicboy03:


lol.......there should be a before and after commercial for religion


-before; he was a creatard, believed in witches and wizards
-now; he is teaching kids about evolution, he is good at logic, he reads science journals and is up to date on world politics

Lololol. You got jokes

Silly atheist, science is not complete. There are people, for instance, that point out virtual particles can be explained without invoking "nothing", they are simply caused by ripples in other fields, and they even have formulas etc which account for them.

Like this guy

Strassler:

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

.......

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a photon. It isn’t a ripple moving at the speed of light; in general isn’t a ripple at all, and certainly it is under no obligation to move at any one speed. That said, it is not at all mysterious; it is something whose details, if we know the initial motions of the electrons, can be calculated easily. Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell us about how these disturbances work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee that if nature can have photons, it can have these disturbances too. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of disturbance, whose details can vary widely, was given the name “virtual particle” for historical reasons, which makes it sound both more mysterious, and more particle-like, than is necessary. [Students of math and physics will recognize real photons as solutions of a wave equation, and virtual photons as related to the Green function associated with this equation.]

Everything is field, field is everything. Even, obviously, what we call 'space'

So, can something come from nothing?

Reyginus: It is a distinct portion of the delusionary god. When the delusionary god supplies the placebo he is supplying the holy spirit. Like a fictional doctor offering through a nurse(Jesus) drugs(holy spitlrit) to administer on an in-patient.

Nothing as sweet as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on a Sunday morning.

How would you describe the Bible?

thehomer:

Nothing as sweet as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on a Sunday morning.

How would you describe the Bible?

The lines are becoming blurry here.

texanomaly:

The lines are becoming blurry here.

What do you mean?

wiegraf: Silly atheist, science is not complete. There are people, for instance, that point out virtual particles can be explained without invoking "nothing", they are simply caused by ripples in other fields, and they even have formulas etc which account for them.

Like this guy



Everything is field, field is everything. Even, obviously, what we call 'space'

So, can something come from nothing?

I will address this. But what do you think of my response to your first poser.

thehomer:

Nothing as sweet as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit on a Sunday morning.

How would you describe the Bible?

Fiction. Stop trying to kill the fun.

Reyginus: Fiction. Stop trying to kill the fun.

@thehomer

This is what I mean

Reyginus: Fiction. Stop trying to kill the fun.

How is it killing the fun to actually make you - someone who volunteered to be an atheist - to actually try to walk in the shoes of an atheist? If you're going to voluntarily represent a position, you should be ready to totally live it. It is in fact one of the reasons why someone like me cannot be an actor.

Since the Bible is fiction, according to the fictional account, who would you say was the worse character? God or the devil?

By the way, what do you think about this form of Satanism?

You see, some of us take this atheist movement seriously so I would like to take you seriously as an atheist while I have you here.

Edit: Looks like you're discovering that it isn't easy to just drop early indoctrination and switch.

texanomaly:

@thehomer

This what I mean

I'm trying to take him seriously. I'm an atheist and would happily blaspheme. If he wants to be an atheist, he should be ready to do that too let's say as his sign of seriousness in the role.

If I wanted to pretend to be a Christian, I could also post a prayer accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour and talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. But then, I'm not the one on the hot seat.

thehomer:

I'm trying to take him seriously. I'm an atheist and would happily blaspheme. If he wants to be an atheist, he should be ready to do that too let's say as his sign of seriousness in the role.

If I wanted to pretend to be a Christian, I could also post a prayer accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour and talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. But then, I'm not the one on the hot seat.

Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you.

Carl Sandburg

texanomaly:

Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you.

Carl Sandburg

I'd say money is the coin of my life i.e money is money in my life. It can fluctuate. Time is let's say evenly spaced. If I need more of it in the future, I won't be able to borrow from the past and frankly this is what I'd rather be doing now while watching the television. When it's time to focus on my work, I do that too.

thehomer:

How is it killing the fun to actually make you - someone who volunteered to be an atheist - to actually try to walk in the shoes of an atheist? If you're going to voluntarily represent a position, you should be ready to totally live it. It is in fact one of the reasons why someone like me cannot be an actor.

Since the Bible is fiction, according to the fictional account, who would you say was the worse character? God or the devil?

By the way, what do you think about this form of Satanism?

You see, some of us take this atheist movement seriously so I would like to take you seriously as an atheist while I have you here.

Edit: Looks like you're discovering that it isn't easy to just drop early indoctrination and switch.

In that fictionary story, I think the devil was the worst character.
Yahweh wasn't a character so pleasing in any way but greater portion of evil eas attributted to the devil. You can blame it on the writers.

After skimming through through the link I came to the conclusion that what Anton was suggesting is a marriage of Ethical Relativism and Pantheism, though incomplete.

I have a big problem with Ethical Personal Relativism. If the reason for my actions is always to satisfy myself, even if takes destroying the lifes of others and the environment, then I cannot be regarded as a responsible being. One has to be responsible for both himself and his environment if he is to live the good life.

Another thing is, why the title? Why should an organization established for the propagation of any good use a name that exists only in a corrupt fictional book? What was the intent? They can only be pardoned if the name was used initially to identify a good product.

Anyway reyginus, you can never be a good atheist until you accept Satan in your life.

advocate666: Anyway reyginus, you can never be a good atheist until you accept Satan in your life.

sHARRAP

advocate666: Anyway reyginus, you can never be a good atheist until you accept Satan in your life.

Lol. I think that is a logical cobtradiction. I cannot be an unbeliever in deities by believing in another deity.

Reyginus: In that fictionary story, I think the devil was the worst character.
Yahweh wasn't a character so pleasing in any way but greater portion of evil eas attributted to the devil. You can blame it on the writers.

Yes evil was attributed to the devil but my question was "who had the worse character"? e.g the devil never commanded genocide but Yahweh did. Yahweh was willing to kill 42 children because they were mocking a bald man. He was willing to test someone by asking them to murder their own child and doing nothing when one man actually did murder his daughter. Then there was the case of Job.

Looking at all this, why do you think that the devil was the worse character? What did he do that was so bad?

Reyginus:
After skimming through through the link I came to the conclusion that what Anton was suggesting is a marriage of Ethical Relativism and Pantheism, though incomplete.

I have a big problem with Ethical Personal Relativism. If the reason for my actions is always to satisfy myself, even if takes destroying the lifes of others and the environment, then I cannot be regarded as a responsible being. One has to be responsible for both himself and his environment if he is to live the good life.

Another thing is, why the title? Why should an organization established for the propagation of any good use a name that exists only in a corrupt fictional book? What was the intent? They can only be pardoned if the name was used initially to identify a good product.

Okay. Just so that we're clear that these Satanists aren't associated with the Satan in the fictional book of the Bible. Maybe the Satan of the fictional bible was a good product or at least better than his fictional counterpart.

thehomer:

Yes evil was attributed to the devil but my question was "who had the worse character"? e.g the devil never commanded genocide but Yahweh did. Yahweh was willing to kill 42 children because they were mocking a bald man. He was willing to test someone by asking them to murder their own child and doing nothing when one man actually did murder his daughter. Then there was the case of Job.

Looking at all this, why do you think that the devil was the worse character? What did he do that was so bad?

I think your post is in a way tempting me to make the wrong assumption that we know better than the fictional writer himself.

One thing is certain. If the writer of the series claimed the devil is the worst of characters in his book, even when what he has showned us reflects the opposite, we can only debate it if we can follow him to the end of the series.
The end of the series here should be the book of Revelation.
Notice how everything was turned on the devil at the end, how he failed to mention the atrocities committed by god in the past, the accusations labelled on the devil and the punishment that followed. That I think should be our basis for determining the worst.

thehomer:


Okay. Just so that we're clear that these Satanists aren't associated with the Satan in the fictional book of the Bible. Maybe the Satan of the fictional bible was a good product or at least better than his fictional counterpart.

You are twisting the novel now. The writer potrays the devil to be otherwise and I think it would be logical to follow him.
Just like when you tell me a beautiful story of how one man tormented a particular sect for following another man, because he feels the man they are following is very bad. You have the right to paint him as bad as you want him to be by narrating the evil the good man is certain the evil one is capable of. To assume the opposite requires my changing the story.

advocate666: Anyway reyginus, you can never be a good atheist until you accept Satan in your life.

. Been laughing all day

Reyginus: I think your post is in a way tempting me to make the wrong assumption that we know better than the fictional writer himself.

Who would you say is the fictional writer?

Reyginus:
One thing is certain. If the writer of the series claimed the devil is the worst of characters in his book, even when what he has showned us reflects the opposite, we can only debate it if we can follow him to the end of the series.
The end of the series here should be the book of Revelation.
Notice how everything was turned on the devil at the end, how he failed to mention the atrocities committed by god in the past, the accusations labelled on the devil and the punishment that followed. That I think should be our basis for determining the worst.

Sorry but it looks like you're giving a dog a bad name to hang it. What he has shown us doesn't reflect the opposite. Who was responsible in the examples I presented? You didn't answer but instead ignored it to talk about the book of revelation. Simply turning around and blaming the devil for everything in the end would be like turning around and blaming everything in the end on Harry Potter as being the real bad guy in the book series. Simply accusing someone of a crime doesn't make them guilty. Why not actually take a look at the accusations and try to assess where the guild lies? That was why I listed examples for you. Why don't you address them and if you like, present the devil doing worse things than commanding genocides and testing people by asking them to kill their children.

Reyginus:
You are twisting the novel now. The writer potrays the devil to be otherwise and I think it would be logical to follow him.
Just like when you tell me a beautiful story of how one man tormented a particular sect for following another man, because he feels the man they are following is very bad. You have the right to paint him as bad as you want him to be by narrating the evil the good man is certain the evil one breeds.

No, the writer doesn't portray the devil like that. The writer says what I pointed out to you that Yahweh did. You can help by saying what the devil has actually done. Not what you think he will do or what someone accused him of doing but what he actually did.

thehomer:

Who would you say is the fictional writer?

How would I know when it wasn't written on its cover.

thehomer:

Sorry but it looks like you're giving a dog a bad name to hang it. What he has shown us doesn't reflect the opposite. Who was responsible in the examples I presented? You didn't answer but instead ignored it to talk about the book of revelation. Simply turning around and blaming the devil for everything in the end would be like turning around and blaming everything in the end on Harry Potter as being the real bad guy in the book series. Simply accusing someone of a crime doesn't make them guilty. Why not actually take a look at the accusations and try to assess where the guild lies? That was why I listed examples for you. Why don't you address them and if you like, present the devil doing worse things than commanding genocides and testing people by asking them to kill their children.

Lol. Now you are treating the work of fiction like some serious manuscript whose relevance cuts across the entire human race.

This is still fiction we are talking about, bro. I don't think there is anything to analyze if at the end of a fictional novel a writer decides to invoke some spiritual signifance, which he tries in some portions of the novel, to relate to the reader that he cannot understand because it is just the way things work here.

To decide this, do you agree or disagree that the writer determines what to make of a novel?
If you answer that, then kindly tell me who the writer of the bible

thehomer:

No, the writer doesn't portray the devil like that. The writer says what I pointed out to you that Yahweh did. You can help by saying what the devil has actually done. Not what you think he will do or what someone accused him of doing but what he actually did.

We know this is not true. To determine what any story is trying to pass across, that is, to know who the hero is we must follow it to its end. In this case, the end vindicated god and humiliated the devil. C'mon, there is no way the devil could have been the hero.

Nice work, Reyginus. I'm really impressed with this.

cyrexx: Nice work, Reyginus. I'm really impressed with this.

Ooooh! I'm too scared to say thank you.

Reyginus: I will address this. But what do you think of my response to your first poser.

It was useless, that's why I asked again.

And I do not speak of yahweh, I invoke him only when I want to mock you, fool. Even with all the computing power in the universe, it would be impossible to make yahweh look reasonable. You cannot divide by zero. So I speak of PIKKIWOKKI, sometimes called GOD??!!, the everything that is the ultimate sum of nothingnesseseses. He doesn't really care what you call him though, He's certainly not as vain as yahweh.

So, the question still stands


And on random related notes

I am omniscient, can I know everything?

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around, does it make a sound?

Reyginus: How would I know when it wasn't written on its cover.

Okay. So you don't know who wrote the book.

Reyginus:
Lol. Now you are treating the work of fiction like some serious manuscript whose relevance cuts across the entire human race.

Some people take it that way so I wanted to find out what you actually thought about it. All I see you doing is trying to avoid giving a direct answer.

Reyginus:
This is still fiction we are talking about, bro. I don't think there is anything to analyze if at the end of a fictional novel a writer decides to invoke some spiritual signifance, which he tries in some portions of the novel, to relate to the reader that he cannot understand because it is just the way things work here.

Some take it as being more than fiction that is why I'm trying to find out what your opinion of the characters is.

Reyginus:
To decide this, do you agree or disagree that the writer determines what to make of a novel?

Not if it wasn't written by a single person. Secondly, I'm asking you not for what the entire fictional book means, but what you think about the characters portrayed in it. So far, you're running from giving an answer.

Reyginus:
If you answer that, then kindly tell me who the writer of the bible

The Bible is a compilation written by lots of different people and compiled by another group of people. Many of them unknown.

Reyginus:
We know this is not true. To determine what any story is trying to pass across, that is, to know who the hero is we must follow it to its end. In this case, the end vindicated god and humiliated the devil. C'mon, there is no way the devil could have been the hero.

[/quote]

Again, I'm not asking for whether or not the devil was the hero, I'm asking about the characters of Yahweh and the devil as presented in the book. My question again was:

thehomer:
Since the Bible is fiction, according to the fictional account, who would you say was the worse character? God or the devil?

So far, you've not given an answer and ignored the evidence I presented.

wiegraf:

It was useless, that's why I asked again.

And I do not speak of yahweh, I invoke him only when I want to mock you, fool. Even with all the computing power in the universe, it would be impossible to make yahweh look reasonable. You cannot divide by zero. So I speak of PIKKIWOKKI, sometimes called GOD??!!, the everything that is the ultimate sum of nothingnesseseses. He doesn't really care what you call him though, He's certainly not as vain as yahweh.

So, the question still stands


And on random related notes

I am omniscient, can I know everything?

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around, does it make a sound?

Lololololol.
Something is wrong with you, seriously. Like i've given you license to insult me. On a serious note, I think if anything is wrong with my post the best thing you can do is to break down in units, pointing out to me why you consider a portion of it silly.

If you are omniscient then you can know everything.

Yes. It makes a sound.

thehomer:

Okay. So you don't know who wrote the book.



Some people take it that way so I wanted to find out what you actually thought about it. All I see you doing is trying to avoid giving a direct answer.

It is not my fault if you don't consider my answer direct.
I wonder the kind of answer you would prefer. If you are expecting me to read a new meaning into it, I am sorry to dissapoiny you.

thehomer:


Not if it wasn't written by a single person. Secondly, I'm asking you not for what the entire fictional book means, but what you think about the characters portrayed in it. So far, you're running from giving an answer.

You are becoming mischievious about the whole thing. This is really unimpressive. You accuse me of neglect when you have refused to look into what is being said. I think it should be the other way round. I don't want to be moving in circles. Or is it the PhD syndrome.

This is a simple logic. The devil was potrayed as an evil character in the bible and he can never be anything different. If you are really following you'd understand that you can never distinguish the attitude of a character in a novel from what the writer would have it to mean and still be saying the same thing.
And please stop accusing me of not providing answers when you've not done so well yourself in understanding my posts.

[/quote]

Reyginus: It is not my fault if you don't consider my answer direct.
I wonder the kind of answer you would prefer. If you are expecting me to read a new meaning into it, I am sorry to dissapoiny you.

I expected you say X was a worse character because according to the book, he did a, b, c, and d. Where a, b, c and d are terrible acts that are worse than what the other character Y did.

Reyginus:
You are becoming mischievious about the whole thing. This is really unimpressive. You accuse me of neglect when you have refused to look into what is being said. I think it should be the other way round. I don't want to be moving in circles. Or is it the PhD syndrome.

I've read what you said but so far, I've not seen you directly answer the simply phrased question. You're the one squirming because you've suddenly become unable to answer direct questions.

Reyginus:
This is a simple logic. The devil was potrayed as an evil character in the bible and he can never be anything different. If you are really following you'd understand that you can never distinguish the attitude of a character in a novel from what the writer would have it to mean and still be saying the same thing.
And please stop accusing me of not providing answers when you've not done so well yourself in understanding my posts.

You say the devil was portrayed as an evil character. I disagreed with examples and told you that accusing someone of being evil is different from showing that someone was actually evil based on the information you were given. I'm asking you to look at the information given about the characters of Yahweh and the devil and based on that available information with examples, form a conclusion on whose character was worse.

thehomer:

I expected you say X was a worse character because according to the book, he did a, b, c, and d. Where a, b, c and d are terrible acts that are worse than what the other character Y did.

Is that we what you want? I don't need a thousand example to proof that the devil was worse.
It will require us writing almost the entire bible here. And even with that, from the look of things, you will still not be satisfied.
The fact that the bible is interpreted to mean 'the word of God' should summarize it to any unbiased person. It cannot in any way proof that the devil is right at all. Where it seemed god committed evil it was attributed one way of the other to destroy the work of the devil.

thehomer:

I've read what you said but so far, I've not seen you directly answer the simply phrased question. You're the one squirming because you've suddenly become unable to answer direct questions.

No. I think it is the other way round. I wonder how anyone can evrn come up with the statement that the devil appeared better in the bible.

thehomer:


I'm asking you to look at the information given about the characters of Yahweh and the devil and based on that available information with examples, form a conclusion on whose character was worse.

You are still missing the point. Everything, whether unjust acts, committed by Yahweh was performed to eradicate the work of devil.

The fact that he uses evil to achieve good is usually as explained by the novel to curb the power of the devil.
This is commonsense.

Whichever way the protagonist in a novel uses to achieve his purpose, he can never be worse than the antagonist.
This is commom knowledge naw!