Originally posted by josephw
Your post reveals two moronic conclusions. #1. It isn't 'our' construct. #2. One can pretend to invent a deity and even go so far as to believe it exists, but we didn't invent God.

All your objections to the existence of God are without merit and/or a shred of evidence, and are subjective, based on emotion rather than intellectual objectivity.

It is wi ...[text shortened]... since there is no objectively identifiable evidence for the non existence of a creator/God.

It is your construct; you take the position that no one can know whether there is or isn't something beyond our natural perception; and conclude that the thicko "God" your 2000 year since dead ancesters first thought of - augmented by your own sloppy thinking - actually exists!

You might as well say that the 5 number lottery ticket you paid for with 6 months wages is definitely going to be that which wins the next 6 ball lottery!

Originally posted by josephw
He or she, God wouldn't like me. Why should He/she?

So I gave you my honest answer. Do you have one?

The answer is undetermined since we are talking about man made inventions. Man made bibles, man made religions for the express purpose of controlling men, subjugating women, and building empires. Your religion succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of your so-called Saint Paul. BTW, it should by rights be called Paulism, not Christianity.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is your construct; you take the position that no one can know whether there is or isn't something beyond our natural perception; and conclude that the thicko "God" your 2000 year since dead ancesters first thought of - augmented by your own sloppy thinking - actually exists!

You might as well say that the 5 number lottery ticket you paid for with 6 months wages is definitely going to be that which wins the next 6 ball lottery!

"...you take the position that no one can know whether there is or isn't something beyond our natural perception;"

I do not take that position. Whatever gave you that idea?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The answer is undetermined since we are talking about man made inventions. Man made bibles, man made religions for the express purpose of controlling men, subjugating women, and building empires. Your religion succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of your so-called Saint Paul. BTW, it should by rights be called Paulism, not Christianity.

You say God is an invention. Why should I believe you? You're just a man! Maybe you made it up that man invented God. At the very least you believe what other men say.

I don't.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]You say God is an invention. Why should I believe you? You're just a man! Maybe you made it up that man invented God. At the very least you believe what other men say.

I don't.[/b]

but you do.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
but you do.

Prove it!

Originally posted by josephw
Prove it!

We don't have to prove anything. You take all that religious BS on faith. When was the last time your god came down to you and said, Hey JW, howzit goin?

You can blubber on and on about how the bible is 'gods' word but that is just the 2000 year old scam still working to delude you and a few billion other poor folks who believe in the tooth fairy.

Originally posted by sonhouse
We don't have to prove anything. You take all that religious BS on faith. When was the last time your god came down to you and said, Hey JW, howzit goin?

You can blubber on and on about how the bible is 'gods' word but that is just the 2000 year old scam still working to delude you and a few billion other poor folks who believe in the tooth fairy.

"We don't have to prove anything."

So what you're saying is that you're taking it on faith that we believe in vain? That, without evidence, you believe we are duped?

"When was the last time your god came down to you and said, Hey JW, howzit goin?"

Don't mean to insult you old man, but you have a very immature understanding of what a relationship with God is about. I'd say more about it but...

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...you take the position that no one can know whether there is or isn't something beyond our natural perception;"

I do not take that position. Whatever gave you that idea?[/b]

Yeah my mistake - you're only good for taking potshots at. Actually debating with you is a waste of time.

Originally posted by Agerg
Yeah my mistake - you're only good for taking potshots at. Actually debating with you is a waste of time.

Like everything else you have it completely backwards. Debating with me is the best use of your time. It's to bad you use it so poorly.

I mean, in all the time I've been debating in this forum, not once has one of you atheists ever stayed on topic and ever actually finished a debate.

But if you feel that way I'll honor it by never speaking to you again. Sorrowfully.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you think He would like you?

Of course It would like you

Originally posted by josephw
Prove it!

On the one had there's Agerg's position - accepting his position requires no magic, no miracles, no omnipotent, infinite and unknowable super-being. On the other hand there's yours, which... well, does require all that stuff. I think, on balance, logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with you.

Originally posted by josephw
Your statement can only be true if the ancient Israelite's conception of God was self generated.

Based on your own admissions you have no way of knowing.

You could hazard a guess that the ancient Israelites were organised into a patriarchical society and thus the masculine identity of their deity is at least suspect.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Time will tell... or more nearly accurate to posit that the absence of time

will tell, since all of us will reside at one of two addresses for all eternity.

Please tell me that Boston is not one of them.