There is no possible way god exists unless you believe in utter hate and evil: Timmy Kinner

Thank you for your response, Michael! Although it is amusing and adds great depth to your arguments, I would appreciate that you waste little time on emotional rants and void vitriol such as this: Michael: "in other words christ was---not---the---messiah, but just a scab and a drab of yodeling grunge country opera sniveling happy hairy hard off for the armpit of sleaze in a bucket of bile." This is a debate, not an argument between Elder Harrison and his uncle, Angry Gregtheist. (i hope that got a good laugh.) Alright, first and foremost. Before I get into responses, I would like to clarify the teachings of the Bible, as well as the term "hermeneutics." They go hand-in-hand quite well with each other. Hermeneutics is defined as "the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts." While this is a pretty bare-bones definition, I'd like to go into more detail on how it's used in *the Christian community that I was once, but am no longer part of. (FootNote 1, at the bottom of my argument.) The term "interpretation" is key, because there is no definitive interpretation of "The Holy Bible" and there never will be. This causes discontent among the "so-called Body of Christ," creating the various denominations. (Pentecostal, Catholic, Mennonite, Baptist, etc.) Thus, my points become moot and unclear due to my inability to elaborate effectively. My point is that the concept of God is non-objective, no matter how adamant one may be that he's the "one truth." When we talk about hermeneutics, we also have to talk about translation issues. The original languages of the scrolls that The Bible is translated from are dead. Because of this, it's incredibly hard for me to believe in any pastor or priest on any subject. That's an entire ordeal in and of itself. The concept of pastor or priest is long overdue for an abolition. Alright! Responses, responses. Let's go down this rabbit hole together, shall we? I'll try to be holistic when responding to your sections, and would appreciate that you respond to my entire sections as well, instead of responding to the bits of them. They all serve a purpose within the entire section. I'm going to leave out your introduction, seeing as it doesn't strike me as part of your argument at all. If this is a problem, please let me know. I'm hoping to discuss things with you in a way that's suitable and appropriate. Michael: "I have never been a follower of that idiot abomination christ and I"m not stupid enough to, nor is any intelligent person either. Its really quite impossible. And there"s really no such a thing as being "christian"." Although there's an absurd amount of hatred in your words, I see exactly where you're coming from. I understand and agree, to a point! First off, calling the average Christ-follower "unintelligent" is a little unfair, isn't it? I believe in a decent amount of the teachings of Christ, although I can't say that I believe he was a real person, which may be relevant to what you say in later sections; however, I'll focus on this section for now. One point you've made that I wholeheartedly agree with is this: There's no such thing as a Christian. It's profound and true; none can refute it logically. It's what's called a "misnomer." A "wrong or inaccurate name or designation." But it goes beyond that, doesn't it? They contradict themselves constantly. Only Christ is Christ-like, yet they call themselves Christian. How oxymoronic. What is not being understood, in terms of the "Christian" perspective, is that they know they aren't anything like Christ. They simply strive to be. Even then, it's such a misconception that needs to be solved. You don't try to be like Christ; you try to understand why he is the way that he is; why he taught what he taught; what his purpose was. If you take out the "savior of mankind" BS, he's a philosophical figure whose purpose is to get disciples and pharisees alike to throw away convolution and to accept the simple truth. That truth is this; that no one can deserve, but anyone can give. This is the baseline of Christ's teachings that I follow, because it seems to be a purely beneficial mindset. Michael: ""I agree with your first statement, in that because there is good, there has to be evil to contrast." Why would you think so? Evil is NOT a need. Evil is NOT a necessity. Evil is NOT a requirement. Only in the world of god is this true. Take away god and a lot of evil disappears. The Aborigines, nearly all of the native American Indian tribes until they were wiped out by the christian sweaty pig christian brethren, the Buddhists, Hindus, Gaia Mother Earth, etc etc etc they in no way practice no preach evil not anywhere close to what the god of the bible does. In fact its not even a close call." Those sweaty christian pigs you're talking about don't follow the teachings of Christ. It's a stain upon history, just as the encampment and bombing of the Japanese is. We did that as a country, not as Christians. Man, all those other religions seem pretty cool, huh? They are! They encourage a lot of what I believe in, and now that I mention it, I've been exploring all types of existential explanatory beliefs that put me at ease way more than the concept of God did. The difference between the average atheist and me is that I'm trying to understand the opposing perspective, rather than flat-out oppose it based on anecdote. Let me clarify what is completely unclear though; I don't think Evil is "necessary," per se. What I meant is that if all is good, what is there to compare good to? If the world were void, what would void be compared to without matter or energy? This is the basis of the Chinese philosophy called "Yin and Yang." That is not to say that the discussion on that matter is closed. There is much to be explored; many conclusions to come to, just to be scratched away. Disavowed because of the incomprehensible complexity of it. Such is philosophy, wouldn't you say so? Michael: ""You seem to be angry in a god that you don't believe in;" I am have you read the sickening bible that people who have not read it believe in and don"t know anything about it? "furthermore, a god that Christ-followers do not believe in either." Yeah for that reason. More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason" George Carlin and he"s right. And christ that sneeze rag in which nobody can even prove either of them has ever existed, christ is the most fought after figure in the history of the human race. Go figure. "You're putting God in a box" I"m not the only one. There are millions that rightly do this. And they have read the bible. "the same way that "so-called Christians" do all the time." Yeah but atheists DO NOT go to war over atheism, not ever in any major war whereas god and religion go to war over their god all the fricken time. BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE." I apologize, the motive/purpose of this section is unclear; I'll need more elaboration to make any sort of response. Thank you for your patience. Michael: ""The belief in a higher creative being does not have to be characterized by a stagnant mindset." Well atheists do not believe in a higher creative being. Or any higher creative being at all." You're right! And I wasn't talking about atheists, necessarily; I was talking about Christians. To elaborate, I was talking about the concept atheists have ABOUT Christians. They can be know-it-alls, but that's the stagnation I'm talking about. To believe in self-omniscience is to oppose progression and logic. The Christians that I know have a sense of "I'm figuring it out" rather than "I know everything now!" Ever heard of Simulation Theory? I think you'd find it funny/interesting/stupid. Anyways, moving on. Michael: ""To elaborate, no one can understand God completely," Sure we can. god---doesn"t---exist. "but Christ-followers are able to infer what God is *not* via (H)is sure teachings." And yet again, nobody can even prove that this christ figure has ever existed." I see what you're saying, but I don't see your point. All that you've done here is restated your own belief that God doesn't exist, which is debatable from the Christian perspective. Neither side knows enough, so I'm not saying that debate will ever be conclusive. Quite the opposite, in fact. Michael: "The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away." Such a stupid silly little verse. Oh I get it so children are supposed to suffer through intense horror and agony and pain just so that little nothing verse can be played out? Are you serious? And this is not about jesus, who was NOT the messiah to begin with but only a bump on the carpet as he broke god"s laws and lied about god to begin with and god never gave him the powers to be the messiah nor change his laws, not ever, and christ himself cannot proclaim himself to be the messiah." This verse is not to showcase what happens to children and why, but moreso the fact that Jesus views children fondly; even when his disciples try to rebuke them. In an earlier chapter, Jesus tells his disciples that the greatest of heaven are those who humble themselves as children do. I'll refrain from telling my interpretation. Infer what you will. Jesus is considered by Christians the physical manifestation of God; a part of what Christians call The Trinity (you've most likely heard of it.) To change the beliefs, or believe in one set of beliefs for a very diverse religious group is what I consider dogmatic. Christ was proclaimed as the messiah for doing miracles. FN 1: I no longer attend church, I no longer pray, and I no longer believe in God as a defined entity or being. I also no longer believe in the "spiritual" aspect of Christianity. (angels, demons, spirit world, heaven, hell, etc.) I was raised Christian for 15 years