In league with Satan

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Not really, scripture teaches we are not at war with flesh and blood!
Jesus came to save us not to destroy us, we are a divided people filled
with hate and distrust towards one another. It is the lost and broken that
Jesus died for. We are not worthy of God, but the One who died for us is
worthy and He deserves the reward of His suffering.

The fact tha folklore, not that the whole "in league with Satan" thing is of "divine" origin.

[/b]It went to the heart of the us vs them theme you presented so I quoted
you, because what you wrote as I see it isn't the reality. Since I do believe
in the divine I shared it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How could an unbeliever go about ascertaining if they are unknowingly working for Satan? Take me for example, the concept of Satan in my mind is nothing short of ludicrous, how do i go about figuring out of i am unknowingly working for someone/something which i don't think exists?

I don't think you can, you need eyes to see so to speak. If you are wrong
about God and the devil is working over time to make sure you stay that
way and is using you to do the same with others, you believing in him isn't
something he cares about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It went to the heart of the us vs them theme you presented so I quoted
you, because what you wrote as I see it isn't the reality. Since I do believe
in the divine I shared it.
Kelly[/b]

To me, a Christian calling someone "Satanic" is like a misogynist calling a woman a [4 letter C word]. That's what I see as being the 'reality' here, regardless of whether you claim your abuse and denunciation is 'divinely' inspired.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok then, id have a wagon pulled by horses instead! and you can oil a chain with butter
if you have nothing else.

That's better.

Fair enough with the chain though, I knew I should not have said that bit when I was typing it. I was thinking of goose fat rather than butter.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by FMF
To me, a Christian calling someone "Satanic" is like a misogynist calling a woman a [4 letter C word]. That's what I see as being the 'reality' here, regardless of whether you claim your abuse and denunciation is 'divinely' inspired.

I didn't call anyone Satanic.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed.

And to illustrate the point I not only can't prove the non-existence of the Christian god.
I can't prove the non-existence of Thor, Odin, Zeus, Athena, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


I could if I wanted go find the guys who made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I STILL
can't prove the thing doesn't exist. (which is kinda the point ...[text shortened]... s or is not real.

So I believe only in things that have positive evidentiary backing.

I didn't say there wasn't evidence, but evidence isn't always said to be
proof as it can be misleading in that it isn't what we think, or the way it is
due to the way we think. Evidence could also be false altogether simply put
there to make one believe something that isn't true and so on. Simply
making a claim about evidence doesn't mean it will be accepted by
everyone, some will not even accept things right in front of them and so on.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't say there wasn't evidence, but evidence isn't always said to be
proof as it can be misleading in that it isn't what we think, or the way it is
due to the way we think. Evidence could also be false altogether simply put
there to make one believe something that isn't true and so on. Simply
making a claim about evidence doesn't mean it will be acc ...[text shortened]... ed by
everyone, some will not even accept things right in front of them and so on.
Kelly

I suspect we mean different things when we use the word evidence.

By the meaning I use Evidence can't be 'false' and if what you are talking about
could be false then it isn't evidence.


It is also objective, nobody being rational can reject it.

Of course if you are being irrational you can claim or reject literally anything which is
one of the many reasons that irrationality is bad.


Evidence is a fact or body of facts with Only one plausible conclusion.
These facts must be not in dispute or indisputable.


This is why most of the time theists bring up evidence I respond by saying that what
they are putting forward just isn't evidence, sometimes because it is just factually incorrect,
but often because it doesn't support ONLY one plausible conclusion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I suspect we mean different things when we use the word evidence.

By the meaning I use Evidence can't be 'false' and if what you are talking about
could be false then it isn't evidence.


It is also objective, nobody being rational can reject it.

Of course if you are being irrational you can claim or reject literally anything which is
one of factually incorrect,
but often because it doesn't support ONLY one plausible conclusion.

I can agree with a lot of what you said, I do think what is, "plausible" or
not can be a topic of debate.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But does one have to serve one of two masters? Surely that contradicts the whole 'free will' argument? If Satan is evil because of free will and what he chose to do, who was he serving when he turned bad, and why is everyone else that turns bad automatically considered to be serving him? How do you know it is not Satan that is serving me?

With a side of fava beans. 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
And another thing, on the powers of your god, if a 2 yo girl gets cancer of the vagina and dies, that is because your god WANTED it that way?

Really?

She couldn't just get leukemia or something?

Originally posted by divegeester
I dunno, I just felt compelled to ask.

Most "atheists" I see are ex Christians who got butt *****d by the system and now carry a massive axe.

Well said.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can agree with a lot of what you said, I do think what is, "plausible" or
not can be a topic of debate.
Kelly

Not really in this instance.

It is for example impossible to rule out Descartes evil demons which could potentially be the
cause for anything.
Likewise god (or satan) messing with you in a similar fashion could likewise cause anything
to happen or be observed.

However you basically have to ignore these possibilities until such evidence arises that indicates
that the laws of physics are not inviolate (they is none presently) otherwise you have to give in
to solipsism which gets you nowhere.

Thus plausible simply means something like "beyond reasonable doubt" and accounts for the
probably minuscule but otherwise inestimable non-zero possibility that evil demons (or similar) exist
but that you otherwise ignore.

Ignoring such options and assuming that the laws of physics are inviolate then you change the word
plausible to possible and have done with it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well said.

I really don't know what to make of this but to say that for the majority of atheists I know
OR where I come from this really doesn't apply.

While there are some atheists who used to be a member of some religion (including Christianity)
and had a really bad experience and thus left and became an atheist they are in the minority.


The majority of people who are atheists are atheists because they came to the conclusion that
there is no rational reason for believing in god or the supernatural and thus now don't.

The number with an 'axe to grind' as you put it is really quite small.
Although possibly more visible to you?
But they are not rally representative of the majority of atheists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not really in this instance.

It is for example impossible to rule out Descartes evil demons which could potentially be the
cause for anything.
Likewise god (or satan) messing with you in a similar fashion could likewise cause anything
to happen or be observed.

However you basically have to ignore these possibilities until such evidence arises ...[text shortened]... physics are inviolate then you change the word
plausible to possible and have done with it.

If all the beginning assumptions are that there isn't a spiritural world that
runs long with this one, that there isn't a God or devil, that all there is, is
just that which we can monitor or test and so on....you may have a point.

If you believe as I do that isn't the case than some of your beginning
assumptions wouldn't be what they are.
Kelly