Originally Posted by Genkaus

All those who believe the bible literally, are delusional. Though they need not be clinically insane.

Strawman. The Bible is not always taken literally. There's hyperbole, symbolism, and many other rhetorical devices. But I doubt you would know very much about all that.

You might have more credibility with your sophomoric rhetoric is you had the guts to answer a simple question that you've been running from. For the THIRD TIME NOW:

Tell me how God creates mankind with free will but at the same time doesn't allow man to sin?

Answer the question?

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Strawman. The Bible is not always taken literally. There's hyperbole, symbolism, and many other rhetorical devices. But I doubt you would know very much about all that.

Not always means sometimes. And when it is, it is done so by delusional XXXXXX.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You might have more credibility with your sophomoric rhetoric is you had the guts to answer a simple question that you've been running from. For the THIRD TIME NOW:

Tell me how God creates mankind with free will but at the same time doesn't allow man to sin?

Answer the question?

Already answered.

God did not create mankind. God doesn't exist. Therefore, any question pertaining to its actions is pointless.

Originally Posted by Genkaus

All those who believe the bible literally, are delusional. Though they need not be clinically insane.

The bible or all religious works ?
Are you saying that there are some aspects of the bible that can be believed ?

Originally Posted by Genkaus

Not always means sometimes. And when it is, it is done so by delusional XXXXXX.

Already answered.

God did not create mankind. God doesn't exist. Therefore, any question pertaining to its actions is pointless.

Your opinion. No conclusive evidence for your conclusion. Therefore it's rejected.

Originally Posted by Genkaus
God did not create mankind. God doesn't exist. Therefore, any question pertaining to its actions is pointless.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Your opinion. No conclusive evidence for your conclusion. Therefore it's rejected.

You have no evidence that he does exist therefore your claims are rejected.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Your opinion. No conclusive evidence for your conclusion. Therefore it's rejected.

Why do you assume I have no evidence?

Originally Posted by Genkaus

Why do you assume I have no evidence?

Show me the replicated scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural do not exist.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Show me the replicated scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural do not exist.

Which god would you like me to disprove?

Originally Posted by Genkaus

Which god would you like me to disprove?

Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Show me the replicated scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural do not exist.

As God is conceived not to be a being within nature, but rather as transcending nature, it is quite beside the point for atheists to use natural science to disprove God's existence.

However, for exactly the same reason, it is equally beside the point for theists to use natural science to prove God's existence.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Jesus Christ.

And to make sure that this isn't another pointless discussion with an idiotic, religious nutjob, what standard of evidence would you subscribe to?

Also, to avoid logical fallacies such as "moving the goal posts", please provide clear and concise definitions of god and jesus christ.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

[Genkaus:] Which God would you like me to disprove?

Jesus Christ.

That Jesus of Nazareth existed is pretty well beyond dispute. The question of whether this man was also the messiah is open to debate, as is the question of whether or not he was divine.

I grant you, the Christian answers are clearly yes and yes. But these are matters of faith, not proof.

Originally Posted by Genkaus

And to make sure that this isn't another pointless discussion with an idiotic, religious nutjob, what standard of evidence would you subscribe to?

Also, to avoid logical fallacies such as "moving the goal posts", please provide clear and concise definitions of god and jesus christ.

You're the one who claims God (Jesus in this case) doesn't exist. And it's simple. Show me the replicated, scientific studies that document God and the supernatural do not exist.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You're the one who claims God (Jesus in this case) doesn't exist. And it's simple. Show me the replicated, scientific studies that document God and the supernatural do not exist.

And to decide which evidence to present, we need to specify the nature of the very thing I would be attempting to disprove. For example, even if a person called Jesus did exist, that does not mean that he was god. Therefore, for the purpose of this debate, strict definitions and criteria are required. Do you have knowledge of any?