Introduction
Offline I would like to say hello, to everyone at the RR Squad. This is my very first post although I've read a few other peoples introductions. I originally heard about this website when a number of representatives went on youtube to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I must admit that I thought it was very bold and provocative but simultaneously misguided. I grew up going to a Catholic Church and although no religion has me now, I am quite sure that neither the Bible nor the Holy Spirit are what you mean to be condeming. I have studied quite a few Sacred Texts and the Bible is the most truthful of them all. If you are as rational as you all claim or believe, then perhaps you just haven't read it correctly. I don't particularly blame anyone for condeming members of Christian religions as they often haven't been very prudent about the placement of their faith, but the Bible is beyond reasonable doubt as truthful as it gets. So, that is my introduction message and I hope I can get to understand exactly where you hearts are in relation to the Bible and also Religion and perhaps I'd also like to know whether or not you all believe that Atheism and Rational thinking are synonymous? It seems like they go hand and hand on this website.
Til next post..
1-24
- Login to post comments
It has already been proven that your logic is flawed, but you just don't get it.
Why don't you stick with what is reasonable? As in what would be reasonable in a court of law.
Is it reasonable to "believe" that a god of some sort exists? Is it reasonable to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5? Why not? If you took a math test and answered "5" for "What is 2 + 2 = ?". Would you argue with the teacher that you have faith in Suzisipha (my made up god) that the answer is 5, not 4, therefore you should not have failed that test? Suzisipha wrote, in 456 CE that all addition problems must have and extra "1" (the loneliest number) to the answer or Suzisiphites will be denied access to olive oil forever. Suzisipha also wrote that that her followers must not, under any circumstances, be associated with those who do not believe in Suzisipha (those who believe that 2+2=4, among other things).
Well, I am not 100% sure about this, because all that I have is a piece of lambskin that has a few words about Suzisipha on it...at least I think it is Suzisipha because it was written in another language that no longer exists. Of course, I am relying on the copier of the copier of the copier of the copier (^ 1000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000) copiers that they got this right as I know they were inspired by the awesomeness of Suzisipha. Oh, by the way, these awed scribes (copiers, whatever) couldn't read or speak Suzisipha's language (not really sure what her language was, to tell you the truth...but it doesn't matter, I trust those scribes!). But I have faith that she existed based upon these flawless and logical ancient texts. Additionally, she came to me in a dream and told me to worship olive oil, which I do. I flunked out of college because my blasphemous professors were ignorant about adding The Loneliest Number to all math problems. They are all going to Wahabath (the equivalent to your silly christian hell only way worse as there is no olive oil whatsoever).
{ I put a line break in the middle of those 0's to prevent widening. - Edited by Mr. Atheist }
Why do Christards have such a hard time getting that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who claims something
Exists, and NEVER on the one who doubts?
Here are some things that definitely don't count as proof:
The Bible
The fact life/the Universe/whatever exists
Not being able to see love/the wind/microbes
You knowing Jesus in your heart
lame arguments against evolution (even if you could disprove evolution, that's no proof of god.)
Pascals wager/the teleological/cosmological/kalam arguments
Any idiocy Ray Comfort spouts
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Hello 1-24,
My initial problem with your position on the Bible is that you consider it 'a' book. I find that this is generally assumed by people who have no real clue about the formation of the canon, or about the literary critical perspective of the books of the Bible. The canonization process along took close to a thousand years to complete. You also made a comment about not reading the Bible correctly...which in itself is a show of ignorance towards the literary style of at large percentage of the books of the Bible. Many of the books after the initial so-called five books of Moses are for reader interpretation. The wisdom books, the prophets, the Gospels, even Paul's epistles are all about interpretation. Revelations is another example. To claim there is one specific way to interpret the books of the Bible or even the Bible as a whole collective canon, is to ignore the vast amounts of data that has been observed and collected over hundreds of years.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Explain to me how a statement versus a question in this context makes your answer different then what it is. You state "yes, each persons interpretation may be a bit different"
Am I to understand this as : "because my interpretation of the bible leads me to believe and hold truth in some of its content, it is truth?"
Only to yourself. You say there are things that convince you of your truth. If you are claiming there are some proofs/truths/evidence you need to explain or point out what those things are. It isn't the job of the person you are proselytizing to prove anything.
It isn't logical to assume that a person didn't 'keenly read' a document just because they didn't get something out of it that you did. As you stated above, everyone has a different perspective
-Renee
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
We might want to wait until Friday before we get too hard on him. I do find this concept of betting on his own god's existence hilarious though. Hilariously un-Christian.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
You know that Cobert is going to sue your ass, right?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
He's welcome to try, but im quite certain he wouldnt risk such a scandal while running for president (granted, its only 1 state)
What Would Kharn Do?
I've found more truth on the side of a cereal box than i have in the Bible.
The bible says the following,no "out of context" bullshit:
Bats are birds
The Earth has corners
People can rise from the dead
The moon is a light producing object..........
The list goes on........
Don't tell me or anyone else we haven't read the Bible "correctly". By the way,what is the "correct" way to read the Bible.
And keep in mind, 1-24:
I've been known to hurl Burgessian Nadsat at people who can't back up their extraordinary claims. So if you don't want to be a labeled a skorry old charlie, you might want to throw in your "shroud of Turin" ahead of time.
As another poster pointed out, evidence is NOT contingent on faith.
I encourage you be open to the possibility that you may be wrong. Insisting that we only have to "interpret" the evidence as you do is a sure way to lose an argument here.
For your benefit, I and the other posters will continue to list for you, until Friday, other "no-no's" or rationalist dialog, as we have already been doing throughout your thread. Consider them helpful guidelines, or if you will excuse the irony, a kind of "How to Talk to an Atheist if you Must."
I encourage you to read these posts carefully and keep them in mind. Should you violate any one of them, you will have already lost this argument and your bet (I have to say that I find the idea of a Christian betting on their own god's existence absurd, though it's better than going to war over whose god is best).
I don't speak for all of RRS, but as far as I am concerned, your monetary promise is empty and ill-thought out, and speaks volumes of you degrade even your own religion. A Christian actually admitting they are wrong is payment enough in the case of RRS's victory over you. If you're so confident in your faith, why not just turn the other cheek, as Christians are supposed to do? You guys used to be so cool, the rebel force working to bring down the Roman Empire. Whatever happened to the Christians who exposed the moral bankruptcy of the Temples? What happened to the Christians who stood up to the cruelty and violence of the Romans? Sorry, that's a different argument.
Should you proceed with this, please proceed rationally. Otherwise you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
With respect,
Fulltimedefendent
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
On this note, atheists also don't believe that the magic dome has "windows of heaven" which can be opened like floodgates to allow more water to cover the entire surface of the Earth except for the highest mountain (since we know there's not enough water on Earth, nor was there enough during ancient times, to cover the entire surface... no, not even locked up in the ice caps, and YES I do know that ice is less dense than water).
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
If you read my introduction, I said that I am not a part of any religion. I am a free thinker as you are.
Hey 1 -24 , I AM glad you say you are not of a religion nor Christian. Here's some Thomas Jefferson to just keep in mind, who was a Jesus fan btw, but no fan of the "God of Abe" ....
As far as the bet goes I've already won, you seem to be betting on the wrong god .... keep your money .... maybe buy some godly science books.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm
Thomas Jefferson --- I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims.
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
Creeds] have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and at this day divides it into castes of inextinguishable hatred to one another.
I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
Thomas Jefferson ~~~
....... Can ya feel the LOVE, the AWE, now what ??? ..... okay call it god, ..... but realize a definition of the devil is DOGMA .....
Atheism Books.
If you believe (have faith) in any god, including the god of the bible, you have a religion. If your beliefs have a set of directions (that you follow) regarding worship, you also practice this religion. Anyone who says differently either 1) doesn't understand the definition of religion; 2) disagrees with a common definition of the word religion for some reason; or 3) is trying to sidestep criticism instead of refuting it.
Am I missing a possibility regarding your position?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Thanks for your posts..
Before I write anything else on here though, could someone please instruct me on how to put quotes into the comment section? Much appreciated.
You didnt by any chance happen to see the Quote button at all did you? o_O its gone missing and i just cannot find it! i put up fliers all over town... plz... plz little quote button, plz come back home... -_-
barring the chance you still dont look for it
[ quote= insert name here ]
Words here
[ /quote ]
(dont put spaces)
What Would Kharn Do?
A link: How to use the quote function It's sticky-ed at the top of the General Convo forum.
In short, hit the "quote" link below a post and you'll get content you can wrap in "quote" BBCode tags (use square brackets instead of angle brackets around "quote" and "/quote"
.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
let's see if this works
yup, it does... scientifically proven! haha
alright, all systems go I guess.
1-24
Sorry I assumed you were a Christian, but my other points still stand. You claim the Bible is the truest of all books. You also imply that Jesus understood "his purpose" which if you think the Bible is truest of all books I would ask you to explain what exactly you think Jesus's "purpose" was. I don't understand how you can make this claim and also be a "freethinker." You also claim that "truth" is "true" no matter where it comes from. Please understand it's a common occurence here for theists to sign on and claim to be atheists questioning RRS's tactics.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Just because you do not subscribe to a specific religion or a sect of religion you are clearly a theist with a belief in a deity of some form as you yourself claim. Your defence of the bible itself would appear to indicate that you at least have a leaning towards the Christian deity though that really doesn't matter.
Either way, your stance is not based on science and logic and thus disqualifies you from the traditional definition of "freethinkers".
Since my very first post on this website, I believe I’ve received substantive remarks from around 15 of you. I want to say, first off, that I already feel like a part of the community, seeing as how it has only been one day. Secondly, I want to say that based on the content of those remarks, it seems to me that you all are fighting a jihad against theism. Now, I don’t mean jihad as a pejorative term, nor do I use it with the intent to undermine atheism. But the resistance that I have been met with in simply asserting the authority of the Bible has been, on the whole, stanch.
I am going to presume that I’ve been met with such resistance because pro-theists usually join this website to convert you. Your skin is so thick. If my presumption is accurate, then maybe I am the anomaly. I don’t care whether or not you call yourself a Christian; I myself, don’t want to get swept away by the hogwash of a hollow movement. Nor do I care if you endorse the Bible – your life does not begin nor end on any of its pages.
But with the resistance I’ve met thus far, your movement seems to be just as hollow as any religion. You guys are as black & white as the rest of them.
That what you think Watcher??? What a pretentious remark. You make it seem like being rational is like being a black belt or something. Sure, make a joke about it, but some of us don’t need a belt to be able to fight.
Call me out if my judgment offends you, but I think some of you are a little too big for your britches. I AM GOD AS YOU, what you say rarely makes sense. At first I thought it was me, but Doomed Soul concurred; your syntax needs work. You’ve talked a big game from the outset but I have yet to receive one rational response from you.
Nick B., you swear a lot. Not saying its wrong, just pointing it out. It probably makes you feel good inside. While I’m pointing things out, your first post said:
Fair enough. But if you’re an atheist how can you derive this from the few original statements I made:
Is that what I was ‘basically’ saying? Yes, sure, you were just generalizing. But trying to make everything as black and white as possible is propaganda. And you are simply fighting the propaganda of theism with propaganda of your own.
Renee Obsidianwords
When I saw the quote in your signature, I thought I would find you a very critical personality. While you have been critical, your criticisms have all been phantasms. You insinuate that I am making certain claims and I find no trace of these claims in anything I post.
I have no idea where you saw that I admitted this prior to my addressing your comment. Please show me where I expressed this to clarify your deduction.
Again I didn’t question whether or not you read the Bible based on the fact that you didn’t find the truth I did. Come to think of it, I didn’t question whether or not you read the Bible at all. Here is what I said.
Please, again, tell me where you see a question. As far as I can see, your assumption is phantasmic. I simply stated that I don’t know how keenly you’ve read the Bible. This is a statement about my lack of knowledge regarding how keenly you’ve read it. Am I supposed to know you’ve even read it at all? For all I know, you are an atheist because you reject Allah and the Q’uran.
Thus far, you are not a good look for the rational responders.
And there goes another phantasm. I never assumed a person didn’t keenly read it because they didn’t see what I saw. Please stop reading into things that are not there. When I write something, please trust that what the words tell is what I mean to tell. That’s the only way you are going to pinpoint whether or not my words add up. I'm not speaking in parables here.
Entomophila
Okay, does anyone else see something wrong with this Bible test? I don’t have much more to say about this matter. Talk about errors
BobSpence1
Your comments have mostly facilitated humane discussion. I apologize that I’ve spent so much of my efforts replying to the more provocative partakers of the forum… as goes your first post,
The one thing I have to say concerning this post is this; there is a difference between something that testifies to what you find to be true and something that justifies what you find to be true. That something testifies to your truth is that it is a witness to your evidence. It is not the evidence, only a witness to it. That something gives justice to your truth is that it anoints your evidence with merit – as though the evidence didn’t have merit on its own.
I think I may have been unclear about this in my remarks – I’m not saying that the Bible justifies what I believe. I’m saying the Bible testifies to what I believe. The evidence speaks for itself, the Bible is an unnecessary witness. It is because the atheist stands [necessarily] in contradistinction to the Bible that I defend it as a witness to real evidence.
Concerning your other post:
I do agree with this much of your statement “Its inconsistencies indicate a lack of logical coherence at the literal level”. But this is precisely the reason that one should attempt to read beyond the literal. Does it really make sense for anyone to write in Genesis 6 that man will live at most 120 years and then in Genesis 7 say Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came? These two statements are separated by twenty-three verses. It is more likely the case that someone was trying to not make this story literal than trying to. The next thing you’ll tell me is that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was because of homosexuality.
As for the rest,
I will not yet attack this portion of your reply. I’ll only ask this question: does 1+1=2 logically prove that 1+1=2 ? I am very interested as to how you will respond to this.
Loc. I like your picture. It is bright. You wrote:
How do I know this is true? Isaiah 6:9-13, Mark 4:12. Case rested. As for all of your other questions I either find them negligible or have already answered them. Well, I’ll answer this one -
It takes reason to understand God. Currently, I’m not concerned with people who’s hearts are Isaiah 6:10. This is why I’m not concerned with some of you who call yourselves rational.
Rook_Hawkins, Core Member
Read Mark 4:12. I find that sufficient answer to your open interpretation belief.
Shikko! My man. Or human. You give me hope that there are sharp atheists out there. I have heeded your advice in post #49. I know you had some questions and clarifications as to what I meant by reasonable doubt and the such. I will get to those claims in a different post for you.
Doomed Soul, you’re cool. Thus far. Rational? That has yet to be determined. But cool. Thus far.
Fulltime Defendant. Do you really plan to live your life promoting reason and science? If so, soon enough you will be promoting the word of God. I know, I know, the burden of proof is “DEFINITELY” on me.
Latincanuck,
Propaganda. Where is your rational response?
Raki, the correct way to read the Bible is while you are doing the hokey pokey. That’s the type of answer your post warrants.
Anyone I have left out, I don't apologize. You probably weren’t worth making a mention of. But for all of you that I have mentioned, know that I’m not here to waste your time with propaganda and fallaciousness. And no, I have no black belt, but my reason will stand up against any rational responder. If you find anything I said about you or your other atheist to be inaccurate, please send a RATIONAL response to me. Otherwise accept it and move on.
Til next post..
1-24
{ Edited to fix formatting only - Edited by Mr. Atheist }
Thanks for replying.Since there's so much I'll just focus on my stuff and leave everybody else to their own pieces.
As do I.It provides some needed color
I read these verses.They seem to imply that god tells us things he doesn't want us to understand.
Mark 4:12:"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
Could you explain why this is?
Isiah 6:10"Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
Once again,this seems to say god deliberately prevents people from understanding.If it takes reason to understand god,why aren't we born with that reason? Why would god make it so hard for us to understand him?
I know you're going to be swamped with replies,so any response is appreciated.I don't claim to be a bible expert,so maybe you can point out what I'm doing wrong.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
The way love works, can ya feel it, 1 - 24 ?
ME GOD is Great ! That other GOD sucks ! Get the drift ????? WE are ONE ..... Love me GOD as YOU !
NOW in this moment ....
Atheism Books.
It is not so simple as that. Matthew 13:24-30. Some of you are bad weeds and don't know it.
I think perhaps you are reading too much into this. It's a forum. People disagree with your stance so they are going to post about that. You have come to a forum that is very vocal about it's anti-theistic stance so if you are expecting anything else, then you probably just didn't know.
You do realize that this is an activist organization correct? Would you go onto a forum for PETA and suggest that they are being black and white about the issue?
It also seems immensly silly to me to produce such a sweeping statement about an entire movement based on one thread where your beliefs are being shot down. There's a lot more going on here than just this thread, and a lot more in the movement than just this forum.
LOL. Good job IAMGAY!
Well, you are claiming that the 'magic man' created it. NickB's method of making that statement you may not agree with, but are you not invoking the "God of the Gaps"? That is essentially what he is accusing you of, and is a fairly accurate thing to suggest with all theists.
As for propaganda, sort of. The difference is the material. We are presenting the acceptance of ignorance and the promotion of obtaining knowledge where as the other is promoting the masking of ignorance through made-up answers. I also don't think that the truth is being manipulated by this side of the fence though there is no doubt that there are similarities to propaganda in the sense that we are activly attempting to change future perceptions and behaviors regarding dogma and theistic beliefs.
The statement in itself is suggesting that if if one had read the bible, it that even if they had it would not have met with the standard that you have read it unless they found the truth that you found.
Your error is assuming that the "truth" you found in it is in fact "truth" to other people and not your own delusional interpetation of "truth".
Actually you asserted that "it is there". And seeing as she, in this case, has not found it then she either did not keenly read it, or they didn't read it up to your own standards. The problem was with your own assumption that it "is there".
Whats wrong with the questions that she presented? I don't know if it was her intention to have the same question twice, but considering the lunacy of such a claim why not have it twice?
The biggest problem I see is that it assumes that people have taken a peice of fiction so seriously that it requires people to come up with ways of mocking belief in it.
Math is not substance. I'll let Bob answer the question though.
Is your defintion of "rational" people that don't offend/attack your beliefs? Just curious.
Did you just suggest that this is propaganda? You can look no farther than the # of sects of Christianity, or even the Catholic church to see the changes in the interpretations of the bible.
Changes in the interprestations are neccessary for the survival of religion as peoples feelings on social issues have changed.
I have to admit that I haven't seen too much content from you yet.
You say you don't subscribe to a specific religion, yet you subscribe to truth in the bible. If this is not a direct linking to a specific religious header it is at least a reduction to a couple specific ones.
Perhaps if you outline what exactly your beliefs are we can't find which sect you share beliefs with.
At the end of the day all I have to say is...
Faith in a deity is irrational. Some people (like most deists) recognize this and accept it as what they consider a reasonable leap. There is no reason to believe that there is truth in the Bible, and any truth in the Bible is at best coincidental, and at worst a delusion of the reader.
The moral and ethical standards specified in the Bible are horrific and classifying them as Metaphores does nothing to change that.
I wrote a bit about this on a recent blog entry perhaps you can give it a once-over: The Bible: Literal, Metaphorical, Poetic.
I also get the strong impression that you seem to view your interpretation of the Bible as somehow more correct than other peoples, perhaps you could elaborate on this one and correct me if I am wrong. I am most curious about who has the 'wrong' interpretations of the Bible according to your own standard (excluding atheists that have not found the "truth" that you have anyways).
That's all I got for now...been away for a week so a lot to catch up on.
Indeed, i find it funny that im COOL because i mocked him... yet every one else are despicable people because they mock his religion ^_^
And for refference, my rationality/irrationality ratio is highly dependant on mood and boredum
What Would Kharn Do?
Actually, I think of reason very much like a black belt. It must be cultivated and practiced, and I do not assume for one second that just because some one is an atheist that they will necessarily be rational. Of course, when someone pointed this out to you, you called it propaganda and didn't explain what qualifies it as propaganda. Please do explain what exactly is propagandistic about us. The fact that we happen to disagree with you about the truthfulness of the Bible is not evidence of propaganda. Show that RRS wages a systematic campaign of misinformation and indoctrination, and then you'll have a right to scream propaganda.
Personally I'm a big fan of the novels "1984" and "Clockwork Orange," but I hardly promote them like you're promoting the Bible, and at least these works admit that they're fictional. There are rational arguments made in the books through metaphors there were intended by the original authors. This doesn't sound like the Bible to me.
Specifically, what truths do you find in the Bible that you think can be backed up by rational evidence and aren't contingent on interpretation or metaphor? I would like to know exactly what you're trying to defend here, as you've been rather ambiguous about it.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
There are no assumptions in my responses, there are however assumptions in your response to me as well as your original post. You assume you are right and that what you have read is the truth and that we all want to hear about what you know as your truth. You assumed this from the moment you clicked on this website and began your post. You have come off as a theist proselytizing his/her message, nothing new.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
It may seem like a pretentious remark to some, but I'm not a very pretentious person. I'm just speaking as honestly as I can.
If you disagree with me then present a rational reason to believe in a god and I will evaluate it. If not then my statement stands.
"Money talks, bullshit walks" to quote an old saying. Deliver the argument instead of just making empty claims. I will honestly consider with an open mind whatever argument you present.
Have a good day.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Ahhhh but some of us do, knowingly and proudly to be a thistle in the side of irrationality.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
First, on the challenge: I hope nobody is going to hold you to it, or even pretend to take it seriously. Please don't do that to yourself.
You'd be surprised what evidence can do to the tone of the crowd here. Even well-formed arguments or questions will get us, because many of us really like arguments that are well-formed, even if they're not along the lines of our beliefs.
I'm not sure how this "evidence -> witness -> justice" thing works, since ... well, it doesn't make any sense. I've read it three times, and I've reached the conclusion that we use all these words in different ways.
You're dealing with positivists here, if you'd like a fast-track to the argument you'll be wanting to make in a couple of moves. Save you some time.
Back up here. If the Bible is an unnecessary witness to ... something ... no, I don't think I follow. Are you saying the Bible is a source of evidence or not?
I have to answer this, even though it's a question to Bob. You've made a statement. "1+1=2" is a statement. No logic has been employed at all. What are you driving at?
Isaiah 6:9-13 is all about an entire people being slaughtered because they won't believe in The Lord. It's also a vision. Mark 4:12 talks about difficulties of perception. What case is closed here? And are you threatening someone?
Seriously? Are you threatening rational people with slaughter? You can't be. It's too outlandish. We're obviously also using the word "rational" differently.
But it just talks about those who see, but do not perceive again. Why can't we perceive God, in your opinion? Better yet, why is God so good at hiding?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Okay, that's the second set of threats. For those of you who aren't aware, this is where unbelievers get burned like weeds in reaping. Nice.
You're now bordering on the scary, and have approached my exact motivation for being an activist antitheist. Thank you for re-firing my desire to bury superstitious belief.
What specifically do you see as my failure in perception? I don't believe in ANYTHING supernatural, much less your specific brand of God™. So I must be one of the weeds you're talking about.
What is my failure of perception?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You didn't answer the questions on the test. Why? You didn't quite *get* why I asked it twice. Let's go over the answers.
1. Insects have 6 legs. But not according to the bible. Lev. 11:20-22. Doh!
2. The earth is NOT flat. But not according to the bible. OT Isaiah 11:12
3. Bats are not birds, they are mammals. But not according to the bible. Lev. 11:19
4. The earth is NOT flat. But not according to the NT (this is mentioned in multiple places throughout the bible...MULTIPLE) Rev. 7:11
5. The sun does NOT revolve around the earth. But not according to the bible, where everything revolves around the earth. 1 Chronicles 16:30.
Now let's discuss 1 + 1 = 2. Are you saying that this is not logical? What about Suzisipha? No comments about that? Oh, wait, you want to question the logic of math but not the possibility of a god named Suzisipha? How amusing! Are you suggesting that 1 + 1 does not equal 2? Are you familiar with Principa Mathematica?
$20 (s)he says those are the exact passages you're not supposed to take literally.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
and that doesn't mean that you get the $20, 1-24, especially considering your epic fail at answering Entomophila's questions.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
Great! I look forward to reading it.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
I wanted to address this specifically...
The answer is no. There are many irrational atheists, and theists are quite capable of about being rational. You can rationalize deity belief through the use of irrational precepts / presuppositions. Is that rational? To a degree.
So simply put, no. They are not synonymous but I don't believe a person being rational about their faith will come to the conclusion that religion or an interfering deity is a rational conclusion.
There doesn't seem to be a concensus on what the bible actually is. The vast majority of biblical adherents literally believe their KJV of the bible is the infallible word of god. This is a pretty incredible claim that an all-powerfgul god could create a book that and it not be interpreted correctly by everyone. If I were all-powerful and all-knowing my goal would be to create something that would have the same meaning to everyone without the controversy. Christian sects cannot even agree on some very basic principles. For example, most denominations believe when you die you go straight to heaven or hell. The Seventh Day Adventists, and I am sure other groups, believe you are asleep until the second coming. Well, then there are the more moderates to contend with. About one third believe the bible was inspired by god and is fallible because it was written by men, however there is much truth within the covers.
What do you mean that the bible is the most truthful? This is a vague statement without any qualifiers. Is there a correct way to read the bible? If you have the secret I would love to know what it is because everyone I talk to seems to mis-interpret so much. I sent in for the secrety decoder ring in my Frosted Flakes and it didn't help.
I don't personally condemn the bible, quran or the vedas whatever text you want. They all have some literary relevence worthy of exploring. As for rational thinking and atheism going hand-in-hand, everyone holds onto irrational ideas. I think these ideas are too dis-similiar to make outright comparisons. Atheism is not a set of beliefs and rational (critical) thinking has tenets involved such as logic and open-mindedness.
Being a former christian I do kind of snicker about some of the things I used to believe as "truth". However, in church you never really discuss things on a critical level. I used to believe that religion was a positive part of society, but my opinion is in a state of flux now. Sam Harris really lays out a good case to do away with religion.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
HisWillness, I am going to respond to you because I've decided to. But first, regarding entomophila:
Entomophila, you asked me if I answered yes to any of the above questions. I did not. Why would I still have to admit that the authors of the bible made some very basic mistakes? This is why I said, talk about errors. I believe it was you who made the error.
I am saying that the Bible is not a source of evidence only a witness. Perhaps this will help you understand what I mean. Say you and 99 other people said they saw a certain celebrity committing a crime. In the court of law the celebrity brings video evidence that he was at the Academy Awards at the same time the 100 witnesses claimed to see the celebrity committing this crime somewhere else. I am saying that the evidence the celebrity brings trumps the 100 witnesses.
I reiterate, the Bible is not a source of evidence, only a witness. The testimony of the Bible is negligible compared to the evidence that I have which supports that testimony. I only mention the Bible because you are stanchly in opposition to any merit the Bible has. Now,, as I have affirmed the Bible as a witness to evidence, you are correct, the witness has no merit compared to the evidence. What I intend to do is supply the evidence so that you can believe in the merit of the witness. Is this plausible? If this does not make sense or you are in disagreement over the trumping of the 100 witnesses, let me know so we can understand better where each other stands.
Lastly, the question asked to Bob that you answered. I want to ask you this: if anything, what does logically prove that 1+1=2?
"If your brother, thoe son of your father, or your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoplels surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill hum, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God..." -Deuteronomy 13:7-11
Is this the truth?
Thank you for your post. Please read the post I made just before your post. The witness is not the evidence. You will have the evidence in two days. If I say now that this is truth then you will try and bring up some contradiction or tell me that this is not worth believing in. But you will be making conclusions by way of the witness, not by way of the evidence. Wait for the evidence before you ask about truth.
1-24
This guy sounds like Truden, but with better syntax.
Shikko, I'm finally getting to your comments...
Hopefully you read my post to HisWillness. But I will try and make my position more clear. I believe in God so, as your understanding deduces, I have a religion. I say differently, but I don't think I fit into any of your three categories. Now, I believe the reason I don't fit into any of these categories has to do with the fact that I believe in God insofar as God is irrefutably evident... I am looking at this past sentence and realizing that this does not help clarify anything. But read my post to HisWillness and you'll get a sense of my position in relation to the Bible. Then perhaps you can come up with a category underwhich you can fit me in.
Regarding Proof and Evidence
When I say that God is evident, I say this because I can find no way to logically refute Him. If you can find a way to logically refute Him, you will be doing me a great service. I do not promote God because I need or want something to believe in. I promote God because God is the only conclusion left. I don't mean this in a 'God of the Gaps' sense. I have traversed the argument too many times for gaps. Find the gap for me and you will do me a service. If not, then take up your cross.
Regarding Who Decides What is Reasonable Doubt...
I propose that anyone who refutes my argument must demonstrate the ability to tell me what I am arguing before they can tell me what is wrong about it. I can't answer everyones nit picking dilemma, especially if they are nit picking without any proper understanding of what I am saying. As far as I know the evidence does not rely on anything subjective. I'm sure someone will argue about what subjectivity is, but again, they should demonstrate an understanding of my argument before any objection is made.
Regarding Errors
If someone points out an error, I don't know if your saying I should concede all points and not defend what I am saying or what. If that is what your saying, then I guess I can't have any unclear component of the proof. I will strive for clarity, but I won't make any promises
As regards the Automatic Failure of an Argument
The element of faith has to do with this statement - If you believe such and such to be the case about your life, then logically, you cannot deny that God exists. This is the extent to which faith will be applicable. You tell me if this is an automatic failure. If it is, then I have already failed.
As regards any other Stipulation
If there are any stipulations that must be adhered to, let these stipulations come from you as I'll not abide by stipulations made from anyone else.
One point: it is always the claimant's job to prove an assertion. The assertion is that "a god exists", not "a god does not exist", so if you hold your position because you cannot refute the premise of this god's existence, that's not ground on which to build an argument. Not having a refutation doesn't mean one does not exist, but having one means the proposition is sunk. Logic is incredibly nit-picky, and all the nits count!
I can understand what you're coming from, and when it comes to debate, I agree: a good debater should be able to argue the other side's position as well as they can. However, that guideline isn't a universal rule-out for objections: logical errors (and there are a lot of these people can make) are essentially instantly fatal to an argument, because they break the chain of reasoning, regardless of whether or not your opponent can restate your argument.
E.g.
1) All foos are bars.
2) This baz is a bar.
3) Therefore this baz is a foo.
Even without knowing what foo, bar and baz mean, this argument fails because 3) doesn't follow from 1) and 2).
Oh no, by all means defend your ideas! However, if someone here says "that is a No True Scotsman fallacy" or "you just made a post hoc ergo propter hoc error", odds are they are right, even if you don't immediately see their objection. If you don't understand an objection, either ask for clarification or google the error for an explanation.
Sound arguing is really hard and takes a lot of practice. Lots of arguments sound much better than they actually are, which explains politics.
Another way to write what you said is "believing X implies that a god exists". This is a hard argument to make, because beliefs and facts can have little to do with each other. I can believe whatever I want about which way my rock will go when I drop it, and my belief will have zero effect on what actually happens. You will have to provide a solid chain that leads from people believing X (which doesn't have to do with whether or not X is true or false) to a god necessarily existing. Believing something is true doesn't mean it's true, just like believing something is false doesn't mean it's false.
Other than that, I can't say more until I read your argument.
I think I need to clarify my position: I'm not trying to make stipulations about how this exchange should go; I was offering some pointers to anyone who would like to attempt to prove the existence of any god. Plenty of people are likely to chime in about what you type, since this is an open board. How you deal with their comments is up to you.
The biggest thing I can recommend is to remember that you are not your argument. If you make a mistake in your reasoning, don't get upset if someone points that out. They are (or should be) criticizing your reasoning, not you as a person, so don't get defensive.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Bring your "evidence" now.
All sounds like empty rhetoric to me - just say you find some support for your beliefs in the Bible. Its acknowledged contradictions and inconsistencies can be explained in many ways other than the idea that they are deliberately left there as some sort of pointers to a more cryptic message that will only be apparent to certain people, or whatever. Since even plain text can be honestly misinterpreted, due to less than adequate choice of expression by the writer and/or misunderstandings of the reader, the chances of misunderstanding the more cryptic sub-text must be an order of magnitude greater...
"1+1=2" logically proves nothing. It is a statement that, follows directly, deductively, logically, according to the definition of the symbols '1', '+', '=', and '2'. It says nothing about truth, it is a tautology.
If I wanted to give an example also from mathematics but much more relevant to truths about the nature of reality and our universe, how about Pythagoras' Theorem:
if three points define a right-angle triangle with the angle between line AB and line BC equal to 90 degrees, the square of the distance between A and C is equal to the sum of the square of the distance between A and B and the square of the distance between C and B.
This is only true in 'flat' space. It is not true for triangles drawn on a curved surface, including the surface of the earth, or in curved space. It was thought to be absolutely true until the concept of non-flat space was introduced. IOW it is deductively true give a set of assumptions, the 'axioms' of Euclidean geometry, at least one of which (the one about parallel lines) does not necessarily apply in reality.
The common error I see in these debates is a failure to distinguish between the 'truth' of statements such as "1 + 1 = 2", or "a square has 4 corners" - including the incredibly stupid "can God create a square circle?", and statements about nature such as the size, shape or age of the Earth or the Universe, even, dare I say, the actual existence of some 'higher consciousness' with any of the attributes of 'God' as described in holy texts.
I have to add that I am severely disappointed in your assertion that a cornerstone of your 'proof' is your inability to refute the idea. That is the ultimate 'God of the Gaps' argument, and is utterly without logical merit.
We are still waiting for your actual substantive, POSITIVE, arguments. Apologies if you have posted something while I have been composing this response.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Great posting you all, an xlint thread this is, Thanks 1 -24.
So what the heck, ( here's some slop to taste? )
Damn that "G-o-d" word ... Oh the bable goes on , of course most can't understand me GOD. They are busy looking, reasoning, and/or waiting.
1 - 24 writes "Call me out if my judgment offends you, but I think some of you are a little too big for your britches. I AM GOD AS YOU, what you say rarely makes sense. At first I thought it was me, but Doomed Soul concurred; your syntax needs work. You’ve talked a big game from the outset but I have yet to receive one rational response from you."
Umm I AM not offended nor surprised, but I AM saddened. "I AM ONE with the father" and so few understand this perfect message.
Explaining GOD ? Science is trying while religion is most always lying.
Let me put it another way, I read this verse you mention nearly opposite as you. Mark 4:12 "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
YES, A belief in a separate god from you is the sin ( mistake ) The first 3 commandments seem to also express this. I read the NT and say wow, Jesus character was an atheist. 'Ye are gods" it reads, etc. ( Paul is the devil )
Will, is a good modern jesus ! and says, "But it just talks about those who see, but do not perceive again. Why can't we perceive God, in your opinion? Better yet, why is God so good at hiding?" /////
God, of course, is not hiding .... the "eye of reason" is the religious error. Atheists correctly reject a separate god, and instead use reasoning as science to study "god" or better called the "cosmos".
It's quite easy to take many theists bible interpretations and turn them into atheist ones.
I take the simple truth to the bible and find some there, but I do not look for the truth, I AM the truth.
I can most always defend my bible Jesus "wisdom character" and messages better than those busy with religious "reasoning" of separation.
To better know jesus know buddha. GOD = All = ONE = INFINITY. Stop looking for god, this is god. Science is the only reasonable reasoning, for the study of reality. Get free, accept "god" , trash "god of abe" religion dogma. Jesus/Buddha would insist. Science is "enlightenment", Religion is "darkness" .... get a big club and beat the bullshit out of the BYBULL, and give Paul a few extra wacks. Yeah bye bye to all bull shit of self separation. "There is no self", said wise Buddha and Jesus too.
(((( umm I thought that recipe was quit tasty bull shit free, but then I AM a bit odd it seems ) Hey, who said I eat and talk B.S., You only further condemn youself .... you must love me with all your heart and soul, "I AM GOD AS YOU" ~
_______________________________________________
Come out from self induced hell, throw that devil cross away. THE WHO - See Me, Feel Me - Listening to You (1975) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_9pn7MGUo
The Who LIVE - See Me, Feel Me http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5JSKr2m6Q
Atheism Books.
I just thought I'd add that to many the holy spirit is this state of perfection, and that blaspheming against the holy spirit is saying something along the lines of "loving your fellow man is foolish"... Something of this nature. I haven't seen the original video in question but doubt it is something of this nature. To many the holy spirit is the perfect acting out of of Jesus' teachings and really if people were to do this you wouldn't have much of a problem with kind, loving people who are trying to lift up atheists (and others) in any way they can, instead of knocking them down.
I hope I got my message across. It isn't Jesus-like to tell someone they're an idiot, or get a violent tone, or even arbitrarily tell them they're going to hell, etc.
Instead of doing whatever you can to convince others that Jesus is God, try using one of your brain cells and realize that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Also, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, something I'm sure a forgiving soul like Jesus would agree with. Like the poster above me said, promoting separation is NOT a virtue.
It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.
Could someone delete Religious_Rebel's little rant and give him a troll tag? It would be extremely appropriate.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie