The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
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. 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:natural

caposkia wrote:

natural wrote:

You clearly do not understand the word 'incomprehensible'. If it's incomprehensible, it can't be understood. That's the frigging definition. Please explain this magical thing that allows the incomprehensible to be understood. There is literally nothing which can explain the unexplainable.

You are confused. What you mean to speak about is not the unknowable, but the unknown. The unknowable cannot be known. Otherwise we wouldn't call it 'unknowable'. Do you get it yet? Can you understand the word, or is it incomprehensible to you?

Would you like for me to mean unknowable?  Unknowable is what you said, it cannot be known there's a reason why I didn't use that word. 

My point was simple.  No one here can claim that God cannot possibly be just because science can't prove his existence.

As if this means a belief is valid or deserved?  If I say god told me to kill people does that make it valid and reasonable because you cannot disprove it?  With there being no test for the validity of the claim we have should ignore it until there is.  What your suggesting is that you have an unfounded belief in a god.  Then from that unfounded belief you have another unfounded belief that the bible is the word of god.  How many of your daily beliefs and choices are based on this unfounded belief?  On what grounds do you have to suggest that evidence isn't important in some cases, but very important in others? 

caposkia wrote:
  There has to be another way because LOGICALLY, you wouldn't use science (a physical implementation) to study something that's not physical.  Anyone claiming with certainty that God cannot exist must have another source they used to prove such. 

Well we can prove logical contradictions based on the descriptions of such deities.  We use the physical world as a tool to find those logical contradictions.  How exactly do you interact with someone not physical?  What would you use to study the not physical. What do you have to support your not physical stuff?  Are they just empty claims?

caposkia wrote:

Don't get me wrong.  I completely understand the mindset;  "I haven't seen enough evidence to believe..."  That's absolutely understandable.  But you can't claim I'm wrong or delusional unless you have some sort of source to back up that claim. 

You are making a positive claim you need to provide evidence for.  I simply reject that claim.  I am not claiming you are wrong, I am claiming you are unjustified in your belief system until you can present evidence for it.

caposkia wrote:

 

natural wrote:

 

So then why do you imply that science is flawed because it 'just' helps us understand the universe? You clearly believe that there are some things which can be known which are inherently impenetrable to science.

Everything that people have made is flawed in some way. If it wasn't it would answer all questions or last forever! No one thing or idea can account for every possible angle of understanding.  This is why there are so many different types of sciences.

No point to this I am guessing. 

caposkia wrote:

I guess your statement above would be contingent upon your definition of science and how open you allow it to be.  Maybe there's a "science" that can understand something beyond the physical.  Maybe it's not understood yet.  

Maybe beyond physical refers to nothing and is a broken concept.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't have

Brian37 wrote:

I don't have to assume anything, I know that when I point out the nasty punishments for non-belief in the Bible, people like you try to dodge that by calling it metaphor. If you don't think you are cherry picking you are fooling yourself. It is not that I am assuming, it is that I am way ahead of you because I have seen this argument billions of times and it predictably takes the same path.

It comes down to the "amendments" as I said to another in this forum between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  People try to pull things out of the Old Testament and say "SEE!!! SEE!!!! so God is evil because people did this!!!"  but completely ignore first of all the story they're taking it from and what the New Testament might have to say about it.  A lot of questions asked were brought up by the disciples in the gospels because they didn't understand the changes fully either.  Christians are New Testament.  Jews are Old Testament.  There is a reason why Christians and Jews don't follow the same religions.  Jesus also speaks in the gospels about metaphors and why they are used in certain situations. 

Also, I always follow the lead of the people on these forums.  If it's going down the same path as before, maybe you should try asking different questions because obviously you're not getting the answers you're looking for.  However, you are always claiming people are changing their views when the answers don't come out the way you expected them to, therefore, I'm guessing you don't want the path to change.  Don't ask the questions if you're not open to what people have to say.

Think about it this way too, if every time you ask a question, the answer is the same, maybe there's something more to it than you think?  Think scientific logic here.  Could it be possible that you missed something.... Nah, what was I thinking?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I don't have to assume anything, I know that when I point out the nasty punishments for non-belief in the Bible, people like you try to dodge that by calling it metaphor. If you don't think you are cherry picking you are fooling yourself. It is not that I am assuming, it is that I am way ahead of you because I have seen this argument billions of times and it predictably takes the same path.

It comes down to the "amendments" as I said to another in this forum between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  People try to pull things out of the Old Testament and say "SEE!!! SEE!!!! so God is evil because people did this!!!"  but completely ignore first of all the story they're taking it from and what the New Testament might have to say about it.  A lot of questions asked were brought up by the disciples in the gospels because they didn't understand the changes fully either.  Christians are New Testament.  Jews are Old Testament.  There is a reason why Christians and Jews don't follow the same religions.  Jesus also speaks in the gospels about metaphors and why they are used in certain situations. 

Also, I always follow the lead of the people on these forums.  If it's going down the same path as before, maybe you should try asking different questions because obviously you're not getting the answers you're looking for.  However, you are always claiming people are changing their views when the answers don't come out the way you expected them to, therefore, I'm guessing you don't want the path to change.  Don't ask the questions if you're not open to what people have to say.

Think about it this way too, if every time you ask a question, the answer is the same, maybe there's something more to it than you think?  Think scientific logic here.  Could it be possible that you missed something.... Nah, what was I thinking?

so...

Some parts of the Bible don't apply to you becaus of Jesus? You don't pay attention to the commandments anymore?

Do you take Jesus literally when he said "If you are angry at someone, you've already killed them" and finish the job? 

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:As if this means

Magus wrote:

As if this means a belief is valid or deserved?  If I say god told me to kill people does that make it valid and reasonable because you cannot disprove it?  With there being no test for the validity of the claim we have should ignore it until there is.  What your suggesting is that you have an unfounded belief in a god.  Then from that unfounded belief you have another unfounded belief that the bible is the word of god.  How many of your daily beliefs and choices are based on this unfounded belief?  On what grounds do you have to suggest that evidence isn't important in some cases, but very important in others? 

You claim unfounded because you haven't seen it yourself.  Everything is unfounded until proven otherwise right?  If someone doesn't want to believe in whatever it is, then it still remains unfounded in their mind. 

Magus wrote:

Well we can prove logical contradictions based on the descriptions of such deities.  We use the physical world as a tool to find those logical contradictions.  How exactly do you interact with someone not physical?  What would you use to study the not physical. What do you have to support your not physical stuff?  Are they just empty claims?

I have had personal experiences in my life that cannot be explained in other ways or scientifically.  Thousands upon thousands of others would agree with the same methodology.  What I use to support is many many different things, some is science, history, geology... others is personal experience, consensus (scientific methodology there)  obviously direction of belief plays some part in it as well as faith.  Yea, I use the Bible to back up some of my understanding, but I've founded enough understanding to believe that the Bible is a reliable source for what I understand to be true. 

Read "The Next Christiandom"

BTW, if you said my God told you to kill someone, I'd easily be able to prove you wrong by showing you the Bible.  Then again that falls into my belief.  I believe the God of the Bible is true.  Therefore, if my God is real and you claim that about my God, I can easily prove you wrong.  I also know my God and know that He would not have asked you to do such a thing now.  It's a relationship. 

Don't read into it too much.  If you want to continue with this, then we can start a new forum. 

Magus wrote:

You are making a positive claim you need to provide evidence for.  I simply reject that claim.  I am not claiming you are wrong, I am claiming you are unjustified in your belief system until you can present evidence for it.

I have already tried that approach with people.  I offered a scientific approach for people to try.  No one took.  They were offered to seriously in their hearts try to seek out my God and build a relationship with Him.  They were told to try everything sincerely from their hearts, not just physically, that all followers of Jesus have done that have a strong relationship with God. 

The trick was they had to actually do it from their hearts, not just some physical action or attempt.  I have a better description of this on one of my other forums, I don't remember which.  Either way, unless you're willing to try, you won't get too far.

Magus wrote:



Maybe beyond physical refers to nothing and is a broken concept.

Maybe... or maybe there's more to it and most people choose to ignore it. 

eh... that's a stalemate conversation there if I ever saw one. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:so...Some

jcgadfly wrote:

so...

Some parts of the Bible don't apply to you becaus of Jesus? You don't pay attention to the commandments anymore?

Jesus said to ignore the commandments?! Where????

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you take Jesus literally when he said "If you are angry at someone, you've already killed them" and finish the job? 

...wow, he even said to finish the job... Where was this one written again? 

You aren't mistakening the verse in 1 John that says hate is like murder are you? 

Please reference that one for me too... meanwhile, I've got a few people I have to kill


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Jesus didn't

jcgadfly wrote:

Jesus didn't lie - he just became irrelevant once Paul's Christ came on the scene. Now all Christians have to do is believe without making an effort to make anything better for anyone else.

Which is what's lead some to postulate Paul to be the truest 'anti-christ' ever known.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:As far as

caposkia wrote:

As far as Jesus saying that, yes there is no such thing as the middle of the road, if they're not for him, they're against him... HOWEVER!!!! Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet and respect him as a high prophet of God.... So does that make them for Him or against Him???

That would depend on whether or not you feel that following Jesus depends upon the claim that he is God. It's important, btw, to note that Jesus never makes this claim in the Bible.

So: If Jesus is God, then all who do not believe he is are 'against him'. Also, if Jesus is God, then all those who pray before or in any way using crucifixes, sacred heart pictures, statuettes (except Buddy Christ, cuz he's yer buddy), etc are breaking the commandment against graven images of The Lord.

If Jesus is NOT God, then all who believe he is are violating the commandment against worshiping false Gods over YHVH.

Oh, and if he's not God, then all those idolaters remain idolaters.

caposkia wrote:

I guess it could be, however if you want to get technical, though we've all done good in our lives, we've all also done bad in our lives, so are we all evil or are we all good?  This is a theological understanding as well.  If everyone is considered the same, then no one can claim a bias.  Remember, there's no middle of the road.

Indeed. Man's nature, theologically speaking, is to be evil, and only do good through the influence of God. Thus, if a man is 'good' or 'evil' depends on whether at his core, he defines himself by his obedience to God, or not.

The trick is: No matter how 'evil' someone may be, that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have call to be offended when the unrepentant puppy-killer calls them 'evil'. Especially since, as a species, we tend to view ourselves as morally centered. Thus, when someone really vile calls someone else evil, the second person is going to perceive that as 'worse than ME!'.

"Unholy Grail" is a terribly catchy turn of phrase, and on its literary merits alone, I like it. It pops. It really does. But it sacrifices clarity to achieve that pop, and that's normal. It's inevitable that folks aren't going to read it as your stance right off... and that's part and parcel of why it'll sell books. Theists can go 'AH-HA!' and snap up the book looking for evidence of TEH EVULZ0rZ! and atheists can grab the book to go 'WTF is this? How dare you!'.

It's marketing, and it's intended to cause a stir. I'd advise against trying to tell people not to be stirred up about it.

caposkia wrote:

The only funding for smaller churches, (which make up the majority of churches) are the members themselves.  A church has to ask for tithe or they will not exist.  Same with this website.

But this website doesn't claim to not ask for money, either.

Quote:

The point of telling guests not to tithe is to avoid the possible feeling of obligation.  This is usually explained to the people as well before the plate is passed around.  It's not a guests job to support a church they are not a member of.  No one should feel obligated to pay either.  Those churches tell the members to donate at their discresion.  These churches take every angle to make sure no one feels like they are forced to support it.

And yet, the public passing around of the offering plate still provides that impression of expectation. It creates the sense that contribution is presumed. I can't count the number of times I've seen people gesture like they're putting something in when they weren't. The church doesn't move. It's physically there every day. Leave donation mailers at the door if you don't want people to feel pressured. Sure, folks who don't intend to donate will take mailers to look good, but they won't feel any peer pressure to mail it in.

caposkia wrote:

We do that as well, but it's more about building relationships... which Jesus enforced as well. e.g. love!  I'm glad you pointed out what we do when we're asked to stop.  That infoces further why those others are wrong.  Though Jesus went around and preached, the Bible shows he built a relationship with each person that followed him. 

Right. Those who chose to be members of his community of faith. Don't get me wrong, btw, I'm not telling you to STFU and get lost, not by any means. I'm just pointing out that preaching to the unconverted and moving on if they tell you to get lost (which is what the door-to-door preaching attempts to do on a small scale) isn't necessarily 'wrong', either.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Testament

caposkia wrote:


Testament literally means LAW.  No Jesus didn't lie.

Testament means 'an expression of conviction'. It's from the latin testari meaning to give (or be called upon to give) witness, as in a legal matter. Usage-wise, it's more commonly used to refer to covenants w/God, but even that is, after all, an 'expression of conviction' in the deal w/the deity.

Quote:

When an amendment to the constitution is made, it is said to be a new Law though the old law still applies.  It was just amended.  This is the same idea.  You're getting caught up on technicalities.

When the Constitution is Amended, the original text is preserved and the Amendment appended to the end, but in doing so, the Constitution has changed.

In Jesus' case, the old laws still apply, but because he came and died for our sins, the penalties for the laws were amended.  The New Law or Testament states that you don't do what you used to because these laws were broken.  They are still laws and it's still wrong to break them, but the way of handling it has completely changed.

The Law also included the specific punishments for each infraction, after all. You'll notice that in the case of the adulteress who was about to be stoned, Jesus never said 'don't stone her'; stoning was her punishment under The Law. He simply called upon those present to meet an impossible threshold of righteousness before doing so. Which, you will note, occurred before his crucifixion. Just like all of his teachings occur before the crucifixion. It is, in fact, never Christ who says that the crucifixion changes anything, it's Paul, and Paul's theology came from one source, and one source only: Paul's head.

Quote:

E.G.  hitting children in school becasue they broke the rules.  We don't do that anymore.  Doesn't mean those rules no longer apply, the way we handle them are different.  There is a new Law stating the discipline of children in schools has changed voiding the old Law of discipline.

Which would mean those sections of 'the Law' had passed away, which we are told will not happen. Remember, The Law of Moses isn't supposed to be written by Moses, but the specific directives of God. All of it. Every word, every iota, every jot and tittle, if you will. Putting a woman to death for sleeping with the wrong guy is The Law, and The Law doesn't care if she's got a bun in the oven, either.


 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You claim

caposkia wrote:

You claim unfounded because you haven't seen it yourself.  Everything is unfounded until proven otherwise right?  If someone doesn't want to believe in whatever it is, then it still remains unfounded in their mind. 

Oh so you have proof... Please present it I am waiting.  Belief doesn't play into this, show your evidence.  I will if possible point out the flaws in it. You are under the impression that I don't want there to be a god by suggesting I don't want to believe, you don't know me or what I want.

caposkia wrote:

 

I have had personal experiences in my life that cannot be explained in other ways or scientifically.

I have had many people from all types of religions say the exact same thing about them and their god.  Are you suggesting you are all right and true as yours?  If not explain the difference.

So you are a scientist, and you know what can and cannot be explained by science now... What cannot and what hasn't are too different things.    What experiences have you had that cannot be explained?

caposkia wrote:

  Thousands upon thousands of others would agree with the same methodology.

Appeal to majority or argumentum ad populum fallacy.

caposkia wrote:
  What I use to support is many many different things, some is science, history, geology... others is personal experience, consensus (scientific methodology there)  obviously direction of belief plays some part in it as well as faith.  Yea, I use the Bible to back up some of my understanding, but I've founded enough understanding to believe that the Bible is a reliable source for what I understand to be true.

Present your science, history, and geology that supports your claims.  Present the evidence that the bible is a reliable source.

caposkia wrote:

 

Read "The Next Christiandom"

BTW, if you said my God told you to kill someone, I'd easily be able to prove you wrong by showing you the Bible.

(in character)God told me he was lying to you just to mess with you.   Of course the bible never mentions god telling people to kill others.  What is that Issac?

caposkia wrote:
  Then again that falls into my belief.  I believe the God of the Bible is true.  Therefore, if my God is real and you claim that about my God, I can easily prove you wrong. 

No you have proved nothing you are still asserting you are right and asserting the bible is right. In order for this to be proof, you must prove both your god and the bible to be true.  You have not established that so any inference based on them is just as fallacious as any assertion.

caposkia wrote:

I also know my God and know that He would not have asked you to do such a thing now.  It's a relationship.

A killer is a killer no matter how much he doesn't want to be called a killer.

caposkia wrote:

I have already tried that approach with people.  I offered a scientific approach for people to try.  No one took.  They were offered to seriously in their hearts try to seek out my God and build a relationship with Him. They were told to try everything sincerely from their hearts, not just physically, that all followers of Jesus have done that have a strong relationship with God. 

I tried this.

caposkia wrote:

The trick was they had to actually do it from their hearts, not just some physical action or attempt.

No the trick is that when nothing happened you can just played it off as if they didn't try.

caposkia wrote:

Maybe... or maybe there's more to it and most people choose to ignore it.

Or maybe you should try defining the non physical before we just to conclusions about what I am ignoring.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

so...

Some parts of the Bible don't apply to you becaus of Jesus? You don't pay attention to the commandments anymore?

Jesus said to ignore the commandments?! Where????

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you take Jesus literally when he said "If you are angry at someone, you've already killed them" and finish the job? 

...wow, he even said to finish the job... Where was this one written again? 

You aren't mistakening the verse in 1 John that says hate is like murder are you? 

Please reference that one for me too... meanwhile, I've got a few people I have to kill

I didn't say he said that - I'm asking you if that's how you interpret it (assuming of course you take his words seriously). If you're a Paulist, you don't take Jesus seriously anyway so never mind.

Also, you're the one who said the OT was for the Jews and the NT was for Christians - just wanted to know how seriously you took that - after all, "thou shalt not kill" and the others are OT (for the Jews alone, according to you)

 

"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


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

caposkia wrote:

I know and accept that Jesus was a devout Jew...  That doesn't change what I already understand about his teachings and his purpose.  If he wasn't a Jew it would have gone against prophetic scripture. 

There in lies the problem, you accept ideas that are not in line with Jewish belief in regards to Jesus. Christianity as developed through Pauline influence is a complete distortion of Jewish belief. The Gospels have been influenced by Paul and his followers resulting in Jesus not being a per se devout Jew for his time period. This is part of what we can discuss later. It however relates to your True Christian ideas as in some cases it seems you have already seen this yourself though it may be unknowingly on your part. Jesus advocates many ideas that have not been followed in many churches instead the Pauline influence has. The book of Thomas and Acts can help show you the problem, then you can reread the prophets and do so from a Jewish point of view. You will begin to notice a problem. As I said visit a Jewish web site as well such as this one Found Here.
If you claim as a Jesus believer have the answer you must know in detail where the Jews went wrong, or perhaps you accept a complete distortion.

Again, I don't accept god-beliefs for other reasons as well, but Christianity has serious flaws when considered in light of Jewish beliefs and prophecy.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I don't have to assume anything, I know that when I point out the nasty punishments for non-belief in the Bible, people like you try to dodge that by calling it metaphor. If you don't think you are cherry picking you are fooling yourself. It is not that I am assuming, it is that I am way ahead of you because I have seen this argument billions of times and it predictably takes the same path.

It comes down to the "amendments" as I said to another in this forum between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  People try to pull things out of the Old Testament and say "SEE!!! SEE!!!! so God is evil because people did this!!!"  but completely ignore first of all the story they're taking it from and what the New Testament might have to say about it.  A lot of questions asked were brought up by the disciples in the gospels because they didn't understand the changes fully either.  Christians are New Testament.  Jews are Old Testament.  There is a reason why Christians and Jews don't follow the same religions.  Jesus also speaks in the gospels about metaphors and why they are used in certain situations. 

Also, I always follow the lead of the people on these forums.  If it's going down the same path as before, maybe you should try asking different questions because obviously you're not getting the answers you're looking for.  However, you are always claiming people are changing their views when the answers don't come out the way you expected them to, therefore, I'm guessing you don't want the path to change.  Don't ask the questions if you're not open to what people have to say.

Think about it this way too, if every time you ask a question, the answer is the same, maybe there's something more to it than you think?  Think scientific logic here.  Could it be possible that you missed something.... Nah, what was I thinking?

I am not missing a thing. You merely like committing mental gymnastics to justify belief in Superman vs Lex Luthor. So all those "final glorious battle stories in the last chapter of your book are what? Are really going to happen? Or are just stories?

 

"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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:PJTS will

jcgadfly wrote:

PJTS will enumerate the objections better than I.

In the meantime, look at this link http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm.


Breifly looking at the link, I immediately noticed most of the Biblical references were talking about Jesus' return, not his first coming.  Easily comparable in the New Testament, just read Revelation.  

I know there are misunderstandings between the two.  However, there's a group out there called Jews for Christ.  They claim to have discovered what Jews missed.  I don't know a lot about them, but it'd be interesting to compare their claims with the claims on this site. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:It's marketing,

BMcD wrote:

It's marketing, and it's intended to cause a stir. I'd advise against trying to tell people not to be stirred up about it.

eh, ultimately I don't care.  People can think what they want, I just ask that they don't assume I think I'm better than them just because I read that book and recommended others to read it.  It's a petty issue really.  People will take it how they will.  All I suggested was check it out, you might be interested. 

MBcD wrote:

 

But this website doesn't claim to not ask for money, either.

The churches don't claim to not ask for money.  Maybe I worded that wrong.  They suggest to the guest not to feel they need to donate to a church they're not a part of simply because it's not their responsibility to financially support that church and in no way does that church want them to feel guilty about it. 

It's a disclaimer really because traditional religion has the midset that you need to donate or your a bad person.  Another wonderful in on religious bigotry. 

MBcD wrote:

 

And yet, the public passing around of the offering plate still provides that impression of expectation. It creates the sense that contribution is presumed. I can't count the number of times I've seen people gesture like they're putting something in when they weren't. The church doesn't move. It's physically there every day. Leave donation mailers at the door if you don't want people to feel pressured. Sure, folks who don't intend to donate will take mailers to look good, but they won't feel any peer pressure to mail it in.

actually some churches do that.  Each church has a point of view about it, every church that cares about appropriately representing themselves carefully considers how they go about the tithe.  If you have a problem with churches around you and how they tithe, it doesn't hurt to tell them about it.  If they're true, they'll take your concern into serious consideration and may even ask you for suggestions. 

MBcD wrote:

Right. Those who chose to be members of his community of faith. Don't get me wrong, btw, I'm not telling you to STFU and get lost, not by any means. I'm just pointing out that preaching to the unconverted and moving on if they tell you to get lost (which is what the door-to-door preaching attempts to do on a small scale) isn't necessarily 'wrong', either.

I agree with you.  In my area, we tend to have either Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons doing a lot of that, therefore, we first of all know people are not really open to that approach due to their excessive repetitive efforts and we don't want people to confuse us with Mormons or JW's. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

PJTS will enumerate the objections better than I.

In the meantime, look at this link http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm.


 

Breifly looking at the link, I immediately noticed most of the Biblical references were talking about Jesus' return, not his first coming.  Easily comparable in the New Testament, just read Revelation.  

I know there are misunderstandings between the two.  However, there's a group out there called Jews for Christ.  They claim to have discovered what Jews missed.  I don't know a lot about them, but it'd be interesting to compare their claims with the claims on this site. 

Be careful. I don't want you getting hurt moving those goal posts. If it contradicts your belief it just gets pushed back to the second coming, right?

That's one way to guarantee that you'll never be wrong, eh?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I didn't say

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say he said that - I'm asking you if that's how you interpret it (assuming of course you take his words seriously). If you're a Paulist, you don't take Jesus seriously anyway so never mind.

Also, you're the one who said the OT was for the Jews and the NT was for Christians - just wanted to know how seriously you took that - after all, "thou shalt not kill" and the others are OT (for the Jews alone, according to you)

Ok, you know what.  You're taking everything I say peicemeal and I have to repeat myself and put it all together.  The OT was for the Jews, that is their book.  It is however the book that Jesus taught from however he brought along the New way.  They go hand in hand, the old Law still applies, everything that was wrong according to the New Testament is still wrong, the way of handling it is different. 

Do you really not understand?  I've explained this before, I think they were forums you were a part of...


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say he said that - I'm asking you if that's how you interpret it (assuming of course you take his words seriously). If you're a Paulist, you don't take Jesus seriously anyway so never mind.

Also, you're the one who said the OT was for the Jews and the NT was for Christians - just wanted to know how seriously you took that - after all, "thou shalt not kill" and the others are OT (for the Jews alone, according to you)

Ok, you know what.  You're taking everything I say peicemeal and I have to repeat myself and put it all together.  The OT was for the Jews, that is their book.  It is however the book that Jesus taught from however he brought along the New way.  They go hand in hand, the old Law still applies, everything that was wrong according to the New Testament is still wrong, the way of handling it is different. 

Do you really not understand?  I've explained this before, I think they were forums you were a part of...

Well. you're half right - I and others are taking everything you say (and using it to refute you).

So it's just a new way of handling it? I can see that. Instead of the punishment ending at death, God decided to punish the slightest offenses for eternity.

Your way of handling it doesn't make much sense.

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Your "true christian" is a

Your "true christian" is a No True Scotsman, which I don't recall anyone ever indulging you about. I don't know why anyone is indulging you now. Perhaps it's only the obscurity of the marathon threads between you, Fish, myself, and a few others that's deprived people of understanding what a consistent bumbler you are.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Your "true

magilum wrote:

Your "true christian" is a No True Scotsman, which I don't recall anyone ever indulging you about. I don't know why anyone is indulging you now. Perhaps it's only the obscurity of the marathon threads between you, Fish, myself, and a few others that's deprived people of understanding what a consistent bumbler you are.

Kevin R Brown mentions it at post #36

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Your "true

magilum wrote:

Your "true christian" is a No True Scotsman, which I don't recall anyone ever indulging you about. I don't know why anyone is indulging you now. Perhaps it's only the obscurity of the marathon threads between you, Fish, myself, and a few others that's deprived people of understanding what a consistent bumbler you are.

I think the passage of time has helped people forget all the foolishness and stupidity exhibited in those threads.  I for one would rather they not be resurrected (no pun intended).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I just ask that they

Quote:
I just ask that they don't assume I think I'm better than them just because I read that book and recommended others to read it.


Stop your paranoid delusions. I fart, you fart, I crap, you crap. This is not about us thinking that you are better than us. This is merely and solely about the claims you make, nothing more.

And what makes you think we haven't read the bible? You really think we are newbies to religious debate? We also think people should read the bible too. But, unlike you, we recognize the violent stuff, the scientifically absurd stuff, and the morally repugnant stuff that you seem to have your blinders on about. YES, we also think everyone should read it, and see it for what it is, tribalistic myth written by people who had no clue about reality.

"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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 eh, i don't feel you're


 

eh, i don't feel you're open to new ideas.  Your idea has to be right, therefore, whatever I have to offer unless it's specifically scientific evidence is useless. 

 

 

magus wrote:

I have had many people from all types of religions say the exact same thing about them and their god.  Are you suggesting you are all right and true as yours?  If not explain the difference.

Start by reading the Next Christiandom.  Then we'll go from there. 

magus wrote:

So you are a scientist, and you know what can and cannot be explained by science now... What cannot and what hasn't are too different things.    What experiences have you had that cannot be explained?

ah, here we go.  Maybe not yet explained... as I said in another post in this forum... or at least i think it was here... sorry if it's not... there could be an undiscovered science out there that could soon explain the misunderstood. 

Though I must ask before answering.  Are you really interested in personal experience or are you just waiting for an explanation to shoot down?  If it's not scientific, will you really accept it's possibility????

magus wrote:

Present your science, history, and geology that supports your claims.  Present the evidence that the bible is a reliable source.

please see other forums I have been a part of on here first, then what hasn't yet been covered you can ask me. 

magus wrote:


No you have proved nothing you are still asserting you are right and asserting the bible is right. In order for this to be proof, you must prove both your god and the bible to be true.  You have not established that so any inference based on them is just as fallacious as any assertion.

It was an "If/then" situation.  A hypathetical.  Please read more carefully.  The first step is to talk about whether a higher power exists at all, if you can't even accept that, how am I suppose to convince you that the Bible is a reliable source?

magus wrote:

A killer is a killer no matter how much he doesn't want to be called a killer.

and this is relevant to what?

magus wrote:

No the trick is that when nothing happened you can just played it off as if they didn't try.

or... they told me they weren't going to try.  Why don't you try it yourself, then talk to me. 

magus wrote:

Or maybe you should try defining the non physical before we just to conclusions about what I am ignoring.

Spiritual:  of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature

dictionary.com


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Be careful. I

jcgadfly wrote:

Be careful. I don't want you getting hurt moving those goal posts. If it contradicts your belief it just gets pushed back to the second coming, right?

That's one way to guarantee that you'll never be wrong, eh?

You forget that I"m not here just winging ideas at you.  I've come to these conclusions through years of research I have done. 

Meanwhile of all the people I've talked to that I can remember of on this site so far, I'm the only one who has admitted to being wrong about certain facts I brought up.  Others, though I know they've been wrong about even obvious things... don't ask, I dont' remember... have yet to admit they were wrong. 

There may have been a few that I've talked to that admitted when they were, but so many have such a large ego that they've basically drowned the honest ones out. 

Don't take this the wrong way too, I never said it was you.  Many people on here also are careful not to say something that might make them wrong, but instead come up with excuses when it doesn't coenside with their understanding... e.g. no true scottsman and strawman.  Yea, I see those as excuses and they also bring no progress to any debate or conversation.  It's like saying I give up because I don't agree. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop your

Brian37 wrote:

Stop your paranoid delusions. I fart, you fart, I crap, you crap. This is not about us thinking that you are better than us. This is merely and solely about the claims you make, nothing more.

 I just said it because some may have gotten the wrong idea and I wanted people to be strait with it.  You have to admit, some could have taken it that way.  Unfortunately I hear it from people more often than not. 

Brian37 wrote:

And what makes you think we haven't read the bible? You really think we are newbies to religious debate? We also think people should read the bible too. But, unlike you, we recognize the violent stuff, the scientifically absurd stuff, and the morally repugnant stuff that you seem to have your blinders on about. YES, we also think everyone should read it, and see it for what it is, tribalistic myth written by people who had no clue about reality.

I don't believe I've actually said you haven't read the Bible... Maybe I've questioned it.

No I don't believe most of you are newbies.

You really think I don't recognize the violent stuff, scientifically absurd etc?  C'mon.  Another excuse people like to use is that we ignore that stuff.  Maybe it's that we understand why it's in the Bible in the first place.  You should talk to a historian.  One who specializes in understanding ancient writings.  Maybe then you'll see why you can't take a sentence out of the Bible and claim insanity. 

I like how you say you think people should read it too... but then you imediately add a prelude to it so that people can go into the Bible with a mindset instead of taking it on their own. 

If you look back on any claims about suggesting people read the Bible, no one can resist but to add a summary of their idea.  I already know your opinions of the Bible.  If I thought they'd be any different, I'd expect to see you on a different site.

hey, Anyone want to go back to the topic of this forum???


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Can't go back to the topic

Can't go back to the topic until I've read the books you recommend - would you like to define Spirit and Soul now?

If you could, I'd like to do it an a positive context (tell me what they are and not what they aren't)

Thanks

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:magilum

Fish wrote:

magilum wrote:

Your "true christian" is a No True Scotsman, which I don't recall anyone ever indulging you about. I don't know why anyone is indulging you now. Perhaps it's only the obscurity of the marathon threads between you, Fish, myself, and a few others that's deprived people of understanding what a consistent bumbler you are.

I think the passage of time has helped people forget all the foolishness and stupidity exhibited in those threads.  I for one would rather they not be resurrected (no pun intended).

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but anyone who had read those threads will recognize the same pattern. Caposkia offers evidence and arguments he can't even remotely back up; Caposkia gets his bluff called; Caposkia feigns persecution and makes his argument more nebulous, and explains that anyway it doesn't matter because he's only concered with the chimeric TRUE CHRISTIAN (for real this time). Examples of this included citing some anonymous "professor from the midwest" as an authority on evolutionary theory; referring to an unknown National Geographic piece showing evidence supporting the lulztastic Noah's Ark myth; and pointing to a site that, somewhere never demonstrated, was supposed to show via satellite picture a typical "miracle from incomplete devastation," in which one small area had not been charred beyond recognition. Again, nothing was ever shown.

He even PM'd me to express his butt-hurt disbelief that he's not taken seriously.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Hey all.

caposkia wrote:
Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
I can't imagine anyone caring about this.
caposkia wrote:
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.
"Becky?" Not a good sign.
caposkia wrote:
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.
I recommend looking it up, too, so you don't waste your time on Caposkia.
caposkia wrote:
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian
If your line of reasoning relies on that old canard, everything that follows also fails.
caposkia wrote:
feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
That's only important in that it's a breach of etiquette to someone used to viewing the world via tribal factions. The kind of person who would call themselves a "TRUE CHRISTIAN." Many of us only care about religion when it gets chocolate in our peanut butter; impeding social progress, and intruding on science without any justification whatsoever.
caposkia wrote:
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.
Who? What does this mean?
caposkia wrote:
How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.
I have no idea where this straw-man came from. But it follows that the only arguments you could really spar with would have to be your own.
caposkia wrote:
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.
Let me move those classics I'm trying to catch up on down, so I can add "Becky"'s book to my must-read list.
caposkia wrote:
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.
Which you could have taken as evidence you're not interesting enough. They've talked to all kinds of people, even on the show.
caposkia wrote:
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.
I'd love to know your definition of "progress."
caposkia wrote:
Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
I don't think anyone would agree.
caposkia wrote:
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.
Straw-man, again. And you're poisoning the well.
caposkia wrote:
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. "
Of course you agree. That's what you do.
caposkia wrote:
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.
I don't acknowledge anything being different from anything else, therefore god exists. Pomo-Nihilist Christianity.
caposkia wrote:
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.
It's creepy how you treat everything as some minor impediment to your favored homogeny.
caposkia wrote:
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. 
Your argument fails for reasons already mentioned.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Stop your paranoid delusions. I fart, you fart, I crap, you crap. This is not about us thinking that you are better than us. This is merely and solely about the claims you make, nothing more.

 I just said it because some may have gotten the wrong idea and I wanted people to be strait with it.  You have to admit, some could have taken it that way.  Unfortunately I hear it from people more often than not. 

Brian37 wrote:

And what makes you think we haven't read the bible? You really think we are newbies to religious debate? We also think people should read the bible too. But, unlike you, we recognize the violent stuff, the scientifically absurd stuff, and the morally repugnant stuff that you seem to have your blinders on about. YES, we also think everyone should read it, and see it for what it is, tribalistic myth written by people who had no clue about reality.

I don't believe I've actually said you haven't read the Bible... Maybe I've questioned it.

No I don't believe most of you are newbies.

You really think I don't recognize the violent stuff, scientifically absurd etc?  C'mon.  Another excuse people like to use is that we ignore that stuff.  Maybe it's that we understand why it's in the Bible in the first place.  You should talk to a historian.  One who specializes in understanding ancient writings.  Maybe then you'll see why you can't take a sentence out of the Bible and claim insanity. 

I like how you say you think people should read it too... but then you imediately add a prelude to it so that people can go into the Bible with a mindset instead of taking it on their own. 

If you look back on any claims about suggesting people read the Bible, no one can resist but to add a summary of their idea.  I already know your opinions of the Bible.  If I thought they'd be any different, I'd expect to see you on a different site.

hey, Anyone want to go back to the topic of this forum???

This site has plenty of historians, but even a layman by comparison, like me, doesn't need a slide rule to spot hocus pokus.

Saying this person existed or that city existed does not mean that Peter Pan can fly. We see Superman flying around New York City in movies, that doesn't mean Superman is real.

Your meandering doesn't wash with me. The Bible is an absurd book of myth, nothing more. It took over 40 authors, WITH BOOKS LEFT OUT, and took over 1,000 year period to complete. Hardly the work of an efficient god.

A fully grown woman pulled from a man's rib? Who are you kidding? I know who you are kidding, but you don't unfortunately. Animals magically pairing up. Sounds like fiction to me. At least I know Marvel Comics when I see it. Hopefully someday for your own sake, you will see that too.

"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: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're taking

Quote:
You're taking everything I say peicemeal

Ok, if the bible is an "overall" motif, let me give you my plot sumary.

PART ONE

Everyone become a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt. Everyone else will suffer at the hands of my magic and favor to the Hebrews my Homies.

Oh and forget the fact that I didn't ask Adam to cut off the end of his pecker, I thought I'd save that for later. I know I could have magically made him without a foreskin, but watching humans mutalate their wankers makes me all tingly inside because it proves they love me.

FUCK, I cant arrange my own army men the way I want. I KNOW, I'LL DROWNED THEM!

PART TWO,

SHIT.........I killed off millions if not billions of men women and children AND BABIES because they wouldn't kiss my ass. I KNOW, maybe if I magically make my ghostperm knock up a 9-14 year old girl, which of course, and then 32 years later, kill myself, in order that others can kiss my ass so they dont suffer an eternity for not kissing my ass. THAT WILL WORK!

PART 3, THE FINAL CHAPTER

Those ungrateful bastards! I clone myself, kill myself so to myself, so they wont suffer hell for not sucking up to me!

Hummn, 6 billion people, most don't kiss my ass, I KNOW, I'll have them fight over me in a BIBLICAL WWE SMACKDOWN DEATHCAGE MATCH and the 2 billion who kiss my ass can kiss my ego forever!

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! Sounds more like Zap Branigan from Futurama, than anything else.

(END)

You have the same thing in common with Star Trec fans who think transporters are possible. I outgrew Dungeons & Dragons, and Santa. You have not.

 

"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


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: eh, i don't

caposkia wrote:

 

eh, i don't feel you're open to new ideas.  Your idea has to be right, therefore, whatever I have to offer unless it's specifically scientific evidence is useless. 

If I can't examine how can it be useful to me?  Since when did open to new ideas, mean I have to accept your assertions as fact?

caposkia wrote:

 

 

magus wrote:

I have had many people from all types of religions say the exact same thing about them and their god.  Are you suggesting you are all right and true as yours?  If not explain the difference.

Start by reading the Next Christiandom.  Then we'll go from there. 

So what your saying is I should read an entire book, so that you don't have to say "We have evidence, they don't, and here it is..."?  Seriously it is a simple question do you are don't you have evidence that makes your claim any less ridiculous as their claims?

caposkia wrote:

ah, here we go.  Maybe not yet explained... as I said in another post in this forum... or at least i think it was here... sorry if it's not... there could be an undiscovered science out there that could soon explain the misunderstood. 

If you did mention it you didn't in your reply when you specifically use in the following quote which I was responding too.

caposkia wrote:
"I have had personal experiences in my life that cannot be explained in other ways or scientifically."

Your own words not mine.

caposkia wrote:

Though I must ask before answering.  Are you really interested in personal experience or are you just waiting for an explanation to shoot down?  If it's not scientific, will you really accept it's possibility????

 

Like I said before your personal experience is worthless outside of yourself. It cannot be observed or presented. I shoot down what needs to be shot down.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

Present your science, history, and geology that supports your claims.  Present the evidence that the bible is a reliable source.

please see other forums I have been a part of on here first, then what hasn't yet been covered you can ask me. 

 

magus wrote:

 

No you have proved nothing you are still asserting you are right and asserting the bible is right. In order for this to be proof, you must prove both your god and the bible to be true.  You have not established that so any inference based on them is just as fallacious as any assertion.

It was an "If/then" situation.  A hypathetical.  Please read more carefully.  The first step is to talk about whether a higher power exists at all, if you can't even accept that, how am I suppose to convince you that the Bible is a reliable source?

So you tried to disprove my character by asserting (hypothetically) that your beliefs were proved true?  I don't know how you are suppose present your crazy book as a reliable source, but your the one who believes in it, so I suggest starting with why you thing it's reliable.

magus wrote:

A killer is a killer no matter how much he doesn't want to be called a killer.

caposkia wrote:

and this is relevant to what?

A religion is a religion no matter how much the person doesn't want it to be called a religion.

If you don't believe Christianity is a religion, please define what is a religion.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

No the trick is that when nothing happened you can just played it off as if they didn't try.

or... they told me they weren't going to try.  Why don't you try it yourself, then talk to me. 

I have, and stated that in my previous post about this.  The part where I quoted you and said I tri

caposkia wrote:

Spiritual:  of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature

Spirit and soul also not properly defined yet.

Distinguished from the physical nature... In other words not physical nature, defined in the negative which means no universe of discourse.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Can't go back

jcgadfly wrote:

Can't go back to the topic until I've read the books you recommend - would you like to define Spirit and Soul now?

If you could, I'd like to do it an a positive context (tell me what they are and not what they aren't)

Thanks

very good questions.  Sure I can. All Definitions are from Websters Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 

Spirit:  A few definitions could fit this term depending on the context in the Bible and other places

The definitions chosen are only the ones relevant to what we as followers of Christ believe spirit and soul are. 

noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

noun 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

noun 4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.

noun 5. a supernatural, incorporeal being.

noun 7. an angel or demon

etc... there are many others, but you get the point.

 

Soul: NOUN

1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. 

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:I don't want

magilum wrote:

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but anyone who had read those threads will recognize the same pattern. Caposkia offers evidence and arguments he can't even remotely back up; Caposkia gets his bluff called; Caposkia feigns persecution and makes his argument more nebulous, and explains that anyway it doesn't matter because he's only concered with the chimeric TRUE CHRISTIAN (for real this time). Examples of this included citing some anonymous "professor from the midwest" as an authority on evolutionary theory; referring to an unknown National Geographic piece showing evidence supporting the lulztastic Noah's Ark myth; and pointing to a site that, somewhere never demonstrated, was supposed to show via satellite picture a typical "miracle from incomplete devastation," in which one small area had not been charred beyond recognition. Again, nothing was ever shown.

He even PM'd me to express his butt-hurt disbelief that he's not taken seriously.

Hey!!! He's back!  Still obsessed with the erronius prof. from the midwest huh. 

I'll just point out that magilum likes to dwell on the mistakes people make whether rectified or not, whether admitted or not. 

I admitted the prof. was someone I couldn't find again, however I did back up the evidence provided by the prof. 3 fold.  After repeatedly arguing with me about not backing it up etc.  magilum admitted to me in a PM that he never actually read it and asked me to stop bothering him.

magilum's only defense is the rocks you tripped on during your travels. 

magilum also complains that I have nothing relevent to say and that my forums and conversations are pointless... and yet here he is again. 

If my conversations are as you say, I guarantee the people on here are smart enough to pick up on it.  As one person pointed out, they're not new to these debates. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, if the

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, if the bible is an "overall" motif, let me give you my plot sumary.

PART ONE

Everyone become a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt. Everyone else will suffer at the hands of my magic and favor to the Hebrews my Homies.

Oh and forget the fact that I didn't ask Adam to cut off the end of his pecker, I thought I'd save that for later. I know I could have magically made him without a foreskin, but watching humans mutalate their wankers makes me all tingly inside because it proves they love me.

FUCK, I cant arrange my own army men the way I want. I KNOW, I'LL DROWNED THEM!

PART TWO,

SHIT.........I killed off millions if not billions of men women and children AND BABIES because they wouldn't kiss my ass. I KNOW, maybe if I magically make my ghostperm knock up a 9-14 year old girl, which of course, and then 32 years later, kill myself, in order that others can kiss my ass so they dont suffer an eternity for not kissing my ass. THAT WILL WORK!

PART 3, THE FINAL CHAPTER

Those ungrateful bastards! I clone myself, kill myself so to myself, so they wont suffer hell for not sucking up to me!

Hummn, 6 billion people, most don't kiss my ass, I KNOW, I'll have them fight over me in a BIBLICAL WWE SMACKDOWN DEATHCAGE MATCH and the 2 billion who kiss my ass can kiss my ego forever!

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! Sounds more like Zap Branigan from Futurama, than anything else.

(END)

You have the same thing in common with Star Trec fans who think transporters are possible. I outgrew Dungeons & Dragons, and Santa. You have not.

That was probably thee best Biblical parody I have ever heard.  Kudos to you man.  LOL. 

You've basically covered everything I've heard from everyone who doesn't believe with color and class. 

Now if you'd like to take some of that in context with the stories and understand why I believe, then we can start a new forum.  I'm more than willing to focus on a topic or story and discuss it with you. 

If you're not interested, then I've already told you I know your views.  Thanks for the reiteration though. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:If I can't

Magus wrote:

If I can't examine how can it be useful to me?  Since when did open to new ideas, mean I have to accept your assertions as fact?

I never said you had to accept my assertions as fact.  It just seems to me you're not open to the idea that they could be true.  If you are, then I apologize. 

You of course can examine anything I have to say.  I encourage it.  I just need something I can work with.  ...and for all of you who might blow that statement out of proportion magilum... I mean to say a counter point of view with reference to source or reasoning so I can understand where you're coming from.   This way I can either apologize and correct myself, or explain why I feel your view is mistaken. 
I never claim to be all knowing or right all the time.  I do believe that my understanding is true, but I'm open to contradictions. 

 

magus wrote:

So what your saying is I should read an entire book, so that you don't have to say "We have evidence, they don't, and here it is..."?  Seriously it is a simple question do you are don't you have evidence that makes your claim any less ridiculous as their claims?

You asked a question.  The answer's not as simple as you think.... er.... well, it is... but for the answer to be acceptable to the majority on here, it's not.  That book I suggested covers most major religions in the world and how they came to be; ironically through a Jewish or Christian origin. 

I'm not saying read that book cover to cover, but if you're seriously curious, then I'm just saying that book will answer some questions. 

Just instead of having to back my claims up over and over and over again, I figured I'd reference a book that has already done that. 

magus wrote:

If you did mention it you didn't in your reply when you specifically use in the following quote which I was responding too.

caposkia wrote:
"I have had personal experiences in my life that cannot be explained in other ways or scientifically."

Your own words not mine.

I stand by those words, but i should have said "Universally accepted ways"... not just other ways, bad wording on my part there.  sorry. 

magus wrote:

Like I said before your personal experience is worthless outside of yourself. It cannot be observed or presented. I shoot down what needs to be shot down.

therefore, personal experience will not be presented here because it would be pointless. 

magus wrote:

 

No you have proved nothing you are still asserting you are right and asserting the bible is right. In order for this to be proof, you must prove both your god and the bible to be true.  You have not established that so any inference based on them is just as fallacious as any assertion.

Ok

I'll ask the opposing question again as well.  From what source do you have "proof" that God does not exist???  It's not rational to claim sources that don't directly refer to the topic. 

magus wrote:

So you tried to disprove my character by asserting (hypothetically) that your beliefs were proved true?  I don't know how you are suppose present your crazy book as a reliable source, but your the one who believes in it, so I suggest starting with why you thing it's reliable.

Ok, tell me where you want me to start "specifically".  I'll start a new forum with the topic.  Generally there are countless reasons why I believe. 

magus wrote:

A religion is a religion no matter how much the person doesn't want it to be called a religion.

If you don't believe Christianity is a religion, please define what is a religion.

As I've said, my following of Christianity is as much a religion as Atheism is.  So under the definition of religion being a united following, then both are a religion.  However, if religion is defined as a separation due to discrimination and pride, then my following would not be. 

Understand there is a difference between my following of Christianity and Christiandom in general.  Yes we have a particular believe and feel that we are correct in our understanding.  We don't descriminate against others hate on others because they don't agree.  We accept all walks of life if they're willing to be with us. 

magus wrote:


Spirit and soul also not properly defined yet.

They are now.  Check previous few posts. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Can't go back to the topic until I've read the books you recommend - would you like to define Spirit and Soul now?

If you could, I'd like to do it an a positive context (tell me what they are and not what they aren't)

Thanks

very good questions.  Sure I can. All Definitions are from Websters Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 

Spirit:  A few definitions could fit this term depending on the context in the Bible and other places

The definitions chosen are only the ones relevant to what we as followers of Christ believe spirit and soul are. 

noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

noun 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

noun 4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.

noun 5. a supernatural, incorporeal being.

noun 7. an angel or demon

etc... there are many others, but you get the point.

 

Soul: NOUN

1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. 

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person.

 

Thanks for the definitions.

1. Is it wrong for me to rag on the dictionary for being circular? (using soul to define spirit and spirit to define soul)

2. Is it wrong for me to rag on the dictionary for using incoherent terms? (supernatural, angel/demon)

3. Can I bust on you for giving me negative definitions?(incorporeeal tells me what it's not)

4. If:

    a. soul and spirit are principles

    b. God is s spirit

    c. principles are rules

Why are youpersonalizing a rule and calling it God?

"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: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, if the bible is an "overall" motif, let me give you my plot sumary.

PART ONE

Everyone become a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt. Everyone else will suffer at the hands of my magic and favor to the Hebrews my Homies.

Oh and forget the fact that I didn't ask Adam to cut off the end of his pecker, I thought I'd save that for later. I know I could have magically made him without a foreskin, but watching humans mutalate their wankers makes me all tingly inside because it proves they love me.

FUCK, I cant arrange my own army men the way I want. I KNOW, I'LL DROWNED THEM!

PART TWO,

SHIT.........I killed off millions if not billions of men women and children AND BABIES because they wouldn't kiss my ass. I KNOW, maybe if I magically make my ghostperm knock up a 9-14 year old girl, which of course, and then 32 years later, kill myself, in order that others can kiss my ass so they dont suffer an eternity for not kissing my ass. THAT WILL WORK!

PART 3, THE FINAL CHAPTER

Those ungrateful bastards! I clone myself, kill myself so to myself, so they wont suffer hell for not sucking up to me!

Hummn, 6 billion people, most don't kiss my ass, I KNOW, I'll have them fight over me in a BIBLICAL WWE SMACKDOWN DEATHCAGE MATCH and the 2 billion who kiss my ass can kiss my ego forever!

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! Sounds more like Zap Branigan from Futurama, than anything else.

(END)

You have the same thing in common with Star Trec fans who think transporters are possible. I outgrew Dungeons & Dragons, and Santa. You have not.

That was probably thee best Biblical parody I have ever heard.  Kudos to you man.  LOL. 

You've basically covered everything I've heard from everyone who doesn't believe with color and class. 

Now if you'd like to take some of that in context with the stories and understand why I believe, then we can start a new forum.  I'm more than willing to focus on a topic or story and discuss it with you. 

If you're not interested, then I've already told you I know your views.  Thanks for the reiteration though. 

It is not me that doesn't want to discuss it. It is you who doesn't want to face it. Like I said, been down this road with others before.

So if you don't believe in "magical fiction" as I so rightly described the bible as being, then the only other reason you "believe" is why? I wont spoil it for you, go ahead and answer.

"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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Thanks for

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks for the definitions.

1. Is it wrong for me to rag on the dictionary for being circular? (using soul to define spirit and spirit to define soul)

2. Is it wrong for me to rag on the dictionary for using incoherent terms? (supernatural, angel/demon)

3. Can I bust on you for giving me negative definitions?(incorporeeal tells me what it's not)

4. If:

    a. soul and spirit are principles

    b. God is s spirit

    c. principles are rules

Why are youpersonalizing a rule and calling it God?

#1.  No.  Of course not.  I've always been humored by the "waste of space" definitions that really bring no progress to the definition as in the "state of being" defs. using the word you were unfamiliar with in the first place to define that it  is the state of being that.  etc. etc.

#2.  No, they tend to make you run around to find all the new words you didn't have questions about before opening the book. 

#3.  you can bust on me for whatever, it's not going to offend me.  However, I double checked incorporeal myself and found def. 2 to explain; 'of, pertaining to, or characteristic of nonmaterial beings.'  Sounded like it's just a reference to non-material beings and not explaining what they're not.  My appologies if that's the wrong way of understanding that definition. 

#4.  As I said, it depends on the context you are referring to.  Each definition is it's own understanding.  I did not give all of them to you.  You cannot apply one definition to a different context than it's relevant to. 

Definition 1 as you reference to is one concept of spirit.  Using that concept, it's not relevent to why I would view a spirit as God.  That's a completely different concept of spirit.  SEE Def #10:  "A divine...being or influence." 

In a different context, spirit could be difined by Def #11, "the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit." 

so Spirit by definition could in the right context refer to a divine being, namely God.  Therefore, I do not personalize the "rule or principle" spirit as defined in def #1. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is not me

Brian37 wrote:

It is not me that doesn't want to discuss it. It is you who doesn't want to face it. Like I said, been down this road with others before.

So if you don't believe in "magical fiction" as I so rightly described the bible as being, then the only other reason you "believe" is why? I wont spoil it for you, go ahead and answer.

If I didn't want to face it, why would I offer to discuss it?  Discussing it would only bring to the surface more incriminating evidence that I'm living in a fantasy world if what you claim is true would it not?  From what you're saying, it sounds pretty cut and dry, so it's my understanding that if you're correct, then our discussion won't get far because I'll have to see the truth.  It will be obvious. 

Understand that I'm not new to these debates either.  I've been down this road before as well.  So far, I haven't seen any new store fronts or scenery.  I'll follow your lead


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I never said

caposkia wrote:

I never said you had to accept my assertions as fact.  It just seems to me you're not open to the idea that they could be true.  If you are, then I apologize. 

You of course can examine anything I have to say.  I encourage it.  I just need something I can work with.  ...and for all of you who might blow that statement out of proportion magilum... I mean to say a counter point of view with reference to source or reasoning so I can understand where you're coming from.   This way I can either apologize and correct myself, or explain why I feel your view is mistaken. 
I never claim to be all knowing or right all the time.  I do believe that my understanding is true, but I'm open to contradictions. 

I cannot examine your personal experiences, so no I cannot examine everything you say.  Example if you say you saw a bright light that only you saw, I really have no way of examining that.  My only counter point is you have not presented any evidence for me to examine and since the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, it is you who must present the evidence. Not my job to search for it.

caposkia wrote:

You asked a question.  The answer's not as simple as you think.... er.... well, it is... but for the answer to be acceptable to the majority on here, it's not.  That book I suggested covers most major religions in the world and how they came to be; ironically through a Jewish or Christian origin. 

I'm not saying read that book cover to cover, but if you're seriously curious, then I'm just saying that book will answer some questions. 

Just instead of having to back my claims up over and over and over again, I figured I'd reference a book that has already done that. 

Have you seen a "God who wasn't there"?  Or the Zeitgeist?

These talk about how Christianity came to be.

caposkia wrote:

Ok

I'll ask the opposing question again as well.  From what source do you have "proof" that God does not exist???  It's not rational to claim sources that don't directly refer to the topic. 

I don't claim god doesn't exists.  I lack belief in a god.  Not a positive claim, simply a rejection of your positive claim that it does exists in light of the fact that you have presented no evidence.

capiskia wrote:

Ok, tell me where you want me to start "specifically".  I'll start a new forum with the topic.  Generally there are countless reasons why I believe. 

Fair enough,  lets start with contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.   Do you have any outside sources (IE not the bible), that took place during the life time of Jesus that talked about Jesus?  Did his enemies write about him?  That sort of thing.

capiskia wrote:

As I've said, my following of Christianity is as much a religion as Atheism is.  So under the definition of religion being a united following, then both are a religion.  However, if religion is defined as a separation due to discrimination and pride, then my following would not be.

Understand there is a difference between my following of Christianity and Christiandom in general.  Yes we have a particular believe and feel that we are correct in our understanding.  We don't descriminate against others hate on others because they don't agree.  We accept all walks of life if they're willing to be with us.

So is football, baseball, any other sport, MMO RPG's, movie fan groups... do you get my point?  Your definition is so vague it's almost meaningless as a descriptor. Where did you get that definition? 

caposkia wrote:

Spirit:  A few definitions could fit this term depending on the context in the Bible and other places

The definitions chosen are only the ones relevant to what we as followers of Christ believe spirit and soul are. 

noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

The body is animated by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Which then sends signals to the rest of the body.  Damage to the brain will cause adverse effects to the ability for a person to animate their body.  Severe damage can disable the body.  Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What exactly need mediating?

caposkia wrote:

noun 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

Do you have proof of this?  Or is this an empty statement.

caposkia wrote:

noun 4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.

noun 5. a supernatural, incorporeal being.

Suggested reading on the subject of incoherent terms: http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

caposkia wrote:

noun 7. an angel or demon

Do you have any evidence for either an angel or demon?

caposkia wrote:

Soul: NOUN

1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. 

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person.

Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What is distinct about a human that isn't a part of this equation?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:  My only

Magus wrote:

  My only counter point is you have not presented any evidence for me to examine and since the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, it is you who must present the evidence. Not my job to search for it.

well, give me a basis of research or evidence that you will accept as valid, AND that will support the study of the focus.

If you ask me a question and you really want to know the answer, I will give you sources to find the answer.  I don't know everything off the top of my head and don't have the time to research every question asked.  I'm also trying to avoid repeating myself, so instead you can familiarize yourself with what I have learned through some of my own reading and then ask me questions from there.  Otherwise we could go on and on about the little stuff and really not make any progress to the main point. (God or no God)

If you're seriously curious, you have sources to use that I have suggested to get started.  If you're not, then why ask? 

If you're trying to help me understand why there is no God, then we need an agreeable source that can provide sufficient evidence proving or disproving a spiritual world or realm or a higher power not of the physical world. 

magus wrote:


Have you seen a "God who wasn't there"?  Or the Zeitgeist?

These talk about how Christianity came to be.

actually no... who were they by?  I'll look them up.  Are they books or videos?

magus wrote:

I don't claim god doesn't exists.  I lack belief in a god.  Not a positive claim, simply a rejection of your positive claim that it does exists in light of the fact that you have presented no evidence.

alright, that's understandable.  We just have to start on the same page.  We need an agreeable source to use first.... then a specific topic.  There are many sources in combination I have used besides personal experience to confirm my belief to be true including sciences such as geology, biology and molecular.  I've also used history which plays a bigger part in some instances.  The convincing argument for myself always comes down to the unique individual experiences.  Some others have experienced along with me, others I've experienced on my own.  Other experiences still were too ironic to be ironic.

The question is, what source will be a convincing source for you, and what would need to be presented from that/those sources to be convincing to you to consider the possibility of God. 

I'm just trying to find common ground and whether we can come to an agreement or not. 

magus wrote:

Fair enough,  lets start with contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.   Do you have any outside sources (IE not the bible), that took place during the life time of Jesus that talked about Jesus?  Did his enemies write about him?  That sort of thing.

There are sources that confirm the Jesus of the Bible to have actually existed historically.  I'd have to find what they were.  I don't have any sources immediately available to me. 

doing a quick online search, some things came up:  <http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/j/jesus-christ.html#Sources%20about%20Jesus%20Christ>

and names such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, Tertullian, and Thallus.  From what I understand, these names are of writers who were considered of Pagan understanding. 

Would this be what you're looking for, or do you want specific accounts from those sources or others? 

magus wrote:

So is football, baseball, any other sport, MMO RPG's, movie fan groups... do you get my point?  Your definition is so vague it's almost meaningless as a descriptor. Where did you get that definition? 

I get your point.  My point was that if people are going to claim that I am following a religion, then those same people would have to claim that atheism is a religion by dictionary definition. e.g. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" 

It's really just petty and doesn't bring progress to the point.  It's just whether I'm a part of a "religion" or not, which is irrelevent. 

magus wrote:

 

The body is animated by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Which then sends signals to the rest of the body.  Damage to the brain will cause adverse effects to the ability for a person to animate their body.  Severe damage can disable the body.  Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What exactly need mediating?

If you want to get into the technicalities of it all, you can liken it to a computer.   Analogy, you are a spirit or soul, and the computer is the body.

A computer was designed to do specific tasks when specific requests were made by the operator.  A body is designed to do specific tasks when requests are made by the soul. 

Now when the computer is dropped or a virus gets into it and damages are caused by that, no matter how capable the operator of the computer is, the computer will most likely not be able to complete the requested task.  Do you see the correlation?

magus wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

noun 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

Do you have proof of this?  Or is this an empty statement.

what? Proof that it's in the dictionary? yea, go look it up... Proof that that happens?  What source would you like me to provide proof from?  Or better yet, is there a source that studies Def. 3. and has concluded an understanding of it that you will accept as tangeble? 

magus wrote:

caposkia wrote:

noun 7. an angel or demon

Do you have any evidence for either an angel or demon?

What would you be looking for as evidence?

magus wrote:

Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What is distinct about a human that isn't a part of this equation?

I guess that depends on what you're looking for.

Like the fact that we're the most creative beings ever so much as to create quick means of transportation and have the ability to control the environment dramatically within a shelter?  etc.

or are you looking for something else?  I'm not sure if I know what you're looking for here. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
incoherent terms

magus wrote:

Suggested reading on the subject of incoherent terms: http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

I read through that article and it ultimately seems like this could go into another whole discussion which I'd do on a separate forum.

Briefly though, it only holds to the idea that there cannot be a spiritual world... or no... that a spiritual world has not been proven or sufficiently supported according to...(place individual here). 

my take on all of that quickly is just technicalities, but in science, everything has an opposite from what we understand thus far, e.g. magnetism has a positive and negative side.  It's understood that there is gravity and anti-gravity.  There is visible matter, then there's dark matter. 

Would it be scientifically sound then to conclude that if there is material, there is an anti-material?  Whereas some would define the anti-material as spiritual maybe? 

Just an idea, like I said, if this needs to go further, we can start a new forum. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
"The God Who Wasn't There"

"The God Who Wasn't There" is by Brian Flemming. There's a link to it on the upper left side of the page - it says "God Movie." (between "atheist news feeds" and "our team. " )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:magus

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

Suggested reading on the subject of incoherent terms: http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

I read through that article and it ultimately seems like this could go into another whole discussion which I'd do on a separate forum.

Briefly though, it only holds to the idea that there cannot be a spiritual world... or no... that a spiritual world has not been proven or sufficiently supported according to...(place individual here). 

my take on all of that quickly is just technicalities, but in science, everything has an opposite from what we understand thus far, e.g. magnetism has a positive and negative side.  It's understood that there is gravity and anti-gravity.  There is visible matter, then there's dark matter. 

Would it be scientifically sound then to conclude that if there is material, there is an anti-material?  Whereas some would define the anti-material as spiritual maybe? 

Just an idea, like I said, if this needs to go further, we can start a new forum. 

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
There is anti-matter but

There is anti-matter but it's still material.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:magilum

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but anyone who had read those threads will recognize the same pattern. Caposkia offers evidence and arguments he can't even remotely back up; Caposkia gets his bluff called; Caposkia feigns persecution and makes his argument more nebulous, and explains that anyway it doesn't matter because he's only concered with the chimeric TRUE CHRISTIAN (for real this time). Examples of this included citing some anonymous "professor from the midwest" as an authority on evolutionary theory; referring to an unknown National Geographic piece showing evidence supporting the lulztastic Noah's Ark myth; and pointing to a site that, somewhere never demonstrated, was supposed to show via satellite picture a typical "miracle from incomplete devastation," in which one small area had not been charred beyond recognition. Again, nothing was ever shown.

He even PM'd me to express his butt-hurt disbelief that he's not taken seriously.

Hey!!! He's back!  Still obsessed with the erronius prof. from the midwest huh. 

I'll just point out that magilum likes to dwell on the mistakes people make whether rectified or not, whether admitted or not. 

I admitted the prof. was someone I couldn't find again, however I did back up the evidence provided by the prof. 3 fold. [...]

You are an abject liar. You have never backed up anything, ever, in any way. You didn't even bother defending or denying the other two examples, and the one you do mention was only rectified in that you've plead with us to forget about it. If there was an interesting conversation to be had with you, people would be having it. Instead, they're tearing their hair out at your endless stupidity. I've come to tell them not to bother, and that you're like this permanently.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is not me that doesn't want to discuss it. It is you who doesn't want to face it. Like I said, been down this road with others before.

So if you don't believe in "magical fiction" as I so rightly described the bible as being, then the only other reason you "believe" is why? I wont spoil it for you, go ahead and answer.

If I didn't want to face it, why would I offer to discuss it?  Discussing it would only bring to the surface more incriminating evidence that I'm living in a fantasy world if what you claim is true would it not?  From what you're saying, it sounds pretty cut and dry, so it's my understanding that if you're correct, then our discussion won't get far because I'll have to see the truth.  It will be obvious. 

Understand that I'm not new to these debates either.  I've been down this road before as well.  So far, I haven't seen any new store fronts or scenery.  I'll follow your lead

Whats a matter? Afraid of defending magic? Need to take the long road and tell us the bible doesn't say what it says?

I am not fooled and neither is anyone else here. The difference is that others have more patience than I do in trying to unscramble your brain. I prefer shock treatment, and you need it.

You are trying to strip the bible of it's hocus pokus by re-defining the words, it cannot be done. That work of fiction is full of bullshit claims right from page one.

Now, the only person here that is convinced that the bible is not a book of fictional magical claims is you. When you get called on it your only resort is to back peddle and say that the bible doesnt say what it says.

When one starts from the naked assertion that a super natural being exists, and convinces themselves of that without question, they can further justify myth they want.

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Allah did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

You are merely back peddling because you don't want to admit that people, including you, want to believe in a magical protector in the sky, and now since science has stripped away that fiction, you cling to it because of emotional appeal. So mentally you go back and try to make the words sound more naturalistic.

Is heaven(insert favorite deity here) an actual physical place? For Muslims it is a harem and rivers of milk and wine. For Christians it is where they get to hang out with other dead relitives, including people who did horrible things only later to be forgiven by Jesus. All of it is crap, utopian crap. Your heaven or their hell is merely a product of human imagination.

None of us here are fooled by your dead and tired argument that words don't mean what they mean.

You are afraid to admit that you want a magical protector. Why do you feel you need a deity by any name? Are you afraid you might forget how to tie your shoes? Are you afraid you might start BBQing kittens?

Or re you afraid that your mortality is finite and not infinite? This is what you are really afraid of and the emotional appeal that you have in your head right now has you in a stranglehold. The only way to escape this is to question the magic.

If it sounds like fiction, it is fiction, and you have bought a work of fiction merely because it makes you feel good. You don't realize it, but that IS what is going on in your head. I only hope for your own intellectual sake you have the bravery to be introspective and question 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


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:Magus

 

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

  My only counter point is you have not presented any evidence for me to examine and since the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, it is you who must present the evidence. Not my job to search for it.

well, give me a basis of research or evidence that you will accept as valid, AND that will support the study of the focus.

It's your claims so it's your basis of research.  Accept as valid?? That all depends on  the evidence warranting being acceptable. If it's independently verifiable, repeatable, or empirical that would be a good start.

caposkia wrote:

If you ask me a question and you really want to know the answer, I will give you sources to find the answer.  I don't know everything off the top of my head and don't have the time to research every question asked. 

I don't expect anyone to know everything off the top of their head.  Links are nice, but a concise link is better.

caposkia wrote:

I'm also trying to avoid repeating myself, so instead you can familiarize yourself with what I have learned through some of my own reading and then ask me questions from there.  Otherwise we could go on and on about the little stuff and really not make any progress to the main point. (God or no God)

If you're seriously curious, you have sources to use that I have suggested to get started.  If you're not, then why ask? 

If you're trying to help me understand why there is no God, then we need an agreeable source that can provide sufficient evidence proving or disproving a spiritual world or realm or a higher power not of the physical world. 

"...why there is no God..." Once again this isn't my position. My position is that without evidence of "X", it is irrational to believe "X" to be true.  I don't have to disprove any assertions.  Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

caposkia wrote:

actually no... who were they by?  I'll look them up.  Are they books or videos?

They are videos.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

I don't claim god doesn't exists.  I lack belief in a god.  Not a positive claim, simply a rejection of your positive claim that it does exists in light of the fact that you have presented no evidence.

alright, that's understandable.  We just have to start on the same page.  We need an agreeable source to use first.... then a specific topic.  There are many sources in combination I have used besides personal experience to confirm my belief to be true including sciences such as geology, biology and molecular.  I've also used history which plays a bigger part in some instances.  The convincing argument for myself always comes down to the unique individual experiences.  Some others have experienced along with me, others I've experienced on my own.  Other experiences still were too ironic to be ironic.

How very vague of you.

caposkia wrote:

The question is, what source will be a convincing source for you, and what would need to be presented from that/those sources to be convincing to you to consider the possibility of God.

Listed above.

caposkia wrote:

There are sources that confirm the Jesus of the Bible to have actually existed historically.  I'd have to find what they were.  I don't have any sources immediately available to me. 

doing a quick online search, some things came up:  <http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/j/jesus-christ.html#Sources%20about%20Jesus%20Christ>

and names such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, Tertullian, and Thallus.  From what I understand, these names are of writers who were considered of Pagan understanding. 

Would this be what you're looking for, or do you want specific accounts from those sources or others? 

From the link you provided

http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/s/sources-about-jesus-christ.html wrote:

Historical sources cite as evidence for the life of Jesus include Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, written between 93 and 112. None of these authors provide first-hand or contemporary accounts. They basically affirm only the existence and execution of Jesus (and his founding of Christianity) at around the time the Gospels state (e.g., under governorship of Pontius Pilate). All of these sources are considered to be of doubtful significance, primarily because their information probably was derived from Christian sources.

Note: I am not done with this section I am still looking over the material.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

So is football, baseball, any other sport, MMO RPG's, movie fan groups... do you get my point?  Your definition is so vague it's almost meaningless as a descriptor. Where did you get that definition? 

I get your point.  My point was that if people are going to claim that I am following a religion, then those same people would have to claim that atheism is a religion by dictionary definition. e.g. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" 

It's really just petty and doesn't bring progress to the point.  It's just whether I'm a part of a "religion" or not, which is irrelevent. 

Atheism is not a set of belief about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.  It is simply an answer to your claim of the existence of a deity.

I don't know what causes the universe.  I don't know the nature of existence.  Not really sure what purpose of the universe really means.  Those three statements have nothing to do with Atheism, as an Atheist could have any opinion on all three of those choices.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

The body is animated by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Which then sends signals to the rest of the body.  Damage to the brain will cause adverse effects to the ability for a person to animate their body.  Severe damage can disable the body.  Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What exactly need mediating?

If you want to get into the technicalities of it all, you can liken it to a computer.   Analogy, you are a spirit or soul, and the computer is the body.

A computer was designed to do specific tasks when specific requests were made by the operator.  A body is designed to do specific tasks when requests are made by the soul. 

Now when the computer is dropped or a virus gets into it and damages are caused by that, no matter how capable the operator of the computer is, the computer will most likely not be able to complete the requested task.  Do you see the correlation?

Your analogy fails, computers are build from the top down, living being are build from the bottom up. What this means is we build computers for a specific purpose and don't add things that would cause it to fail.  Evolution doesn't know what will work so there are many generates each with options but only the working options survive.  In this process nothing needs button pressing as the program that cannot run on its on will fail, the ones that can replicate on their own do.  This is basic evolution.

caposkia wrote:

noun 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

 

what? Proof that it's in the dictionary? yea, go look it up... Proof that that happens?  What source would you like me to provide proof from?  Or better yet, is there a source that studies Def. 3. and has concluded an understanding of it that you will accept as tangeble? 

Proof that a soul separating from the body at death.

caposkia wrote:

noun 7. an angel or demon

What would you be looking for as evidence?

Listed above.

caposkia wrote:

magus wrote:

Memories, emotions, and sensory experience can all be affected by damage to the brain.  What is distinct about a human that isn't a part of this equation?

I guess that depends on what you're looking for.

Like the fact that we're the most creative beings ever so much as to create quick means of transportation and have the ability to control the environment dramatically within a shelter?  etc.

or are you looking for something else?  I'm not sure if I know what you're looking for here. 

This is only evidence that creativity helps with survival.  Creativity and larger brains give us an advantage over other creatures that seems to fit right along side with the verifiable, reliable theory of evolution.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Capo, I need to ask you two

Capo, I need to ask you two very, very important questions at this junction:

1) Do you accept evolutionary theory as a scientific fact?

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Capo, I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Capo, I need to ask you two very, very important questions at this junction:

1) Do you accept evolutionary theory as a scientific fact?

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

Let me answer.

1. Depends on how I need to spin it to justify my super hero in the sky.

2. God did it and numbers can mean anything he wants because he has no limits. "POOF" theory works fine for 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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic.