The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Ok, so if

Brian37 wrote:

 

Ok, so if you smell a fart, which you cant see, but know what it does to your nose, does that mean an evil burreto monster made it?

doi

Brian37 wrote:

Wind is no more magic than gravity. You can't discribe god logically because no such thing exists. You can't describe wind, because you haven't studied the science of weather or meteorology. Wind is logical and observable. Your god is merely an invention of your mind.

Brian, I know you're not that dense, but I'll entertain it anyway.

I have actually studied the science of meteorology.  I can describe to you how wind forms.  I can't describe to you what it looks like or exactly where that gust of wind you felt came from or started.  Or whether it was a cold air mass meeting a warm air mass or vise versa in your back yard.  Maybe your neighbor sneezed. 

The analogy was that you can see the effects of God as you can with wind without actually being able to see It or Him. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The wind can

jcgadfly wrote:

The wind can be measured and we know it's components - can you say that for God?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by measure.  I can't measure the speed of God like I can measure the speed of wind.  I can observe the effects of God as I can observe the effects of wind. 

Though as many people do with God, I could just blame a pissed off elephant for the distruction caused by streight line winds. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Quote:I

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
I can logically describe the wind as efficiently as I can logically describe God.  I can't describe what the wind looks like or where it comes from, but I can see what it does.
 

Um, we know what wind is, and we can determine where it came from.

Followers know who God is and we can determine when it was God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:I can propel

Desdenova wrote:

I can propel a boat with wind. Can you jump start a car with a crucifix? Ever powered a radio with a Bible? Hell, have you ever even turned on the television with prayer?

Why would you expect to power things with material objects made by people.  (no, the words of the Bible were God inspired, we don't need to go there again, I was refering to the pages and book itself as a physical object.)

Why would I pray for my tv to turn on when I can just use a remote? 

You've definitely been blinded by dispensationalist churches.  I'm guessing you'd use a crucifix to propell vampires too. 

Desdenova wrote:

Gotta run now. I need to let those stupid meterologists know that they don't have any idea where wind comes from.

I never said we don't know where wind comes from. 

Can you describe it for me?  I don't mean the movement of air. I mean what does it look like.  How is it that just hot and cold air meet and air moves?  How did they meet in the first place if that's what causes wind?  Does air move without wind?  If it does, how come I don't feel it? 

I'm sure you all are smarter than this.  You I'm sure understood the analogy. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Old and new

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

This was from another forum when I suggested another to read the book.

Simply put, new Atheism from what I understand is taking different approaches as apposed to long ago.  There is more science involved on both sides, but not only that; There is more using poor-excuses-for-examples to represent Christianity when in fact it's exactly NOT what Christianity is supposed to be.  Usually it's people who don't do things right or appropriately or misrepresent scripture.  I agree with the author that when it comes to excuses on why people don't believe in God, it's those people that are the examples. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:butterbattle

caposkia wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
I can logically describe the wind as efficiently as I can logically describe God.  I can't describe what the wind looks like or where it comes from, but I can see what it does.
 

Um, we know what wind is, and we can determine where it came from.

Followers know who God is and we can determine when it was God.

That tends to be pretty easy for you guys, doesn't it?

1. Did I benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

2. Did my fellowship benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

Voila! It came from God.

Why does God get a pass for the evil he does? You theist folks blame that on another of God's creations, Satan.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

This was from another forum when I suggested another to read the book.

Simply put, new Atheism from what I understand is taking different approaches as apposed to long ago.  There is more science involved on both sides, but not only that; There is more using poor-excuses-for-examples to represent Christianity when in fact it's exactly NOT what Christianity is supposed to be.  Usually it's people who don't do things right or appropriately or misrepresent scripture.  I agree with the author that when it comes to excuses on why people don't believe in God, it's those people that are the examples. 

 You mean the way some theists here and the author represent atheism? ( exactly NOT what atheism is supposed to be)

Though I agree with you that the world might be a better place if people took the good parts of Jesus and lived those instead of living like Paul advocated (do what you want! There is no law for the believer in Christ and where there is no law there is no sin)

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

This was from another forum when I suggested another to read the book.

Simply put, new Atheism from what I understand is taking different approaches as apposed to long ago.  There is more science involved on both sides, but not only that; There is more using poor-excuses-for-examples to represent Christianity when in fact it's exactly NOT what Christianity is supposed to be.  Usually it's people who don't do things right or appropriately or misrepresent scripture.  I agree with the author that when it comes to excuses on why people don't believe in God, it's those people that are the examples. 

Here is the difference between scientific method and religion.

Science, 1+1=2. No matter what language you speak or what religion you are that is universal, unless you are clinically insane.

Religion.....Catholics, "You need to symbolically canibalize Jesus, to be saved. Baptists, "Catholics arn't real Christians". Sunnis "Shiites aren't real Muslims" Shiites, "Sunnis aren't real Muslims".

Deity belief is nothing but Santa for adults. The problem is that this "joke" has global consiquences effecting even religious people who don't want a another world war.

"Misinterpret" means the same thing to the Muslim and Christian, "I don't have to demonstrate my method, YOU merely have to believe it".

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: you expect

caposkia wrote:

 you expect to power things with material objects made by people.  (no, the words of the Bible were God inspired, we don't need to go there again, I was refering to the pages and book itself as a physical object.)

Why would I pray for my tv to turn on when I can just use a remote? 

You've definitely been blinded by dispensationalist churches.  I'm guessing you'd use a crucifix to propell vampires too. 

Actually, depending on which Christian cult you talk to, the Bible is the literal word of the invisible sky daddy. But that wasn't really the point. The point was that air is measurable, testable, even usable. Your invisible sky daddy seems unable to even be detected. Strange since omnipotence should be a hell of a lot more testable than finite energy. We have trouble detecting things because their energy emissions are too weak, not because they are too strong.

But since we are on the subject of infinite energy, just why don't you pray for your fairy godfather to turn on the television? Since the invisible fella is all powerful, it would cost him nothing to serve as a remote control. Goodness knows he isn't doing anything else observable with all his infinite energy pixie dust.

You claim that the ISD is detectable if you are smug, self righteous, and condescending enough.  But since this is a subjective feeling, indetectable even to other smug, self righteous, and condescending people just one building removed from you, don't you think that it might just be your own imagination? Just a thought. Otherwise they would be knocking on your door, asking if you just felt god.

I don't see myself propelling any vampires, because, while there are five times as many vampires as there are gods, five times zero still equals zero.

Back to work, have a nice day of schizophrenic delusions. Smiling

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Desdenova

caposkia wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

I can propel a boat with wind. Can you jump start a car with a crucifix? Ever powered a radio with a Bible? Hell, have you ever even turned on the television with prayer?

Why would you expect to power things with material objects made by people.  (no, the words of the Bible were God inspired, we don't need to go there again, I was refering to the pages and book itself as a physical object.)

Why would I pray for my tv to turn on when I can just use a remote? 

You've definitely been blinded by dispensationalist churches.  I'm guessing you'd use a crucifix to propell vampires too. 

Desdenova wrote:

Gotta run now. I need to let those stupid meterologists know that they don't have any idea where wind comes from.

I never said we don't know where wind comes from. 

Can you describe it for me?  I don't mean the movement of air. I mean what does it look like.  How is it that just hot and cold air meet and air moves?  How did they meet in the first place if that's what causes wind?  Does air move without wind?  If it does, how come I don't feel it? 

I'm sure you all are smarter than this.  You I'm sure understood the analogy. 

 

1. If the words of the Bible are God inspired, don't you think God would have tried to get his ghost writers to agree on all points?

2. I know where you're trying to go and it doesn't help you - the particles that make up the wind can't be seen with the naked eye but they can be detected with instruments. How about 
God? Can he be detected?

3. Others can explain the natural processes of convection better that I - I'll leave that to them.

4. Have you taken a walk recently? You move the air around you - no wind needed. You feel it but likely have never been aware of it. Do you walk or does God push you where you need/where he wants you to go?

5. What visible effects have you seen of God? Effects that would have no other natural explanation, please.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Brian 37 wrote me (539) :

 Brian 37 wrote me (539) : "We are not god(s) humans make up god(s). It is a projection of our own failure to accept our own mortality. Our atoms go on to become something else based on energy transfer. The atoms that made up our DNA when we were concieved are not the atoms in us now. BUT that does not make us GODS, that makes us part of an ongoing, uncognative random process." ////



  In my words: All is god, yet religious people make up god(s). Conception and Mortality are part of the transition of all connected deterministic existence, as all is god, as nothing is not god .... as religion separatism is all make believe god fantasy.


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 Brian 37 wrote me (539) : "We are not god(s) humans make up god(s). It is a projection of our own failure to accept our own mortality. Our atoms go on to become something else based on energy transfer. The atoms that made up our DNA when we were concieved are not the atoms in us now. BUT that does not make us GODS, that makes us part of an ongoing, uncognative random process." ////

 

  In my words: All is god, yet religious people make up god(s). Conception and Mortality are part of the transition of all connected deterministic existence, as all is god, as nothing is not god .... as religion separatism is all make believe god fantasy.

 

 

I figuritivly want to bitch slap you(not litterally). I am simply saying that it is a a bad idea when stating the obvious to use antiquated words rooted in hocus pocus myth.

WE are not gods, thats it. The smallest known thing we know if is a quark.

BUT a quark on the oposite side of the universe is not connected to a quark in one of the atoms in my body. You are merely attempting to create poetic language. I am warning you that that is how people make up myths and perpetuate them.

Just state the obvious you, like I do, have a sense of "awe".

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Followers know who God is and we can determine when it was God.

That tends to be pretty easy for you guys, doesn't it?

Just as it's pretty easy for you guys to claim the latter. 

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Did I benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

2. Did my fellowship benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

Voila! It came from God.

Why does God get a pass for the evil he does? You theist folks blame that on another of God's creations, Satan.

and you atheist folks always blame God.  I guess someone's got to be at blame other than ourselves. 

note: I never said the evil is all satan.  Do you know who satan is though?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

This was from another forum when I suggested another to read the book.

Simply put, new Atheism from what I understand is taking different approaches as apposed to long ago.  There is more science involved on both sides, but not only that; There is more using poor-excuses-for-examples to represent Christianity when in fact it's exactly NOT what Christianity is supposed to be.  Usually it's people who don't do things right or appropriately or misrepresent scripture.  I agree with the author that when it comes to excuses on why people don't believe in God, it's those people that are the examples. 

Here is the difference between scientific method and religion.

Science, 1+1=2. No matter what language you speak or what religion you are that is universal, unless you are clinically insane.

Religion.....Catholics, "You need to symbolically canibalize Jesus, to be saved. Baptists, "Catholics arn't real Christians". Sunnis "Shiites aren't real Muslims" Shiites, "Sunnis aren't real Muslims".

Deity belief is nothing but Santa for adults. The problem is that this "joke" has global consiquences effecting even religious people who don't want a another world war.

"Misinterpret" means the same thing to the Muslim and Christian, "I don't have to demonstrate my method, YOU merely have to believe it".

Which is why I don't follow religion


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Actually,

Desdenova wrote:

Actually, depending on which Christian cult you talk to, the Bible is the literal word of the invisible sky daddy. But that wasn't really the point. The point was that air is measurable, testable, even usable. Your invisible sky daddy seems unable to even be detected. Strange since omnipotence should be a hell of a lot more testable than finite energy. We have trouble detecting things because their energy emissions are too weak, not because they are too strong.

If he's that strong and all powerful, is it so far fetched to think that he could hide that power as well???  if he created us, he also has the power to reveil to us as much of himself as he wants.  think about it.  Don't just speak, think.

Desdenova wrote:

 

But since we are on the subject of infinite energy, just why don't you pray for your fairy godfather to turn on the television? Since the invisible fella is all powerful, it would cost him nothing to serve as a remote control. Goodness knows he isn't doing anything else observable with all his infinite energy pixie dust.

If I was holding the remote and I told you to go turn the tv on for me, would you do it?

if yes, then you are my slave. 

If no, then you get my point.

Desdenova wrote:

You claim that the ISD is detectable if you are smug, self righteous, and condescending enough.  But since this is a subjective feeling, indetectable even to other smug, self righteous, and condescending people just one building removed from you, don't you think that it might just be your own imagination? Just a thought. Otherwise they would be knocking on your door, asking if you just felt god.

If it really came down to a "subjective feeling" i would not be a believer.  It's actually more dangerous to be a Christian these days than to not believe at all.  So why do I believe?  Back to the drawing board. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. If the

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If the words of the Bible are God inspired, don't you think God would have tried to get his ghost writers to agree on all points?

why?  He wasn't trying to convince them, he was just telling them what to say/write.  They weren't suppose to understand it all.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I know where you're trying to go and it doesn't help you - the particles that make up the wind can't be seen with the naked eye but they can be detected with instruments. How about 
God? Can he be detected?

yea, he can.  though you can't use a barometer to measure the wind. You need to use the right instrument. 

What instrument detects God.  yea, i could sense that one coming.  One step at a time.  I'm not going to dive into conversations like this until we can first come to a specific agreement.   New forum anyone? 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Others can explain the natural processes of convection better that I - I'll leave that to them.

...so... God is.... convection.  AH!!! I had it all wrong!!!

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Have you taken a walk recently? You move the air around you - no wind needed. You feel it but likely have never been aware of it.

Ya know what?  I like your statement.  Read that statement again and put it in reference to God.  Same idea.

jcgadfly wrote:

5. What visible effects have you seen of God? Effects that would have no other natural explanation, please.

Seeing an angel.... wait, naw.  that was just a figment of my imagination

How about the random circle of unburnt ground around a friends house during one of the California fire outbreaks.  Perfect circle and the house was untouched.  However everything around it was charred. 

Don't believe me?  I never asked you to.  You just asked what I've seen.  There's more, but I know even just from this, I'm going to get some pompus responses from people who think they know I didn't see it or that it didn't happen. 

Most things can be explained away, but most explanations without basis are strawmen. 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: If he's

caposkia wrote:

 

If he's that strong and all powerful, is it so far fetched to think that he could hide that power as well???  if he created us, he also has the power to reveil to us as much of himself as he wants.  think about it.  Don't just speak, think.

Oh, I see. A deceitful, lying god that deliberately withholds evidence in order to force intelligent, thinking people to go to hell. Gotcha.

Which of course brings to question exactly what proposed mechanism could be used to hide infinite power. But there I go falling into the thinking trap again. Anything past third grade logic is fatal around the invisible sky daddy.

 

caposkia wrote:

If I was holding the remote and I told you to go turn the tv on for me, would you do it?

if yes, then you are my slave. 

If no, then you get my point.

Or, seen differently, I am holding a device with limited energy potential. God holds unlimited energy. My device uses batteries that are detrimental to the world around me. God's energy, being undetectable, has no such adverse reactions. Therefore, not only is the invisible sky daddy deceptive, he is also hostile to life, wishing to create as much entropy as possible in the universe.

 

caposkia wrote:

If it really came down to a "subjective feeling" i would not be a believer.  It's actually more dangerous to be a Christian these days than to not believe at all.  So why do I believe?  Back to the drawing board. 

I am looking really hard for an answer to my question in there, but it seems damn near as hidden as the ISF's power. Are you not the one that made the claim that a True Believer could feel the ISD? That does make it a subjective feeling. And unless you can demonstrate that another True Believer next door can feel it simultaneously, then it is purely subjective.

How exactly is it dangerous for the majority of Americans to believe in their invisible sky daddy? Do your brains explode from convoluted logic? Does being laughed at for evading questions cause the ISD's wings to fall off? Does pretending to be a minority in order to claim that you are being persecuted lead to insomnia, feelings of guilt, depression, and humility? Oh, no, wait, scrap that last question. That would require a conscience.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37. Our difference is

Brian37.

Our difference is largely semantics. You seem to presume your god definition to be the "one", and that god definitions must be rooted in religion hocus pocus. For many g-o-d equals nature, and nothing more. Many of us are trying fix the god definition, BECAUSE the the g-o-d word IS NOT going away.

  So again, all is god, all is connected, of zero hocus pocus ...


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Brian37.

Our difference is largely semantics. You seem to presume your god definition to be the "one", and that god definitions must be rooted in religion hocus pocus. For many g-o-d equals nature, and nothing more. Many of us are trying fix the god definition, BECAUSE the the g-o-d word IS NOT going away.

  So again, all is god, all is connected, of zero hocus pocus ...

Pantheist, hey?

Problem with pantheism is that so much of their ' god ' is absolutely preposterous to worship. Tooth decay is god. Polio is god. Dog crap is god. Radiation poisoning is god. Elisabeth Bathory is god. Testicular cancer is god. Joseph Stalin is god. Toxic waste is god. Fredrich Nietzschie is god. See the problem with this?

I'll take pantheists seriously when I see one of them sculpt a shrine out of dog crap. Till then, I am sure that even they don't believe the crap that sometimes oozes out of the wrong orifice and poses as pantheist theology.

Sorry man, and no offense meant, but the " All is god " crap is bullshit. Of course you can always prove me wrong by buiding that shrine of canine crap. Hell, even a cathedral celebrating the glorious god that is testicular cancer would convince me. All is universe? Sure. All is god? All Hail Toxic waste!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Followers know who God is and we can determine when it was God.

That tends to be pretty easy for you guys, doesn't it?

Just as it's pretty easy for you guys to claim the latter. 

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Did I benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

2. Did my fellowship benefit (in most cases monetarily)?

Voila! It came from God.

Why does God get a pass for the evil he does? You theist folks blame that on another of God's creations, Satan.

and you atheist folks always blame God.  I guess someone's got to be at blame other than ourselves. 

note: I never said the evil is all satan.  Do you know who satan is though?

 

 

Love the way you glossed over the method of most Christians determining if something came from god. Must be something you agree with. You give god credit for healing when you go to medical science and use it. You give god credit for finances when you get a job/raise by busting your hump. You give god credit for saving a relationship when you decided to fix the problem. You do the work - god gets the credit. Why?

You mean I shouldn't blame God for the evil he creates? He takes credit for it = why shouldn't I give it to him as well.

As for Satan - I know who the Bible claims he is. What do you have that is different?

Why are you so willing to take the blame for your bad actions but give God the credit for your good actions?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova. Your above

Desdenova. Your above generalization / problem with pantheism is based on what? All labels get misused and change in time. To say "ALL IS GOD" is to me the ultimate slap to any god concept separate from all that IS existence. There is nothing to worship, NO MASTER. All is ONE in transition / thermodynamics.

In this world today, to be honest, I must say I am and atheist, and pantheism is simply "sexed up atheism", as Dawkins coined.

There is no worship, no dogma, no scripture in raw pantheism. Sure, there are loons calling themselves any g-o-d related label invented. New Age quacks abound indeed.

   Getting above the problem of semantics we basically agree, and be more socially helpful, explaining what isn't g-o-d, as all is nature , and that is my point .... as to say any g-o-d concept not fully grounded in real science is human fantasy, defying the laws of physics. Science is the only study of g-o-d.

   The prevailing g-o-d word definition(s), especially of the west and mid east have always been preposterous, as obviously all is one and connected.

   It gets old, telling people I don't have superstitious atom in my body, but I just keep on, as i am god as you.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Ok, so if you smell a fart, which you cant see, but know what it does to your nose, does that mean an evil burreto monster made it?

doi

Brian37 wrote:

Wind is no more magic than gravity. You can't discribe god logically because no such thing exists. You can't describe wind, because you haven't studied the science of weather or meteorology. Wind is logical and observable. Your god is merely an invention of your mind.

Brian, I know you're not that dense, but I'll entertain it anyway.

I have actually studied the science of meteorology.  I can describe to you how wind forms.  I can't describe to you what it looks like or exactly where that gust of wind you felt came from or started.  Or whether it was a cold air mass meeting a warm air mass or vise versa in your back yard.  Maybe your neighbor sneezed. 

The analogy was that you can see the effects of God as you can with wind without actually being able to see It or Him. 

I know you can take the punches and I apreciate that you have stuck around this long. Most theists take it personally and run like scared children. So thank you for sticking around.

Having said that, I cannot mince words, it is not in my nature.

So here goes. YOU ARE PULLING THIS CRAP OUT OF YOUR ASS. I am telling you this for your own intellectual good, because I was where you were and once I accepted that a deity was merely wishful thinking I didn't have to make up crap to justify it. I did the intellectually honest thing and discarded my false position.

Why have you not considered that nature is all that is needed to observe, which you admit to studying? I am telling you that your god is merely a product of your placebo disire. It is a missfire in your head. |You are confusing a mere want with being fact.

It is absurd to conflate nature to being of a magical source. You reject all other claims outside your label as being absurd. Once you apply that same logic to your own claims, you will understand why I am telling you right now that you are making this up merely to cling to it.

(END RANT, Fangs retracting)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to BBQ.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Desdenova. Your above generalization / problem with pantheism is based on what? All labels get misused and change in time. To say "ALL IS GOD" is to me the ultimate slap to any god concept separate from all that IS existence. There is nothing to worship, NO MASTER. All is ONE in transition / thermodynamics.

In this world today, to be honest, I must say I am and atheist, and pantheism is simply "sexed up atheism", as Dawkins coined.

There is no worship, no dogma, no scripture in raw pantheism. Sure, there are loons calling themselves any g-o-d related label invented. New Age quacks abound indeed.

   Getting above the problem of semantics we basically agree, and be more socially helpful, explaining what isn't g-o-d, as all is nature , and that is my point .... as to say any g-o-d concept not fully grounded in real science is human fantasy, defying the laws of physics. Science is the only study of g-o-d.

   The prevailing g-o-d word definition(s), especially of the west and mid east have always been preposterous, as obviously all is one and connected.

   It gets old, telling people I don't have superstitious atom in my body, but I just keep on, as i am god as you.  

The problem is that you are using the word god as a synonym for universe. The two words are not interchangeable, as they convey entirely different meanings to most people. All is universe, but the universe does not fit the normal concept of god any more than canine feces fits the concept of either universe or god. The universe contains canine feces, but anybody would laugh in your face were you to insist that canine feces was the universe. The same goes for claiming that all is god.

Language does change. Words do change meaning over time. But this happens when a consensus of people decide to agree on the new usage. Words do not change on the whim of a single person. If you suddenly decide to call all fruits apples, then go the grocery and ask for apples, are you going to express shock when the man at the counter hands you a bag of red roundish fruit when you wanted the yellow lozenge shaped apples? The grocer, indeed the majority of the human race, has not agreed to your definition of apples, and the language remains unchanged. All you do in this case is confuse everyone around you and make communication impossible.

The bulk of the world has a concept of god that involves an anthropomorphic intelligence. They do not agree that cough drops/dog shit/cardboard boxes/everyone/baseball caps/universe is god.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Oh, I see. A

Desdenova wrote:

Oh, I see. A deceitful, lying god that deliberately withholds evidence in order to force intelligent, thinking people to go to hell. Gotcha.

uh... yea.  If that helps you sleep at night.  You really haven't done a lot of research have you.

Desdenova wrote:

Which of course brings to question exactly what proposed mechanism could be used to hide infinite power. But there I go falling into the thinking trap again. Anything past third grade logic is fatal around the invisible sky daddy.

yea, I know.  Most people like me would tell you to think with your heart and not your brain.  I'm telling you start thinking with your brain.  If he has infinite power as you say, you first would have to figure out what type of power to even consider the idea of a mechanism to hide it. 

You apparently have done extensive study on this, please let's start a new forum and discuss it.

 

Desdenova wrote:

Or, seen differently, I am holding a device with limited energy potential. God holds unlimited energy. My device uses batteries that are detrimental to the world around me. God's energy, being undetectable, has no such adverse reactions. Therefore, not only is the invisible sky daddy deceptive, he is also hostile to life, wishing to create as much entropy as possible in the universe.

or be it that he's understood to be KING, he might have better things to do with his time than to turn on the TV of a lazy follower.   Did I mention that he doesn't want people to know him just becasue he did some amazing "poofing" in their line of site?  He actually expects you to make an effort.  Ya know, like you would with any relationship.

Though if you pray really really hard, he might conjure up a website for you.  Just point and click and you'll be saved.  Just give your major credit card number for identification purposes only.

Desdenova wrote:

I am looking really hard for an answer to my question in there, but it seems damn near as hidden as the ISF's power. Are you not the one that made the claim that a True Believer could feel the ISD? That does make it a subjective feeling. And unless you can demonstrate that another True Believer next door can feel it simultaneously, then it is purely subjective.

well, for this to be the case, you'd not only have to take my word on it, but theirs as well.   Something tells me you wouldn't.  Also it would require a new forum if you actually want to talk about something different than the topic. 

Desdenova wrote:

How exactly is it dangerous for the majority of Americans to believe in their invisible sky daddy? Do your brains explode from convoluted logic? Does being laughed at for evading questions cause the ISD's wings to fall off? Does pretending to be a minority in order to claim that you are being persecuted lead to insomnia, feelings of guilt, depression, and humility? Oh, no, wait, scrap that last question. That would require a conscience.

Read "Voice of Martyrs" sometime. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You mean I

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean I shouldn't blame God for the evil he creates? He takes credit for it = why shouldn't I give it to him as well.

As for Satan - I know who the Bible claims he is. What do you have that is different?

Why are you so willing to take the blame for your bad actions but give God the credit for your good actions?

 

 

 

I guess 1.  It would depend on what you're considering evil.  It's a very general question.  Are you talking about letting a cute fluffy bunny die painfully?  Are you talking about the wars?  What? 

I choose all the actions I take.  Who blames God for that? 

new forum?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I know you can

Brian37 wrote:

I know you can take the punches and I apreciate that you have stuck around this long. Most theists take it personally and run like scared children. So thank you for sticking around.

Having said that, I cannot mince words, it is not in my nature.

So here goes. YOU ARE PULLING THIS CRAP OUT OF YOUR ASS. I am telling you this for your own intellectual good, because I was where you were and once I accepted that a deity was merely wishful thinking I didn't have to make up crap to justify it. I did the intellectually honest thing and discarded my false position.

Why have you not considered that nature is all that is needed to observe, which you admit to studying? I am telling you that your god is merely a product of your placebo disire. It is a missfire in your head. |You are confusing a mere want with being fact.

It is absurd to conflate nature to being of a magical source. You reject all other claims outside your label as being absurd. Once you apply that same logic to your own claims, you will understand why I am telling you right now that you are making this up merely to cling to it.

(END RANT, Fangs retracting)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to BBQ.

Ah, a little more light shed on mystery ranter.  So you've been there and what was it exactly that convinced you God was not real?


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:uh... yea. 

caposkia wrote:

uh... yea.  If that helps you sleep at night.  You really haven't done a lot of research have you.

Done enough to know that the evidence demonstrates a naturalistic universe without adding a god equation into the mix.

caposkia wrote:

Which of course brings to question exactly what proposed mechanism could be used to hide infinite power. But there I go falling into the thinking trap again. Anything past third grade logic is fatal around the invisible sky daddy.

yea, I know.  Most people like me would tell you to think with your heart and not your brain.  I'm telling you start thinking with your brain.  If he has infinite power as you say, you first would have to figure out what type of power to even consider the idea of a mechanism to hide it. 

You apparently have done extensive study on this, please let's start a new forum and discuss it.

I would have tried claiming the energy was hidden in black holes, but thats what I get for going past third grade.

I don't say that the invisible sky daddy has infinite power. I address the fundy claims that the invisible sky daddy has infinite, though absolutely undetectable, power. I'm just trying to figure out how nuclear detonations register on seismographs around the world, but infinite power is undetectable.

caposkia wrote:

or be it that he's understood to be KING, he might have better things to do with his time than to turn on the TV of a lazy follower. 

King? I live in a democracy, not a monarchy. Or are you saying that god is Elvis? Makes sense, seeing as believers claim to see both of them.

caposkia wrote:

Did I mention that he doesn't want people to know him just becasue he did some amazing "poofing" in their line of site?

And yet in the mythical past he parts seas, raises the dead, releases plagues and floods, talks through asses ( still does that one today ) and burning bushes, sends angelic messengers, and tells the Hebrew how to murder and enslave their neighbors. Wow, I guess he ran out of poofing dust or something!

caposkia wrote:

He actually expects you to make an effort.  Ya know, like you would with any relationship.

I'm not sure what the long distance rates are to heaven, but since he has unlimited everything, he needs to call me. Kind of hard to have a relationship with someone that isn't there, though. Conversation consists of a monologue, hand holding is out of the question, and don't even think of making him your designated driver!

caposkia wrote:

Though if you pray really really hard, he might conjure up a website for you.  Just point and click and you'll be saved.  Just give your major credit card number for identification purposes only.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe I'll just see a face on a tortilla.

caposkia wrote:

well, for this to be the case, you'd not only have to take my word on it, but theirs as well.   Something tells me you wouldn't.  Also it would require a new forum if you actually want to talk about something different than the topic. 

Ohhh, I just love the way you dodge the method for supporting your warm, fuzzy, fully internal feeling. All it would take would be another True Christian next door to confirm your feeling. But, since you and I both know that the feeling comes from you and not an invisible sky fairy, you shift the blame on me. And here I thought that Christians were supposed to be honest. Oh, duh! I forget, I'm not dealing with Christians. I'm dealing with Paulists that pretend to be Christians, and Paul says to lie when necessary to convert someone.

caposkia wrote:

Read "Voice of Martyrs" sometime. 

Is that a book? Never heard of it. But if the name is an indication, I could point out that I am talking about the here and now Paulist-ized America. Most Paulist martyrs died when Paulinity was still a tiny cult.

However, if you are talking about current day Paulist's being killed, bear in mind that they were not invited to go to other countries and try their brainwashing techniques on them. I'm pretty damn sure that if I barged into a fundy house uninvited and started explaining the theory of gravity to them, they would shoot my ass. Since you folks are so poorly educated for the most part, how about a little advice? When you force yourself into a place where you are not invited, people tend to react with hostility. I know, I know, its a hard concept for a brainwashed cultist to get their mind around, but believe me, it is true.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean I shouldn't blame God for the evil he creates? He takes credit for it = why shouldn't I give it to him as well.

As for Satan - I know who the Bible claims he is. What do you have that is different?

Why are you so willing to take the blame for your bad actions but give God the credit for your good actions?

 

 

 

 

I guess 1.  It would depend on what you're considering evil.  It's a very general question.  Are you talking about letting a cute fluffy bunny die painfully?  Are you talking about the wars?  What? 

I choose all the actions I take.  Who blames God for that? 

new forum?

Not necessary - why start anothe thread you can dodge questions in?

Death is a fact - it's neither good nor evil. Causing death can be considered evil and the Bible is replete with God causing death or compelling others to kill for him.

I won't bother getting into the free will vs. God's omniscience discussion - others have done it better than I. The question wasn't about actions, anyway. It was about who gets the credit. If your actions get you what you want, you praise God. If not, you either blame yourself for your lack of faith or God's lackey Satan for blocking you.

Why invoke the entities at all?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So you've

caposkia wrote:
So you've been there and what was it exactly that convinced you God was not real?

It's like children have to be taught that God is not real, interesting.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I know you can take the punches and I apreciate that you have stuck around this long. Most theists take it personally and run like scared children. So thank you for sticking around.

Having said that, I cannot mince words, it is not in my nature.

So here goes. YOU ARE PULLING THIS CRAP OUT OF YOUR ASS. I am telling you this for your own intellectual good, because I was where you were and once I accepted that a deity was merely wishful thinking I didn't have to make up crap to justify it. I did the intellectually honest thing and discarded my false position.

Why have you not considered that nature is all that is needed to observe, which you admit to studying? I am telling you that your god is merely a product of your placebo disire. It is a missfire in your head. |You are confusing a mere want with being fact.

It is absurd to conflate nature to being of a magical source. You reject all other claims outside your label as being absurd. Once you apply that same logic to your own claims, you will understand why I am telling you right now that you are making this up merely to cling to it.

(END RANT, Fangs retracting)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to BBQ.

Ah, a little more light shed on mystery ranter.  So you've been there and what was it exactly that convinced you God was not real?

*sigh*(Throws hands up in air)

There is no such thing as godsperm and dead flesh does not survive rigor mortis.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
"There is no such thing as

"There is no such thing as godsperm and dead flesh does not survive rigor mortis."

Just wondering, have you considered seeing a mental health professional about his rather odd sperm obsession you seem to have? Smiling


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:"There is no

WillieBop wrote:
"There is no such thing as godsperm and dead flesh does not survive rigor mortis." Just wondering, have you considered seeing a mental health professional about his rather odd sperm obsession you seem to have? Smiling

Says the bloke who believes that both incidents  (God boffing Mary and the resurrection of the demigod) are:

<puts on Hovind mask>

"historically true and scientfically accurate"

<removes Hovind mask>

<disinfects face>

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:"There is no

WillieBop wrote:
"There is no such thing as godsperm and dead flesh does not survive rigor mortis." Just wondering, have you considered seeing a mental health professional about his rather odd sperm obsession you seem to have? Smiling

I'm not the one claiming that a deity magically knocked up a girl. Now the only thing that can impregnate an egg is sperm. You need two sets of DNA.

So unless the claimant can come up with godsperm or god's DNA. I'll take Occham's Razor's approach that out of all the given explinations, the least complicated is the most likely. It is made up ancient myth that people like believing.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia,I thought the whole

Caposkia,
I thought the whole point of this thread was to have a discussion on the book you suggested. I read it and posted my review a week and a half ago. See post # 538. I didn't think much of the author's satire but I did understand what she called a "True Christian" which is what you claim to be. My impression is you ignored my comments as you posted to others that you were engaged in a defensive discussion with (and losing at badly).

Maybe since I didn't come back with a glorious rave on Becky Garrison or the book you didn't like it?

She thinks there are quite a few people in America that have encountered far too much of "toxic church settings" or were trained in "rigorous rules" and still can "embrace the universal message of Jesus." What she fails to grasp is a large portion of this group walked away and either decided religion was at best a control system for a group of marginal at best elitist despots or they researched concluding religion was a delusional fantasy.This is a good point to start a discussion on this book if you so choose. Say her claim about what occurs when "we Christians follow our own self-interests in lieu of living out the gospel, we play right into the hands of the New Atheists." - from p 170.

As someone who was actively involved in church activities from everything from the choir to 4 years as an altar boy I admit I enjoyed the participation and feelings one gets. I considered a long term commitment at one point in the ministry as I had prepared for such all my life. As I reached my late teens I changed direction and became a Catholic. This was about the time masses had become more user friendly including guitar masses as well as audience participation.In the meanwhile I was exposed to a higher education that began to open my eyes to the past of the "Church".Instead of the ministry I became an engineer.  It would take another 10 years and a graduate degree from a Jesuit university to finish off the years of indoctrination. In my case therefore it was research and knowledge not generally provided in the education of a parochial school that lead me to see all beliefs in a god were based in fantasy. I did however gain an extreme fascination with ancient history which I continue to pursue.



So let's discuss "toxic church settings", "rigorous rules", playing into the hands of New Atheists or the universal message you think you see in the supposed words of Jesus in the Gospels.The author seemed to think throughout her book that misunderstanding of the gospels was a major problem as you seem to say as well in your posts.

If you wish to discuss these subjects from her book let me know, otherwise I will assume you have abandoned the project.
 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not necessary

jcgadfly wrote:

Not necessary - why start anothe thread you can dodge questions in?

I can see from your last few posts that you're starting to get stuck in a rut. 

You really think I'm dodging questions.  I'm careful. I've tried to answer questions on this site in the past, but I've learned that unless I find someone who's serious and is willing to be on the same page, it's futile and useless.  I'm not going to answer questions unless I know the person asking is going to take them seriously.  There are way too many phonies on here.  I"m also going to stick to topic more so than not on this forum.  If you're serious, you'll think of a specific idea you want to takle with me and we can discuss.  Otherwise, I will continue as you say "dodging questions". 

I will always try to figure out where you're coming from so I can appropriately and accurately answer your question. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Caposkia,
I thought the whole point of this thread was to have a discussion on the book you suggested. I read it and posted my review a week and a half ago. See post # 538. I didn't think much of the author's satire but I did understand what she called a "True Christian" which is what you claim to be. My impression is you ignored my comments as you posted to others that you were engaged in a defensive discussion with (and losing at badly).

Maybe since I didn't come back with a glorious rave on Becky Garrison or the book you didn't like it?

I'm terribly sorry. Some how I missed your post completely.  I have been waiting for it.  Please understand I did not ignore it. I just got lost in the useless conversations that have been keeping this forum going. 

It was probably during the time I was having computer troubles.  Not that that's an excuse. 

Anyway, to respond to your post which on my part is way overdue.

I've read your other post at this point and agree with you on most faces.  I'm happy to see you understand by the way she described it what I've been trying to explain as my following.  That was the main point I was hoping people would get from her book.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


She thinks there are quite a few people in America that have encountered far too much of "toxic church settings" or were trained in "rigorous rules" and still can "embrace the universal message of Jesus." What she fails to grasp is a large portion of this group walked away and either decided religion was at best a control system for a group of marginal at best elitist despots or they researched concluding religion was a delusional fantasy.This is a good point to start a discussion on this book if you so choose. Say her claim about what occurs when "we Christians follow our own self-interests in lieu of living out the gospel, we play right into the hands of the New Atheists." - from p 170.

It's a good point to start.  She didn't dive into the reasons for people choosing the following into toxic church settings as much.  She definitely was more into knocking them for thier blind followings and poor judgements. 

It's easy from our perspective to take that point of view.  By ours I mean followers of Christ.  My understanding is most of them I'm sure truly believe what they do is what God intended.  It really comes down to whether they'd accept the evidence that what they are doing is wrong or not. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


As someone who was actively involved in church activities from everything from the choir to 4 years as an altar boy I admit I enjoyed the participation and feelings one gets. I considered a long term commitment at one point in the ministry as I had prepared for such all my life. As I reached my late teens I changed direction and became a Catholic. This was about the time masses had become more user friendly including guitar masses as well as audience participation.In the meanwhile I was exposed to a higher education that began to open my eyes to the past of the "Church".Instead of the ministry I became an engineer.  It would take another 10 years and a graduate degree from a Jesuit university to finish off the years of indoctrination. In my case therefore it was research and knowledge not generally provided in the education of a parochial school that lead me to see all beliefs in a god were based in fantasy. I did however gain an extreme fascination with ancient history which I continue to pursue.

I understand your background be it that I grew up Catholic as well.  It took me walking away from that following to find God.  I did this without a church influence and also vowed to myself and God that I would only accept what I saw evidence for to be true. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


So let's discuss "toxic church settings", "rigorous rules", playing into the hands of New Atheists or the universal message you think you see in the supposed words of Jesus in the Gospels.The author seemed to think throughout her book that misunderstanding of the gospels was a major problem as you seem to say as well in your posts.

If you wish to discuss these subjects from her book let me know, otherwise I will assume you have abandoned the project.
 

Sounds like a good start.  I'd be very interested in discussing it. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


She thinks there are quite a few people in America that have encountered far too much of "toxic church settings" or were trained in "rigorous rules" and still can "embrace the universal message of Jesus." What she fails to grasp is a large portion of this group walked away and either decided religion was at best a control system for a group of marginal at best elitist despots or they researched concluding religion was a delusional fantasy.This is a good point to start a discussion on this book if you so choose. Say her claim about what occurs when "we Christians follow our own self-interests in lieu of living out the gospel, we play right into the hands of the New Atheists." - from p 170.

It's a good point to start.  She didn't dive into the reasons for people choosing the following into toxic church settings as much.  She definitely was more into knocking them for thier blind followings and poor judgements. 

It's easy from our perspective to take that point of view.  By ours I mean followers of Christ.  My understanding is most of them I'm sure truly believe what they do is what God intended.  It really comes down to whether they'd accept the evidence that what they are doing is wrong or not.

That's what I see too. It appears this has roots in the early church and got worse with time. Not all Christians were this way, but many in power sure were. This becomes the foundations for some of the worst atrocities of the Church, of course done in the name of God. Ultimately of course it was done by individuals with misplaced understandings of the original intent. This of course gives us the modern day atheists ammo to shoot at believers. Though one should be aware if these early believers weren't Christian they probably would have found another way to justify murder and power. It was a great way of rallying support though you got to admit that, it also worked well for Islam.

 

caposkia wrote:

I understand your background be it that I grew up Catholic as well.  It took me walking away from that following to find God.  I did this without a church influence and also vowed to myself and God that I would only accept what I saw evidence for to be true.

In my case I actually liked the Catholic Church over the rigid Lutheran upbringing I had. My departure from faith had little to do with either but more to do with education and knowledge.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


So let's discuss "toxic church settings", "rigorous rules", playing into the hands of New Atheists or the universal message you think you see in the supposed words of Jesus in the Gospels.The author seemed to think throughout her book that misunderstanding of the gospels was a major problem as you seem to say as well in your posts.

Sounds like a good start.  I'd be very interested in discussing it. 

In my years of religious study originally I was taught as most Christians the story of the OT being true, God then sent his son to save us, and we need to believe and be baptized. (Very short form summary) In my studies that ultimately lead me to disbelief I saw something else entirely in the Gospels versus Christian practice. This is no doubt where Becky Garrison and you no doubt both come up with the idea of "True Christians". Jesus advocated kindness and love first above all. This is lost today, as it seems to apply only to those in the group and sometimes only for the one hour they are in church or mass. Jesus also seemed to not be concerned about the actions of non-believers only the believers, saying the Father was the judge not man. He took positions that suggest separation of church and state as well. 

Start with that and we'll see where it goes.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"True Christians".

Quote:
"True Christians". Jesus advocated kindness and love first above all.

And life is a bowl of cherries you can pick any time you want.

What about the "sword" "Think that I bring not peace, but a sword"

AND,

What about the passage where Jesus demands that you even turn against your own faimily if they chose not to follow him?

I must be missing something, but it merely seems to me that this tribalistic writting written by goat hearders is nothing but myth written by people who wanted control based on a gang label.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:"True

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
"True Christians". Jesus advocated kindness and love first above all.

And life is a bowl of cherries you can pick any time you want.

What about the "sword" "Think that I bring not peace, but a sword"

AND,

What about the passage where Jesus demands that you even turn against your own faimily if they chose not to follow him?

I must be missing something, but it merely seems to me that this tribalistic writting written by goat hearders is nothing but myth written by people who wanted control based on a gang label.

I think they attribute the writing to fishermen not goat herders. Perhaps that helps to explain the wild stories. When has a fisherman ever told a story that he has not expounded upon with great embellishment?

Don't get the idea that I'm not aware of the conflicting ideas and themes. I personally think the writing is corrupted, probably on purpose. As this developed in the prolific period for both messiahs and religious writing as the rebellion against the Romans intensified so did the violent themes.  IMO the Jesus story was more about a rebel Zealot and altered through development. The 4 gospels do have many conflicts and contradictions. As these Gospels were written after the Paul letters and during rebellion they were influenced by both at some point. That doesn't mean any of it is true or reality based either.

Unlike a believer I don't see any reason why the text of the NT could not have been edited and redacted as the religion developed to add more in support of the Pauline influences and resultant hope of a messiah. Paul had issues with self worth to say the least. Mark 16 has 4 versions for its end by the 4th century for example.  As no one has 1st century copies and the later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke have far more irreconcilable ideas throughout as say compared to Mark. On the one hand you have a Jesus that promotes love on the other he makes threats to use violence. The 2 ideas do not fit together smoothly.

The mismash of ideas do conflict and create the problems resulting in Texas women killing their children to save them from Satan. Not what the Jesus of Mark was advocating from what I see. 

First off the primary theme you can find is kindness and love. You do have to consider as you read what is likely to have been edited in to the story. Of course you also have wacko Jesus cursing inanimate fig trees. Attacks on the Temple which just so happened to also be the financial center for Judea as well, far from brilliant.  This shows instability in the man and is that which discredits him. Part of the message is love but then you have the hate your mother and father comments and the sword statement. There are other irrational comments as well. I agree it is either legend or myth and I have no real clue if any of it was based on a real person or as mythists suggest on no one. Some of the more violent comments seem to be in the later written gospels and were likely a later development.  In many ways I think Jesus was meant to be part of the Zealots or group advocating repent now (of the evil pagan ways of the Greeks and Romans) for the Kingdom of God is at hand. There were groups who were rebelling against the pagan rule and some of these used force. This also applies to the statements about parents and other relatives being at variance. If they didn't leave the pagan ways Hellenism and all it incorporated then they were not of the group and were disowned.

Of course the whole thing could be nothing more than literature as Rook suggests and then you just have a conflicted author.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's what I see too. It appears this has roots in the early church and got worse with time. Not all Christians were this way...

and many Christians still aren't.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...but many in power sure were. This becomes the foundations for some of the worst atrocities of the Church, of course done in the name of God. Ultimately of course it was done by individuals with misplaced understandings of the original intent. This of course gives us the modern day atheists ammo to shoot at believers. Though one should be aware if these early believers weren't Christian they probably would have found another way to justify murder and power. It was a great way of rallying support though you got to admit that, it also worked well for Islam.

agreed

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 In my case I actually liked the Catholic Church over the rigid Lutheran upbringing I had. My departure from faith had little to do with either but more to do with education and knowledge.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not knocking all the churches out there that claim themselves to be Catholic.  There are some out there that have reformed themselves very well.  Unfortunately there are many that are still more concerned about following the tradition than the Word.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In my years of religious study originally I was taught as most Christians the story of the OT being true, God then sent his son to save us, and we need to believe and be baptized. (Very short form summary) In my studies that ultimately lead me to disbelief I saw something else entirely in the Gospels versus Christian practice. This is no doubt where Becky Garrison and you no doubt both come up with the idea of "True Christians". Jesus advocated kindness and love first above all. This is lost today, as it seems to apply only to those in the group and sometimes only for the one hour they are in church or mass. Jesus also seemed to not be concerned about the actions of non-believers only the believers, saying the Father was the judge not man. He took positions that suggest separation of church and state as well. 

Start with that and we'll see where it goes.

Well, it's hard for me to say much on this because I agree with everything you said above. 

Jesus always emphasized kindness and love and this is absolutely lost.  There are too many "believers" out there that do only hold this true for the hour they're in church.  Once they step out those doors, thus does all the Christian values.  I guess they forgot the part about living the word, not just hearing it.

It's my understanding that God could ultimately care less whether you go to church or not, it's really how you live that matters.  With everything that you do, are you doing it out of love or are there other motivations in play. 

Don't get me wrong, fellowship is important and is also emphasized in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily mean a sunday service. 

Of course also Jesus was concerned with believers becasue they're the ones that want to follow.  Jesus knew that being concerned with non-believers would be wasteful because regardless of his concern, they were going to do what they wanted anyway.  They did not and do not see him as anyone of worth or concern let alone have anything of value to them. 

As far as church and state separation.  I'm not 100% sure what you're referencing too because there are a few parts that could be considered that. 

What I think that comes down to is he also emphasized about his message and how he should be reflected through the believer.  When he preached or spoke or even performed meracles, it was never to anyone who didn't want to hear it or didn't want the meracle performed.  In fact, he'd always ask first before healing someone whether they wanted to be or not.

When he preached, people came to him, he didn't chase people down and yell at them for running away or doubting him. 

He never forced himself upon anyone and therefore he does expect us to act in the same manner.  There's a time and place for the word to be spoken.  It should never be where people who don't want to hear it have to from what I understand. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And life is a

Brian37 wrote:

And life is a bowl of cherries you can pick any time you want.

What about the "sword" "Think that I bring not peace, but a sword"

AND,

What about the passage where Jesus demands that you even turn against your own faimily if they chose not to follow him?

I must be missing something, but it merely seems to me that this tribalistic writting written by goat hearders is nothing but myth written by people who wanted control based on a gang label.

Could you please reference your source.  I'm just not sure which part you're referring to.

As far as the sword, if it's the part I"m thinking of, it's talking about the power of Jesus's word and not a reference to violence. 

About turning against your family, I'd have to see where you got that from.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Smart words pauljohn .... Hi

Smart words pauljohn .... Hi Brian37.

  Jesus is a character of many writers. It's easy to pull the gems out of the dunghill as Jefferson said. The love and kindness message is a no brainer as the much older "golden rule". The "gems" are the few simple intuitive gnosis, knowing, zero superstitious, no master, no separatism, atheistic rational  "buddhistic"etc sayings. I am one with the "father" (the eternal existence, cosmos...), of the laws (physics, thermodynamics, that will never change, and this is the kingdom of g-o-d / yin yang heaven / hell NOW, and ye are g-o-d (s) too, are the "gems", that pass Occam's Razor of simplicity.

  Not all our 4 corner world ancient ancestors, (east/west/north/south) were superstitious retards. I've spent fair time musing on probably most of the confusing NT story jesus metaphors / parables, such as,  'I did not come to bring peace but a sword.' I cannot be certain of the original authors intent, but it seems to say, I did not come to bring appeasement to the sick blind superstitious fearful dogmatic religious hypocrites, but a sharp sword of needed rational fearless truth of zero nature / cosmos / g-o-d non separatism debate.

To me, Occam's Razor, with a clear mind, shouts all is connected, as many say One, as many say g-o-d, with zero faith about it, as just knowing, as whatever there is, was not created, as there was no beginning, as there is no end, as all is in eternal transition. To many of us, this is the obvious simple meaning of the "good word", as to be "saved", to spread , as there is No Master, and Nothing to Fear in death. Let's celebrate, and work to ending irrational unnecessary suffering. Go science.

 Yeah, the general world definition of g-o-d is absurd, but that god word isn't going away, so many think it is wiser to re-define gawed, and science, as always, is leading the way. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jesus knew that being

Quote:
Jesus knew that being concerned with non-believers would be wasteful because regardless of his concern, they were going to do what they wanted anyway.  They did not and do not see him as anyone of worth or concern let alone have anything of value to them.

Your fictional sky daddy's alleged son is still of no concern to us. But byvertue of his fans constantly trying to convert us, we have no choice but to be concerned.

But if you truely believe in this alleged being, why are you not following his example? If we are going to do what we want anyway, why not just leave it up to daddy instead of trying to do his work for him?

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And life is a bowl of cherries you can pick any time you want.

What about the "sword" "Think that I bring not peace, but a sword"

AND,

What about the passage where Jesus demands that you even turn against your own faimily if they chose not to follow him?

I must be missing something, but it merely seems to me that this tribalistic writting written by goat hearders is nothing but myth written by people who wanted control based on a gang label.

Could you please reference your source.  I'm just not sure which part you're referring to.

As far as the sword, if it's the part I"m thinking of, it's talking about the power of Jesus's word and not a reference to violence. 

About turning against your family, I'd have to see where you got that from.

 

Cap, Brian is obviously referring to Matt 10:34-42 as well as Luke 12:49-59 and Luke 14:26. I think this is more complicated than you suggest and not as simple as Brian indicates. As you can see from IAGAY's response it can mean he did not come to appease the non-believers (or as I say the pagan influenced Jews) but to those that want to return to the way of the Father whether that means a family be split or not. Since Jesus thinks this is important be it delusional or not it is what he seemed to be doing. As IAGAY says this message has been distorted and morphed into something it was never intended to be. As you say there is context and that doesn't just mean the chapter and verses before and after. I see his message as not introducing new ideas but rather returning to the purity of its basis. Again, this means he thought this was true and does not reflect what I think, which should be clear by now that I see him as a man not God as I don't accept gods as real.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's what I see too. It appears this has roots in the early church and got worse with time. Not all Christians were this way...

and many Christians still aren't.

As Garrison says its the likes of Ann Coulter, Falwell, and Haggard that give you all a bad name today. Though there are plenty of sheep that keep quiet and allow these thugs to promote ideas that are seriously flawed.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 In my case I actually liked the Catholic Church over the rigid Lutheran upbringing I had. My departure from faith had little to do with either but more to do with education and knowledge.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not knocking all the churches out there that claim themselves to be Catholic.  There are some out there that have reformed themselves very well.  Unfortunately there are many that are still more concerned about following the tradition than the Word.

And I only said I liked it better at the time though today I wouldn't know as I haven't been in one since my daughter got married 10 years ago. Today, I only know what I read about them.

caposkia wrote:

Well, it's hard for me to say much on this because I agree with everything you said above. 

Jesus always emphasized kindness and love and this is absolutely lost.  There are too many "believers" out there that do only hold this true for the hour they're in church.  Once they step out those doors, thus does all the Christian values.  I guess they forgot the part about living the word, not just hearing it.

My point is the basic message is something that is not in itself detrimental to coexistence with non-believers it's their morphed way of incorporating it. Thus the "good neighbor" idea comes with strings. Somehow they missed the part in the "good Samartian" story how even the priests (supposedly pious Jews at the time) walked past. Today they drive by those who are in such plights and ignore. Or they send Bibles and missionaries to poor needy countries with help only if they listen to the "Word". This is not what was intended.

He also sent his disciples out to the cities of the Jews, not to pagan cities to teach. His view can be seen that he is trying to bring the Jews back into the pure law but is not in fact inventing a new religion. The end messages in the Gospels tell them to go preach the word in Matthew and Luke, though John is not clear on this. Mark is another story since it has 4 different endings by the 4th century. Since Mark is said to have originally ended at 16:8, the final verses are questionable. In the commission given here in Mark 16:16 those that don't accept are said to be damned while this is not indicated in the other 2 versions. I hold the end of Mark to be a later addition that does not fit in with the context shown.

Either way, there is no support to force conversion here. In fact all there is a reawakening of Jewish belief and no new concept introduced. Jesus was a Jew and he did show obedience to the law with a typical Pharisaic interpretation. His parables are like what they used for example.

caposkia wrote:

It's my understanding that God could ultimately care less whether you go to church or not, it's really how you live that matters.  With everything that you do, are you doing it out of love or are there other motivations in play. 

Don't get me wrong, fellowship is important and is also emphasized in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily mean a sunday service.

That was made fairly clear in John 4 with the Samaritan woman. Then going outside the Gospels James makes a lot of this clear as well. Though we had to have blue laws passed in this country to enable a day of rest. I can see merit in not having drunks vote on election day but why care on Sunday? How else can one stomach your NFL team's antics if one does not have a few beers.

caposkia wrote:

Of course also Jesus was concerned with believers becasue they're the ones that want to follow.  Jesus knew that being concerned with non-believers would be wasteful because regardless of his concern, they were going to do what they wanted anyway.  They did not and do not see him as anyone of worth or concern let alone have anything of value to them.

The believers he is specifically addressing were Jews with few exceptions. Jesus was advocating coming back to the pure law and thus the Kingdom of God would come to you as you cast off the pagan ways. This was not a new religion. Perhaps misunderstanding goes farther than you think.

caposkia wrote:

As far as church and state separation.  I'm not 100% sure what you're referencing too because there are a few parts that could be considered that.

In Luke 20:19-26 regarding tribute money it says to render to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is his since the coin has Caesar upon it. Apparently believers have never understood what this really means.  Then in John 18:36 he says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence." See also James 2:17 and Zechariah 4:6. All of which lead to the view Christians should be guided by the principles and ideas but no where does any of this suggest force.

I see it this way, you can have a subset within the whole where you voluntarily choose to follow stricter guidelines for your life. If for example prostitution is legal nothing suggests you have to utilize the services, you can choose to not patronize a prostitute. Those not of your moral persuasion can do as they like. If no basis other than biblical origin is given for creating a law or prohibiting an action than it cannot be defended. When harm comes to another such as theft or murder society understands and creates laws to protect all. This however should not be taken to the extreme of regulating what one can do that does not result in harm. If you find nudity to be outside the moral subset you have defined then don't go to nude beaches or nude bars.

caposkia wrote:

What I think that comes down to is he also emphasized about his message and how he should be reflected through the believer.  When he preached or spoke or even performed meracles, it was never to anyone who didn't want to hear it or didn't want the meracle performed.  In fact, he'd always ask first before healing someone whether they wanted to be or not.

Exactly.

caposkia wrote:

When he preached, people came to him, he didn't chase people down and yell at them for running away or doubting him.

Which seems to be lost on many today. This is why we have conflicts over secular views and religious views. I really don't want "one nation under God" in the pledge nor do I want 'In God we trust" on my money. As I'm old enough to remember it wasn't always so. I was in 1st grade when it happened.

caposkia wrote:

He never forced himself upon anyone and therefore he does expect us to act in the same manner.  There's a time and place for the word to be spoken.  It should never be where people who don't want to hear it have to from what I understand. 

Such is the motivation for separation of church and state. It does not belong in a secular world, pray to Jesus when and where you want but don't expect to do so when you have a meeting including atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Christians really are aware of this but refuse to hear. So much for following their leader.

Though I see not what you do this does not mean I can't understand what is contained therein. Realize I see worthwhile ideas in the writing of Ayn Rand as well as in fiction. Even the ancient Sumerians had many good ideas. I think the concept of cutting off the hands of a doctor who fucks up is a fantastic idea. Hammurabi code #218 " If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

Since religious beliefs persist and will no time soon leave all must find a way to coexist. It is to this end I put my efforts. I do not hold god beliefs to be based in the real world that others do I have so noted. I also don't use mayo on my french fries but they do in France. It is when coexistance is threatened and force is utilized that issues develop. I don't really want mayo on my fries, get it.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Smart

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Smart words pauljohn 

Thanks.

 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Jesus is a character of many writers. It's easy to pull the gems out of the dunghill as Jefferson said. The love and kindness message is a no brainer as the much older "golden rule". The "gems" are the few simple intuitive gnosis, knowing, zero superstitious, no master, no separatism, atheistic rational  "buddhistic"etc sayings. I am one with the "father" (the eternal existence, cosmos...), of the laws (physics, thermodynamics, that will never change, and this is the kingdom of g-o-d / yin yang heaven / hell NOW, and ye are g-o-d (s) too, are the "gems", that pass Occam's Razor of simplicity.

Which I have tried to express in my own way as well. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

To me, Occam's Razor, with a clear mind, shouts all is connected, as many say One, as many say g-o-d, with zero faith about it, as just knowing, as whatever there is, was not created, as there was no beginning, as there is no end, as all is in eternal transition. To many of us, this is the obvious simple meaning of the "good word", as to be "saved", to spread , as there is No Master, and Nothing to Fear in death. Let's celebrate, and work to ending irrational unnecessary suffering. Go science.

 Yeah, the general world definition of g-o-d is absurd, but that god word isn't going away, so many think it is wiser to re-define gawed, and science, as always, is leading the way.  

I agree the general definition of g-o-d is not going away nor are those that make religions from ancient ideas. We must all find a way to coexist.  Science is the way.

Read more. Learn more. Kill less.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But if you

Brian37 wrote:

But if you truely believe in this alleged being, why are you not following his example? If we are going to do what we want anyway, why not just leave it up to daddy instead of trying to do his work for him?

A good question.  thanks for asking.

I'm on here because God also teaches to always challenge what you know.  That's quite a statement coming from a bunch of story writers who are trying to convince people to follow their fantasy.  Therefore, I'm on here to do just that.  It's my hope that someone here and there might give me more evidence to think about beyond blind conclusions and the inability to fart out cars as proof that there is no God. 

Note:  Jesus' mission for his followers is also to go to the ends of the Earth and spread the good news.  Therefore, I am still following his example, and instead of spreading the good news to the people on here who don't want to hear it, I discuss on their terms.  In other words, i follow their lead.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As Garrison says its the likes of Ann Coulter, Falwell, and Haggard that give you all a bad name today. Though there are plenty of sheep that keep quiet and allow these thugs to promote ideas that are seriously flawed.

yea, that bothers me.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point is the basic message is something that is not in itself detrimental to coexistence with non-believers it's their morphed way of incorporating it. Thus the "good neighbor" idea comes with strings. Somehow they missed the part in the "good Samartian" story how even the priests (supposedly pious Jews at the time) walked past. Today they drive by those who are in such plights and ignore. Or they send Bibles and missionaries to poor needy countries with help only if they listen to the "Word". This is not what was intended.

indeed

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

He also sent his disciples out to the cities of the Jews, not to pagan cities to teach. His view can be seen that he is trying to bring the Jews back into the pure law but is not in fact inventing a new religion. The end messages in the Gospels tell them to go preach the word in Matthew and Luke, though John is not clear on this. Mark is another story since it has 4 different endings by the 4th century. Since Mark is said to have originally ended at 16:8, the final verses are questionable. In the commission given here in Mark 16:16 those that don't accept are said to be damned while this is not indicated in the other 2 versions. I hold the end of Mark to be a later addition that does not fit in with the context shown.

Yea, that's a misunderstanding as well.  Jesus wasn't here to bring about a new religion or following.  He was here to "fulfill the law".  In other words, basically complete all the prophesy and promises of God in the Jewish texts. 

As far as the verses in Mark.  A footnote in my Bible clearly states that there are "serious doubts" that verses 9-20 were a part of Mark's Gospel.  It even goes as far as to say; the "theological content is unlike the rest of Mark".  In my understanding 16:16 isn't supported anywhere else in Jesus' teachings. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Either way, there is no support to force conversion here. In fact all there is a reawakening of Jewish belief and no new concept introduced. Jesus was a Jew and he did show obedience to the law with a typical Pharisaic interpretation. His parables are like what they used for example.

Yea, he was trying to show that he was still a Jew though he was bringing the completion of the Law or words of the manuscripts.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That was made fairly clear in John 4 with the Samaritan woman. Then going outside the Gospels James makes a lot of this clear as well. Though we had to have blue laws passed in this country to enable a day of rest. I can see merit in not having drunks vote on election day but why care on Sunday? How else can one stomach your NFL team's antics if one does not have a few beers.

amen

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The believers he is specifically addressing were Jews with few exceptions. Jesus was advocating coming back to the pure law and thus the Kingdom of God would come to you as you cast off the pagan ways. This was not a new religion. Perhaps misunderstanding goes farther than you think.

I'm sure it does.  I learn more each day about how the word is misconstrued. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In Luke 20:19-26 regarding tribute money it says to render to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is his since the coin has Caesar upon it. Apparently believers have never understood what this really means.  Then in John 18:36 he says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence." See also James 2:17 and Zechariah 4:6. All of which lead to the view Christians should be guided by the principles and ideas but no where does any of this suggest force.

I agree.  There is no force intended in any of those verses or others that I am aware of.  I see where you were coming from now.  I think they make it pretty clear. 

As for others who have asked me how to identify a true follower, not using force upon you to either believe or stay with them, physical, verbal or otherwise is one of many attributes. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see it this way, you can have a subset within the whole where you voluntarily choose to follow stricter guidelines for your life. If for example prostitution is legal nothing suggests you have to utilize the services, you can choose to not patronize a prostitute. Those not of your moral persuasion can do as they like. If no basis other than biblical origin is given for creating a law or prohibiting an action than it cannot be defended. When harm comes to another such as theft or murder society understands and creates laws to protect all. This however should not be taken to the extreme of regulating what one can do that does not result in harm. If you find nudity to be outside the moral subset you have defined then don't go to nude beaches or nude bars.

exactly.  Such fine lines can be drawn around all of that by both sides.  It really comes down to how it affects you personally and whether it is harmful or not.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

"in god we trust on coins and nation under God in pledge" As I'm old enough to remember it wasn't always so. I was in 1st grade when it happened.

yea, I'm not sure how that came to pass.  I've taken some misguided views on that myself.  It was generally understood we were a Christian Nation.  As far as I understand about the pledge, the person who wrote it wrote it as is.  The controversy in my mind is you'd be infringing upon the author of the pledge to change any part of it. 

Honestly, I've heard a lot of opinions about this topic and I conclude that I'm not sure how I should stand on this topic.  From the point of view of a believer, to say that it's a Nation under God is to say that our nation is under the protection and blessing of God.  Keep in mind we have many other views of why things happen the way they do than non-believers.  Therefore, it'd be kind of scary to take God's protection away from our country.  Then again, it's just a pledge and it's not right to make non-believers pledge to our country and have to claim God's Blessing when they really don't. 

Again, it's a believer's point of view.  We don't need to get into a big thing about this at this time. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Such is the motivation for separation of church and state. It does not belong in a secular world, pray to Jesus when and where you want but don't expect to do so when you have a meeting including atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Christians really are aware of this but refuse to hear. So much for following their leader.

This is why I try to clarify my following and separate myself from others.  The other side of that however is to accept the fact that Chrisitans might pray in public areas without the expectation of others joining in.  I think this is easily misunderstood as well.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Though I see not what you do this does not mean I can't understand what is contained therein. Realize I see worthwhile ideas in the writing of Ayn Rand as well as in fiction. Even the ancient Sumerians had many good ideas. I think the concept of cutting off the hands of a doctor who fucks up is a fantastic idea. Hammurabi code #218 " If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

Since religious beliefs persist and will no time soon leave all must find a way to coexist. It is to this end I put my efforts. I do not hold god beliefs to be based in the real world that others do I have so noted. I also don't use mayo on my french fries but they do in France. It is when coexistance is threatened and force is utilized that issues develop. I don't really want mayo on my fries, get it.

got it.  The sad news is a true follower is all about coexistence.  It's what Jesus taught.  It seems we agree with each other about the teachings. 

This is just a question, but is it possible that you'd want to be a follower of Christ if you discovered that he was real? 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But if you truely believe in this alleged being, why are you not following his example? If we are going to do what we want anyway, why not just leave it up to daddy instead of trying to do his work for him?

A good question.  thanks for asking.

I'm on here because God also teaches to always challenge what you know.  That's quite a statement coming from a bunch of story writers who are trying to convince people to follow their fantasy.  Therefore, I'm on here to do just that.  It's my hope that someone here and there might give me more evidence to think about beyond blind conclusions and the inability to fart out cars as proof that there is no God. 

Note:  Jesus' mission for his followers is also to go to the ends of the Earth and spread the good news.  Therefore, I am still following his example, and instead of spreading the good news to the people on here who don't want to hear it, I discuss on their terms.  In other words, i follow their lead.

 

That is the biggest pile of jibberish in this entire thread.

So your "all powerful" magical daddy in the sky CHOSE inefficancy and middle men to do his bidding for him? Is he a split personality? Is that what you want me to believe? He sacrificed himself to himself so that I could spend forever kissing his ass?

Is he incapable of doing it himself face to face?

Tell your lazy boss to get off his ass and face me face to face instead of having 40 authors take over a thousand years to guess at what he was saying, because obviously I got you, the one and only "true" expert in what is. Take a number.

I could give a rats patoot what you claim. If your fictional daddy wants to prove to me he is real, by vertue of being "all powerfull" it seems pointless to diliberately and needlessly make it more complecated than it has to be. If he doesn't need you, then he should be able to skip you as part of the process.

There are certainly tons of Star Trec fans who are knowledgeable about every episode and can argue over the the metaphor motifs of each episode, but exactly what are they experts in?

You have no efficiant or inefficiant lazy boss. You call other people's  "wrong" interpretations "fantacy". I am telling YOU it is all fantacy. You are in the same boat as Hindus, Muslims and Scientologists.MYTH thats all.

The bible is a convoluted book of goat hearder myth. You want me to buy the claim that a being, who could do it himself, but goes out of his way to confuse people and cause his children to argue over it even to the point of death?

Cap you baught a myth. You merely like the idea of a magical protector in the sky. I am sorry you cant face that. Hopefully someday you will. I do see promis for you because it is rare that a theist sticks around this long.

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Guys, it just hit me, we do

Guys, it just hit me, we do need to convert to Caps version of God and believe in him. Somehow magically, through telepathy, or mere warm fuzzy feelings, Cap, out of the 6 billion people on the planet, is the one person who got it right.

I say we end this thread, take down the website, and "spread the word of Cap".

WHO'S WITH ME?

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37