Better to say that they misused their superior intellect. Of course, some of them (e.g. Kant, Newton) were so brainwashed as children that it would require more effort from their intellect to reject childhood superstitions than it would for most other people. Moreover there are equally superior intellects who have come up with all sorts of other answers than xtianity. The point is being more intelligent does not make everything you believe rational. The case must rest on its own merits.
Nothing but the opinions of a bias unbeliever.
For example, consider William Lane Craig. He is often mentioned as a brilliant mind of xtianity. Really he is one of the few decent minds of fundamentalist evagelical xtianity, but nonetheless, he himself admits that he did not come to Christianity on its own rational merits. First, he accepted xtianity upon emotion. On faith, he then believed that his god could do anything. Once he had decided his god could do anything, then miracles and surface contradictions became easy. God just did it because he can becauseWLC believed he can. There's nothing logical here, and William Lane Craigs being a reasonably intelligent person does not change that fact.
So are you claiming that William Lane Craig deludes himself to cling to Cristianity? Or are you claiming that if in fact God does exist, that miracles would be impossible for Him?
Uh oh, now you're back to Choice 2. God appeals to an independent standard of good and evil. Basically, you are taking on faith that genocide, slavery, rape, infanticide, racism, and all sorts of other tortures and cruelties are OK. When God does it, it is good. Again Euthyphro's Dilemma is rearing its ugly head. You make ridiculous excuses for your god's behavior. I don't. I hold him accountable (figuratively of course since he's not real).
When did God condone rape? Or genocide? Or racism? Would you have prefered if the Israelites had killed POW's rather than make them slaves?
Except in the place called Hell.
Hell isn't a place. Space and time were created at the beginning of the universe. Heaven and Hell are not 'places' as we know them. One is God and one is a seperation from God.
Did you ever think of starting your own cult? This has no Biblical foundation. Your imagination is a agile as it is sick.
It's all in Genesis. 'Space' and 'time' were created in the beginning.
Exactly. This is the contradiction that arises from both claiming that God is omnipresent and that God is not in Hell. Proof by contradiction. QED.
I still see no contradiction, except when you project your limitations onto God. I try not to be so fallacious.
Of course, you've conveniently redefined Hell. Until you provide some evidence, Biblical or otherwise, for this interpretation of Hell, we are all safe in assuming it to be nothing more than a spontaneous, unsubstantiated evasive maneuver.
I would argue that those who believe Hell is a place you can travel to are morons who have been brainwashed. It is explained quite succinctly in the Bible that it is 'eternal seperation from God'.
Repent from what? If he had sin to repent from, then he could not be in the presence of God. You are making incredible extra-Biblical leaps. Any "True xtian" pastor would have thrown you out of his church for preaching heresy by now.
I note you didn't address my other claim, that Satan was not necessarily in Heaven.
And the fully God part of him!???
The fully God part was shielded by the full human part. I do not see how it is difficult to imagine that your spirit is within your flesh.
Darfius, I propose a test. When you write a statement to harmonize an apparent contradiction in your thinking. Read over it. Ask yourself, "Is there a glaring hole in my statement?" If the answer is "Yes." Then erase it and write something more intelligent.
As I do not believe you are more intelligent than me, I see no reason to believe I am guilty of your implication.
Darfius, you insult your own intelligence with your posts. I simply record observations. As you say, "There aren't many ways to share the [t]ruth."
Opinion.
Classic argument from Kreeft in The Case for Faith. "Every evil you take away limits our freedom." This begs the question "So what?"
So you wouldn't mind if you were a robot with the ability to think, but never act on your thoughts? In other words, you would rather be a quadriplegic than risk pricking your finger? Interesting.
I can think of a better universe. Leave the universe exactly as it is with one exception: No one can molest a child. It would be physically impossible to do this sort of evil, like using only our own bodies to fly to the sun and extinguish it or drink the entire ocean. There are many things that are physically impossible. In my better universe, child molestation would be one of these.
So would an invisible force field shoot up around the child everytime an adult approached him or her? How would this be regulated to allow for a show of healthy affection? Or to feed? Would this 'force field' be intelligent? How would this new, intelligent being react to be forced to do our bidding to keep us from evil?
Now you've already claimed that all non-believers are basically Hitler. Would you care to make "the Case for Child Rape"?
Since the greatest sin is denying God, in that light, yes, all non-believers have sinned the greatest sin. However, on earth, Hitler did more evil than most.
Only one small, yet significant, difference. I call some one with perfect foresight who designs and introduces, into an otherwise perfect state of being, a world that punishes temporal transgressions with eternal torture sadistic. You call that some one the paragon of righteousness.
What you do not understand is that people will be no more inclined to love God after they die than they were before. Submit to Him? Of course. But submission was not what He created us for.
They have as much evidence as your god does, well, except the IPU I suppose.
Really? Are there 2 billion 'Zeusists' in the world? Does this 'Zeus' have a holy book written by several dozen authors over thousands of years on 3 continents which lacks contradictions? What do you define as 'evidence'?
It was an excellent analogy. It was told from the point of view of an unbeliever. To be a successful student of literature, you are going to need to learn about perspective. Just another tip from some one who's already been there.
I know of perspective. However, as per usual with atheists, you cannot propose a logical argument until YOU look at perspective. Theists are FORCED to consider naturalist explanations, but we are open to God being a possibility, something atheists are not. God explains the scientific evidence better than a more far-fetched naturalist excuse, and only bias prevents Him from being the explanation.
Sorry, I don't go in for intellectual sterilization. Hey, it's a free country though. You can believe what you will.
Admitting someone is smarter than you is being intellectually sterile? Well then you're already guilty of that!
Oh to your god? Well that's strike two for him. BTW are you in disagreement with your god on this issue? If it is the same to him, shouldn't it be the same to you? I take that you desire to conform to the mind of your god. Hitler and all other non-believers are the same to you. Sick.
No, I was yielding to His higher authority. Of course I agree with Him. He is worthy of praise from all of us.
Did I ever say that? No. Intellectual honesty indeed! Let me tell you something else about the study of literature: purposefully misrepresenting or distorting an author's material will get you expelled. This happened to an acquaintance of mine back in undergrad. You better watch it Dar. I'd hate to see you thrown out for lying.
Then quit hiding behind anonymity whilst attacking my viewpoints and make clear your own! What explains the universe better and more clearly than God, tel?