You can stop here. Yes, that's my point. According to your eschatology god created from a place beyond time and space, knowing how everything that will ever happen and has ever happened and exactly why each thing happened. He knew all of this before the heavens and the earth were created. If this was the case why would he design this story such that it would require him to set up multiple covenants or to want to strike down all creation only to change his mind upon seeing pious people like Noah or to have to manifest himself in a physical form. The story is inconsistent with itself. Again, if you know the outcome of a decision and you decide to make that choice you are completely culpable for the outcome. If I am in a fight and I posture in such a way that essentially forces my opponent to respond in a particular way, that's my action and my opponents reaction. I punch someone in the head knowing they will block and it opens up a punch to the body. In your framework the person who protects their head is choosing to get hit in the body, rather than just reacting to external stimuli they have no control over.

Also the rest of your stuff pretty heavily contradicts sola scriptura if you are using any mainstream translation, but we can ignore that for now.

wow really? nobody has ever said he wrote or translated a bible? ........ his teachings were recorded

ya i heard it from chud 'atheist youtuber uses language like it all the time to be dismissive of what people believe. "you believe x because you were raised to believe x" then they leave it at that. its a sleeze tactic. dawkins did it so he would have to engage in the question he was asked cause he pussed out with a fallacy flimflam
any way dorkins was raised to as a christian and he became a 'atheist so stuff he says makes him sound even dumber

This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 17 2026 08:21pm

no, he demonstrated that pascal's wager simply shifts the burden of proof to a burden of disproof which makes it logically irrelevant to determining a truth claim. he didnt say it so he didnt have to engage with the question, the question is fallacious in nature. we already went through this above. but regardless, thats not what a genetic fallacy is. so at least now you know not to misuse that term.

and we have recordings of christ's teachings? from where? what bible do you read? earlier you quoted king james, which was transcribed more than 1500 years after jesus said anything on earth and was itself based on more reliable transcriptions, none of which are anywhere close to first-hand or original accounts. the earliest scraps of incomplete pages dont enter the historical record until more than 100 years after he died. the first complete versions of the new testament appear more than 400 years after he died. the original gospels themselves (which we dont have) were based on oral traditions rather than any kind of primary or secondary evidence. you have recordings of his teachings in the same way that you have recordings of the teachings of Dionysus. Which is to say that you have a mythological story that has evolved over time and any truth that may have once been contained within is unaccessible due to the passage of time.

also im not an atheist, i just think people who hold deeply rooted religious beliefs should engage with said religion in earnest.

This post was edited by belthasar on Mar 17 2026 09:39pm

he weaseled out a word salad to avoid a simple question. it was a easy question it just bothered him.

lets engage in it then.
your argument is the scripture (teachings of Christ) couldnt have been preserved. if so then your burden is to prove your claim.
lets hear it then. translation, chapter and verse prove the scriptures false.

Why would this all powerful god rely on illiterate bronze age people from a small region in the middle east to maintain his word?
Unless ofc there is no such thing as god but instead its just a bunch of people who made up a story and pay other people to keep advertising it.

your attacks on scripture keep failing so now your just reeeeing

i can explain why his answer wasnt a weasel answer. pascal's wager is usually applied by christians in some form of "if youre wrong about being a christian you lose nothing, if youre wrong about being an atheist you dont go to heaven. therefor its advantageous to hedge your bets and believe in christ because the cost-benefit comparison is clearly in favor of the believer even if there is no god." the problem is there isnt just one god. you can substitute "belief in christ" and "atheist" with "belief in allah" and "christian" and the question has the exact same validity. which is to say it has none. the question implies a binary dichotomy between a christian god and no god. but there are thousands of different creator gods, so this binary question is actually addressing a question with many, many possible outcomes. and no individual religion really has a better claim to being the right one than any other. hence, when they ask "what if youre wrong about christ" the response "what if youre wrong about islam" is not them trying to weasel out of anything but rather an exasperated demonstration of why the question has no merit.

there is no verse in your book that can prove or disprove its own validity, if youre looking for that kind of evidence you should probably examine how you fundementally determine whether something is real or not. there are indeed contradictions in your books, but that wasnt my claim. my claim was that you have no idea what the person named jesus said, because you literally cant have access to that. the closest you can get is oral traditions that changed over 400 years and you dont even read that version, you read some modern translation of a translation of a 5000 year long game of telephone based on translations of translations commissioned by fallible humans with an interest in personal enrichment.

if a non-believer is wrong about christianity they will feel exactly the same way you would feel if you were wrong about hinduism or islam or tengrism. id guess youd probably feel that tengri didnt express himself in such a way that resonated with you, and youd hope that regardless of being wrong about which skydaddy is the right one that your attempt to live in accordance with christian morality would be recognized.

This post was edited by belthasar on Mar 17 2026 10:47pm

They succeeding. Bible is getting thrown out as a firestarted

1. Charles Darwin and the theory of 'evolution- gets a pass because he didnt call it fact
2.haeckels embryo drawings- 1874- early detected fraud- mass reprinted in textbooks as "proof" for 'evolution. 'atheists "the super logic minds" never did chit to challenge this. when do 'atheists actually become "scientific" as opposed to just "agenda" based liars
3rd piltdown man 1912- 'atheists hold themselves on high claiming to be the greatest critical thinkers that ever graced the world- longest running fraud in the history of modern science. the real mystery is how these clowns ever became the face of modern science?
4th nebraska man 1922- a master work of 'atheist imagination figuring out stuff........
5th whale evolution. incomplete fossils are the best kind of fossils. in fact the worse condition a fossil is in the better it proves 'evolution for some reason? as we will see more of this 'atheist magic in later posts

THE FALL OF ATHEISM?

6. "junk DNA"
O how the 'atheist would gloat. so much junk is the genetic code, so much useless junk hahahaha they would gloat DNA has junk, junk in the trunk, evolutionary leftovers.
then actual science (encode project) there is no junk DNA
the crushing blow of science over the 'atheist imagination. (it doesnt stop them though)
a creationist does his own gloating - "since we are so smart, if we dont know what something does, then that must mean it doesnt do any thing at all"
-dr charles jackson

DNA and the junk DNA claim(skeptic mind at work again) and called proof of evolution. Completely and utterly destroyed by real science (encode project), there is zero junk DNA and the living cell is the most complex thing known to man, being light years ahead anything made by man. Sadly when this became known the so called skeptic (being already committed to his man made religion)hardly pausing to even consider what he was looking at, said: "macro evolution is true anyway"( this moment was the most embarrassing moment in the "goo to you" evolution history.

This evolution religion is pack full of stuff like this. A question to ask yourself.-- How long are you going to let them feed you this garbage?

Monkey to man evolution is just a religion made to cause people stray from the truth or allow them to have a excuse to ignore the truth. There is absolutely nothing in this religion that is scientific- observable testable, repeatable. And only exists it the imagination of man. And no matter the evidence against it it will never go away. It is a billion a year industry and financed and protected by the .Gov. If science was a dog this "monkey to man" stuff would be a tick on the dog, It is pseudo science, as anyone that truly investigates will find. I personally consider it to be on of the great deception's that was warned about by Jesus and full fills prophecy.

Matthew 24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders,so as to mislead,if possible, even the very elect. (a monkey turning into a man would be wonderious indeed)
25 "behold, I have told you in advance.?

This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 17 2026 11:00pm

she didnt offer pascals wager
and
ya it was a weasel move.

you still claim scripture couldnt have been preserved. i need something better than that
"personal enrichment" um? they died for believing

working under the assumption they are all false.........




so?