The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
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. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Awwww Jeez..... man has known for millenia that you can lead an a$$ to water, but you can't make them drink...

No but you can drown their asses once you get them there.

 

 

Cap is just my chewtoy and I am quite sure outside this subject he is a very nice guy. I don't want to drowned anyone. I just wish humans would get off their Santa for adults.

I don't want to drowned him, just all sky daddy delusions.

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:TGBaker

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Awwww Jeez..... man has known for millenia that you can lead an a$$ to water, but you can't make them drink...

No but you can drown their asses once you get them there.

 

 

Cap is just my chewtoy and I am quite sure outside this subject he is a very nice guy. I don't want to drowned anyone. I just wish humans would get off their Santa for adults.

I don't want to drowned him, just all sky daddy delusions.

Eleven Non-Commandments

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Brian37

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Awwww Jeez..... man has known for millenia that you can lead an a$$ to water, but you can't make them drink...

No but you can drown their asses once you get them there.

 

 

Cap is just my chewtoy and I am quite sure outside this subject he is a very nice guy. I don't want to drowned anyone. I just wish humans would get off their Santa for adults.

I don't want to drowned him, just all sky daddy delusions.

Eleven Non-Commandments

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

How many ways can you say, "if there is a god, the only thing you can call him is a prick".

Fortunately for humanity no such critter exists. Unfortunately for humanity, we only evolved to get to the point of reproduction, we did not evolve to always default to testing the claims we utter.

The fact that absurd claims have always been spewed, and are spewed today and will continue to be spewed, is testimony enough that their is nothing divine or caring about evolution or the universe. Humans have irrational beliefs. Cap merely thinks he is special which he is not.

There is nothing planned or perfect about evolution or the universe. They are mere processes as the result of a what, that has absolutely no concern or capability of being concerned about human existence. It is merely a projection of human's wishful thinking.

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:You seem not

TGBaker wrote:

You seem not to understand the implications of what you read. Or the import.  The stories are significantly changed by redaction. Would you tell me what you mean about the gist of the story. Again it changed considerably and I've presented how on multiple occasions. I will repeat again. How has the GIST of the story not changed if Jesus was simply a human being that was elevated by fabrication of literature to divinity. Where's your GIST??????????????????

Gist simply if you're talking specifically about Jesus would mean he was who he claimed to be.  I can't say for sure if everything claimed actually happened about him, but then again, i can't say any of it didn't happen and as a believer in God it's hard for me to say there's any reason to doubt it.  Sure, some of it seems kind of far fetched, but that's the idea.  In order for Jesus to prove who he was to others, he'd have to do some stuff that is beyond rationale and what normal people are capable of.  

The references you gave only indicate possible sources for information, which are apparently highly debated... you can only speculate that the information had been edited and modified due to the fact that there is an unknown source that we have no access to.  In other words, we'd have to look at both sources if in fact they did use them and compare differences and see how it was modified.  If it was so modified from Mark then that book couldn't be a part of the Gospels because it just wouldn't fit and it would be hurtful toward the belief... but it's there.  The idea that Matthew is understood to be an eye-witness (likely) makes it very difficult to support the idea of the gospel writers... or at least Matthew using mark and Q as a source.  

TGBaker wrote:


Historical researchers in this field generally see jesus as a wondering Cynic teacher spouting out words of wisdom and folk philosophy. It does seem to be the core of what developed into Christianity. Jesus was a human who came from Galilee. Galilee was the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism.  Even so only 50% of the population was Jewish. Rabbi Hannina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer were very similar characters to Jesus. ben Dosa called god Abba like Jesus ( meaning Daddy instead of a reverential , father).  He spoke openly with women as Jesus did. The reason that historians posit these as historical is because they are contrary to the believing Jewish or Christian movement. You can see evidence that the church tried to cover up the fact that Jesus was baptized as others to get rid of sin. Historical Jesus research is a discipline to explain the sociological development of what became Christianity ... what historical kernel was the catalyst for all the mythic construction.  It is commonly understood that the bible is mythic in seminaries and theological  schools like Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Emory, Vanderbuilt. The bridge from school to church is teach it as truth and avoid the lack of factual basis. So statements are demythologized and taken into a philosophical meaning rather than a grounded factual historical meaning. Virgin birth does not really mean a women had a child and was a virgin. It becomes a story to honor jesus as both god and man.  So you have pure historical work. Then the theologians that try to make it still meaningful and then the preachers to present it as literal.  When I was in seminary my mentor (Hendrikus Boers)  who wrote Who Was Jesus? was a Marxist atheist from South Africa. He would point to people like Jurgen Moltmann (theologian) as a fraud that needed to be exposed. Then there is the whole moderate movement that tries to salvage some christianity out of the historical/critical conclusions. Crossan was on the Jesus Seminar team. He knows Jesus was simply a person who got into trouble and was removed from being an irritation.  The people who cared about where Jesus was buried did not know where he was buried. The people who did know where he was buried ( communal grave) did not care.

you keep using this and referencing to Jesus being baptized and then the church covering it up.  The churches tried to cover up a lot that was written in the Bible, but what is written is written.  most churches today as far as I'm aware don't deny his baptism.  It is written that he himself wanted it.  Though just because he was baptized just as everyone else was doesn't mean he was sinful before.  Why else get baptized then?  A baptism is an outward expression of something that has already happened within.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So you have research to back up your claim that it was never intended to be a history? 

I can show how a writer like the author of Matthew took no regard for history.

 

that's not what i asked.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No this topic

Brian37 wrote:

No this topic is not "he said she said"

It is YOU spewing an old myth falsely believing it to be fact. You can say whatever you want, science is leaving your myth in the dust.

You keep saying stuff like this and every time you fail to back yourself up.  I would LOVE it if you showed me how science is leaving my "myth' in the dust... but i believe you can't and I believe you don't want to... because you want to believe that there is no God?  yea, I kind of used your excuse here... does it work?  do you believe now?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:You kind of

Joker wrote:

You kind of missed my point. I was trying to point out that being unable to prove the nonexistance of something doesn't prove it

I never said it did... but there are atheists on here that are talking as if they have proof.... therefore I'm trying to show them this truth, that they can't disprove existence of a metaphysical being due to many avenues.  Again, that's not to say unable to disprove is proof that God is real, but no one can take the position some are trying to take rationally and logically.  

Joker wrote:

nor does it give it a better than minor chance to exist.

There is no chance in proving something doesn't exist, only speculation.   I can tell you i don't have a coaster on my coffee table... without you being here, prove it's not there...  or prove it is.  Same idea.  In these discussions, unless you have reasoning that outweighs one side, it's 50/50.

Joker wrote:

In my Barashul argument I could claim that we both have a 50% chance of being right, and while that might be technically true it doesn't mean that the actual odds of how our beliefs would be reflected in reality would be the same. I should also point out that part of why many Christians don't enter other faiths has more to do with them simply applying skepticism to those beliefs but not to their own or their indoctrinations and preconcieved notions acting as a king of mental armor.

This is true, but then again, you can only speculate odds based on your bias.  There's a saying;  "The truth is the truth no matter what you want to believe"  I'm not sure who said it.  It basically is saying that (from my perspective) if God is real, no matter how much you don't want to believe He is, he's still real.  (from your perspective) no matter how much you want to believe God is real, if he's not, then he's never going to exist.   Therefore the odds don't exist, there's either 100% or none.  odds only come in when there's an unknown


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, as an aside to this

Cap, as an aside to this thread, I am getting a little pissed off at you(not really, just go with the joke here). Bob brought it to my attention that the thread "Works for Me" started by Fonzie is beating the crap out of this thread in the amount of posts.

You are making me look bad by putting me in second place. I didn't invest all this time in this thread come in second place. If we are going to be in this potato sack race, you have to post more. Now, I noticed that you said in the debate with Rednef, that you have a life outside this website.

NO YOU DON'T! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME........SECOND PLACE? COME ON MAN!

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, as an

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, as an aside to this thread, I am getting a little pissed off at you(not really, just go with the joke here). Bob brought it to my attention that the thread "Works for Me" started by Fonzie is beating the crap out of this thread in the amount of posts.

You are making me look bad by putting me in second place. I didn't invest all this time in this thread come in second place. If we are going to be in this potato sack race, you have to post more. Now, I noticed that you said in the debate with Rednef, that you have a life outside this website.

NO YOU DON'T! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME........SECOND PLACE? COME ON MAN!

As long as I'm around you'll always be second best see!

Actually, I'm shocked.  Hopefully that thread has more direction. ;p


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, as an aside to this thread, I am getting a little pissed off at you(not really, just go with the joke here). Bob brought it to my attention that the thread "Works for Me" started by Fonzie is beating the crap out of this thread in the amount of posts.

You are making me look bad by putting me in second place. I didn't invest all this time in this thread come in second place. If we are going to be in this potato sack race, you have to post more. Now, I noticed that you said in the debate with Rednef, that you have a life outside this website.

NO YOU DON'T! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME........SECOND PLACE? COME ON MAN!

As long as I'm around you'll always be second best see!

Actually, I'm shocked.  Hopefully that thread has more direction. ;p

No. Fonzie/meph just spouts more crap. Content/quality wise the threads are damn near equal.

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: No.

jcgadfly wrote:

 

No. Fonzie/meph just spouts more crap. Content/quality wise the threads are damn near equal.

Maybe I should crash the party 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

No. Fonzie/meph just spouts more crap. Content/quality wise the threads are damn near equal.

Maybe I should crash the party 

Only if you want to lose all respect I have for 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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I just looked at it

 i just checked out that forum that beats mine... lol... I mean LMAO.  It's official.  Atheists prefer threads with no direction to one that might make sense.  Such a pitty.  Honestly, are we so unintelligent that we need to make ourselves feel better by discussing nothing?  And here, i thought it was avoidance... which it might still be, but its' all about ignoring progress.  i see that now.  It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

This of course is generally speaking, this does not apply to those of you whom I know are very well versed and have given me good reasons for your stance.  

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: i just

caposkia wrote:

 i just checked out that forum that beats mine... lol... I mean LMAO.  It's official.  Atheists prefer threads with no direction to one that might make sense.  Such a pitty.  Honestly, are we so unintelligent that we need to make ourselves feel better by discussing nothing?  And here, i thought it was avoidance... which it might still be, but its' all about ignoring progress.  i see that now.  It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

This of course is generally speaking, this does not apply to those of you whom I know are very well versed and have given me good reasons for your stance.  

 

 

Did you notice that it's the theist who keeps failing to make points and the atheists trying to get him back on track? Never mind I guess you didn't.

 

"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: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BMcD

caposkia wrote:

BMcD wrote:

That guy came to with a new Law that changes some of the old laws?

So you're saying Jesus lied?

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

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. 

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.  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. 

Also, I never used the words, " Jesus came to wipe away the old law"  (singluar), I said he came with 'changes' (or amendments)  to 'Some' of the laws.

Why all the do-overs?

The garden was supposed to be perfect, then god changed his mind. Then they had offspring who fucked up. Then Noah and the flood was supposed to fix all the problems. That didn't seem to work. Then Jesus, that seems to still not be working. Then at the end of the book a big orgy of global violence just so daddy can cherry pick a select few? Why all the drama? Is God board, are we a soap opera for his entertainment?

The god of this book seems to be a little brat playing an x-box and resetting the game every time something goes wrong. Then he finally has enough, throws a tantrum and smashes the x-box and makes posters of his fans to pin on his cosmic wall in his game room.

 

"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: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: i just

caposkia wrote:

 i just checked out that forum that beats mine... lol... I mean LMAO.  It's official.  Atheists prefer threads with no direction to one that might make sense.  Such a pitty.  Honestly, are we so unintelligent that we need to make ourselves feel better by discussing nothing?  And here, i thought it was avoidance... which it might still be, but its' all about ignoring progress.  i see that now.  It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

This of course is generally speaking, this does not apply to those of you whom I know are very well versed and have given me good reasons for your stance.  

 

 

Quote:
but its' all about ignoring progress.

 

No one here is avoiding anything. You want us to "progress" to believing in your pet god claim. THAT is not what we do here. Wanting us to believe, isn't what works here. You have to give us something universal to sink our teeth into, and you have already admitted that you cannot do it with universal standards. Too bad, that is your problem, not ours.

So if you feel you have exausted your road here, then you are wasting your time here. We will not use your unproven "standards" that are nothing more than your pet conspiracy that you falsely buy into.

Quote:
It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

No, on top of all the scientific absurdities in the bible, MUCH LESS THE ABSURD CLAIM OF A BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN, there are the contradictions AND moral repugnant concept of a god who beats the shit out of dissenters and goes way beyond human punishment in the form of civil containment of prisoners. Those who go to hell don't simply get contained, they get tortured forever. THAT is not punishment, that is revenge. And for what? All for him so we can worship HIM. That is self centered selfish narcissism.

1. scientific absurdity

2. Contradictions

3. Morally repugnant , self centered selfishness.

The first is the most important, but the other two certainly would be enough by themselves to reject a dictator god.

 

 

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 i just checked out that forum that beats mine... lol... I mean LMAO.  It's official.  Atheists prefer threads with no direction to one that might make sense.  Such a pitty.  Honestly, are we so unintelligent that we need to make ourselves feel better by discussing nothing?  And here, i thought it was avoidance... which it might still be, but its' all about ignoring progress.  i see that now.  It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

This of course is generally speaking, this does not apply to those of you whom I know are very well versed and have given me good reasons for your stance.  

 

 

Did you notice that it's the theist who keeps failing to make points and the atheists trying to get him back on track? Never mind I guess you didn't.

 

on his page yes... my point is Atheists on this site seem more concerned about redirecting a theist and making a 2000 post thread vs. actually either showing him why he's mistaken or if he's unable to stay on that track, then they just get redundant and make no progress what-so-ever.  It's funny that every attempt I have made on this forum for direction has been squashed by redundancies or avoidance and yet forums that started with a specific direction got almost nowhere.   (I'm referring to ones I've been a part of or started)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

accidental double post...


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 i just checked out that forum that beats mine... lol... I mean LMAO.  It's official.  Atheists prefer threads with no direction to one that might make sense.  Such a pitty.  Honestly, are we so unintelligent that we need to make ourselves feel better by discussing nothing?  And here, i thought it was avoidance... which it might still be, but its' all about ignoring progress.  i see that now.  It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

This of course is generally speaking, this does not apply to those of you whom I know are very well versed and have given me good reasons for your stance.  

 

 

Did you notice that it's the theist who keeps failing to make points and the atheists trying to get him back on track? Never mind I guess you didn't.

 

on his page yes... my point is Atheists on this site seem more concerned about redirecting a theist and making a 2000 post thread vs. actually either showing him why he's mistaken or if he's unable to stay on that track, then they just get redundant and make no progress what-so-ever.  It's funny that every attempt I have made on this forum for direction has been squashed by redundancies or avoidance and yet forums that started with a specific direction got almost nowhere.   (I'm referring to ones I've been a part of or started)

So you didn't read the thread. That's why you are willing to hook up with the dishonest.

I still haven't found the book but other pieces I've read from Garrison are really nice knockdowns of strawmen she created so I don't take her too seriously.

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:but its'

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
but its' all about ignoring progress.

 

No one here is avoiding anything. You want us to "progress" to believing in your pet god claim. THAT is not what we do here. Wanting us to believe, isn't what works here.

is that what you think my agenda has been this whole time?  Man you really don't read my replies do you.  I have made it abundantly clear that I'm on here to.. CHALLENGE WHAT i KNOW TO BE TRUE.  in other words, you have a reason not to believe, i want to see the data or writing, or whatever it is that convinces you.  You keep claiming stuff, but when I ask about it, you show me nothing.  You just say I wish my God was real and leave it at that... that's great and all, but it in no way challenges my understanding.

I'll be strait with you.  i could care less if you believed in my God or not... that's between you yourself and God.

Brian37 wrote:
 

So if you feel you have exausted your road here, then you are wasting your time here. We will not use your unproven "standards" that are nothing more than your pet conspiracy that you falsely buy into.

I haven't exhausted any road.  I'm just waiting for individuals to come by that might give me a challenge.   Meanwhile I have fun messing with atheists like you Eye-wink

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

No, on top of all the scientific absurdities in the bible, MUCH LESS THE ABSURD CLAIM OF A BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN, there are the contradictions AND moral repugnant concept of a god who beats the shit out of dissenters and goes way beyond human punishment in the form of civil containment of prisoners. Those who go to hell don't simply get contained, they get tortured forever. THAT is not punishment, that is revenge. And for what? All for him so we can worship HIM. That is self centered selfish narcissism.

1. scientific absurdity

2. Contradictions

3. Morally repugnant , self centered selfishness.

The first is the most important, but the other two certainly would be enough by themselves to reject a dictator god.

Right, you can list off all the alleged problems you have with the Bible, but unless you back them up with reference or data/sources, it is just another "wishful thinking' claim as you'd call it.  

let's go through it shall we?

1.  Scientific absurdities - Ok, where and what exactly?  something like personifying the sun or saying that the sun moves?  Do you say the sun comes up in the morning, or the sun rose or it's sunrise, or a sunset or do you say; "let's go watch the illusion of the sun falling because of the Earth's rotation."  I have refuted so far every "scientific absurdity " that has been presented to me.  If you have something I haven't seen, stop whining and present it to me. 

2.  Contradictions.  Did you really say Hi to your neighbor or hello?  What 2 different stories, both are right?  What a contradiction!  The point is you greet your neighbor in the morning.  I have yet to see any legitimate contradictions in the Bible... again if you Brian have any, show them to me please.

3.  Morally repugnant, self centered selfishness.  that's a broad topic but isn't being selfish keeping everything to yourself?  I'm not sure why...but I feel like great things were given to us... not sure.. again, references to what you might be talking about... oh and stick to it when a counter comes back on it... don't come up with excuses, face it and answer to it.  Challenge me.  Don't run, that just lets me down.  I'm hoping for someone to give me something I have to think about.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap, isn't "challenging what

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So you have research to back up your claim that it was never intended to be a history? 

I can show how a writer like the author of Matthew took no regard for history.

 

that's not what i asked.

That's what I said.  Matthew by many did not intend history rather Mishna.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, isn't

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

The infinite regress we face.With this freaking acute leukemia I may only have a few weeks left. I'd like to get a straight answer out of him.

1) There is a possible world of only  well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
but its' all about ignoring progress.

 

No one here is avoiding anything. You want us to "progress" to believing in your pet god claim. THAT is not what we do here. Wanting us to believe, isn't what works here.

is that what you think my agenda has been this whole time?  Man you really don't read my replies do you.  I have made it abundantly clear that I'm on here to.. CHALLENGE WHAT i KNOW TO BE TRUE.  in other words, you have a reason not to believe, i want to see the data or writing, or whatever it is that convinces you.  You keep claiming stuff, but when I ask about it, you show me nothing.  You just say I wish my God was real and leave it at that... that's great and all, but it in no way challenges my understanding.

I'll be strait with you.  i could care less if you believed in my God or not... that's between you yourself and God.

Brian37 wrote:
 

So if you feel you have exausted your road here, then you are wasting your time here. We will not use your unproven "standards" that are nothing more than your pet conspiracy that you falsely buy into.

I haven't exhausted any road.  I'm just waiting for individuals to come by that might give me a challenge.   Meanwhile I have fun messing with atheists like you Eye-wink

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
It's really an atheists only defense isn't it.

No, on top of all the scientific absurdities in the bible, MUCH LESS THE ABSURD CLAIM OF A BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN, there are the contradictions AND moral repugnant concept of a god who beats the shit out of dissenters and goes way beyond human punishment in the form of civil containment of prisoners. Those who go to hell don't simply get contained, they get tortured forever. THAT is not punishment, that is revenge. And for what? All for him so we can worship HIM. That is self centered selfish narcissism.

1. scientific absurdity

2. Contradictions

3. Morally repugnant , self centered selfishness.

The first is the most important, but the other two certainly would be enough by themselves to reject a dictator god.

Right, you can list off all the alleged problems you have with the Bible, but unless you back them up with reference or data/sources, it is just another "wishful thinking' claim as you'd call it.  

let's go through it shall we?

1.  Scientific absurdities - Ok, where and what exactly?  something like personifying the sun or saying that the sun moves?  Do you say the sun comes up in the morning, or the sun rose or it's sunrise, or a sunset or do you say; "let's go watch the illusion of the sun falling because of the Earth's rotation."  I have refuted so far every "scientific absurdity " that has been presented to me.  If you have something I haven't seen, stop whining and present it to me. 

2.  Contradictions.  Did you really say Hi to your neighbor or hello?  What 2 different stories, both are right?  What a contradiction!  The point is you greet your neighbor in the morning.  I have yet to see any legitimate contradictions in the Bible... again if you Brian have any, show them to me please.

3.  Morally repugnant, self centered selfishness.  that's a broad topic but isn't being selfish keeping everything to yourself?  I'm not sure why...but I feel like great things were given to us... not sure.. again, references to what you might be talking about... oh and stick to it when a counter comes back on it... don't come up with excuses, face it and answer to it.  Challenge me.  Don't run, that just lets me down.  I'm hoping for someone to give me something I have to think about.

Cap, your attempt to try to change your comic book is as bad as Jefferson's attempt. You reinterpret the bible to dodge the scientific absurdities in it. I've already listed numourous in this thread, and if you read the entirety of all the science geeks here, they've explained it as well.

Contradictions? The family line in between the gospels is just ONE OF thousands of contradictions. NT v OT, and even the generic Epicurus problem with any god concept.

Immoral. The god character of the bible is unchanging, you kiss his ass or suffer eternal torture. I am not a piece of property. I am not a kid. I do not need someone to threaten me or bribe me to know what is right or wrong.

I cut to the chase. You want to drag me down your Yellow Brick Road. I am not fooled.

Your beating this like a dead horse.

If you want to avoid a long winded argument, you can. (Well, you can try, but will fail) We told you what would convince us. You admitted that you cant do it. Not our problem.

Seriously Cap, you claim to truely believe this. Instead of wasting your time here, set up a lab on your own and have your findings kicked around by the entire world. If you can do that, believe me, EVERYONE will beat down your door to find out how you figured this out. Until then, a claim is a claim, just like any other of any other god claim.

I am not going to do your homework for you.

 

 

 

"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


xjudgez11
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Judgment Day

WRONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_H-F3hlKY

for mr. Nonsense on stilts...

BLASPHEMING BITCHES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRyEsAiNtEc

I think she sums up the INSANITY of the atheist position quite well...

__________________________

@rumsfeldoffice

SH*THEADS!

LOOK at the CORNFIELD

converted *MILLIONS*

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1217-iraqi-general-turns-down-jref-challenge-gets-arrested-for-bomb-detector-scam.h...

*****
WRONG
*****

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

CURVEBALL!

KABOOM...

http://costofwar.com/en/

but the REAL COST is not to be measured in dollars and cents but in HUMAN LIVES & FREEDOM...

http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c

__________________

Subject: Judgment Day

you talk about wanting to hear and see both sides, but that is all BS... here is the other extreme - the absolute negation of the atheist position
________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssFaIhJkLsk

BIG TIME, f*ckers...

_______________
JUDGMENT DAY

my challenge for sh*t for brains james randi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMukj31qw1U

JUST A GAME!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ies9j5dRE

nothing will save you!

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/02/the-homeopaths-desperate-campaign-to-the-mhra.html

except...

CARPET BOMBING

TORA! TORA! TORA!

_______________________________

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2011/01/pz-myers-on-science-and-atheism-natural.html

WRONG

Dear PZ... I spoke with God yesterday.... Do you want to know what he told me?

CLOBBERING TIME

dawkins - got you...

who's the WINGNUT?

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/579240-the-truth-about-the-lunatic-religious-right-in-america?page=1

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302169

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7776949-5000-black-birds-fell-from-sky-due-to-flu

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/mortality_events/high_profile_events/black_bird_dieoff.jsp

the end of atheism - only the blind and deaf can deny it...

an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1176-serves-em-right.html

At least we're on the same page...

Serves Em Right, eh, Randi....

Just for you, little traitors…

WHAT IS *WRONG* WITH HENRY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YgdmtkTwO8&feature=related

we're this far from nuking all of you....

the X-MAS vacuum cleaner for the atheists....

shermer, randi, myers, pz, dawkins, harris

______________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz4R0GHfM-Y&

why does everyone always want to PUNCH you, shermer?

______________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls&

take your meds, you little fckers...

now we are going to bury you...

And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!
____________________________

What do you want, you little ****ers?

more of these idiots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4C5yzFmC80

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

HOW N WON ALL THE PARANORMAL PRIZES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

pz myers does not exist…

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/543672-inhertitance-of-acquired-behaviour-adaptions-and-brain-gene-expression-in-chickens

atheists, we’re gonna cut off your heads…

THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION

http://www.youtube.com/user/xviolatex

_____________________________

TWITTER TRAP

let them have a GOOD LOOK at the CORNFIELD....

___________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO7x6-KchSU

EXPOSING QUACKS!

exposing quacks and war criminals who ordered the slaughter of innocent people...

http://randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1239-mdc-changes.html

say hello to my little friend...

____________________________________________

 


xjudgez11
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Judgment Day

u bunch of morons...


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
xjudgez11 wrote:u bunch of

xjudgez11 wrote:

u bunch of morons...

Back to the mothership, weird one.


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, isn't

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so... I have no reason to doubt my belief right now, so as far as i'm concerned it's true, but I'm willing to continuously reexamine it just as the Bible says.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So you have research to back up your claim that it was never intended to be a history? 

I can show how a writer like the author of Matthew took no regard for history.

 

that's not what i asked.

That's what I said.  Matthew by many did not intend history rather Mishna.

Right, so i'll be blunt then.  Are you intentionally ignoring the question or is that your answer to the question?  

If it's your answer, then I must ask what would Matthew's resources be for a historical intent if in fact he intended it to be historical?  This question is assuming by stating what you said, you're claiming that Matthew didn't intend it to be a history.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:jcgadfly

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

The infinite regress we face.With this freaking acute leukemia I may only have a few weeks left. I'd like to get a straight answer out of him.

1) There is a possible world of only  well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

 

You're working within the confines of the world.  God is understood to be a factor outside this world.    What strait answer are you not getting from me?  or was that intended for someone else?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so... I have no reason to doubt my belief right now, so as far as i'm concerned it's true, but I'm willing to continuously reexamine it just as the Bible says.

I recall something about using one's discernment but I think the Bible exempts itself from that scrutiny.

"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, your

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, your attempt to try to change your comic book is as bad as Jefferson's attempt. You reinterpret the bible to dodge the scientific absurdities in it. I've already listed numourous in this thread, and if you read the entirety of all the science geeks here, they've explained it as well.

I remember some scientific explanations... I dont' remember them from you.  I do remember refuting the idea that they contradict scripture in an empirical way.  In other words, it wasn't me changing anything, It was me showing why that idea doesn't logically work.  

btw, how is me asking you to show me what you're claiming,  me changing the Bible?

Brian37 wrote:
 

Contradictions? The family line in between the gospels is just ONE OF thousands of contradictions. NT v OT, and even the generic Epicurus problem with any god concept.

specifics please.  

Brian37 wrote:

Immoral. The god character of the bible is unchanging, you kiss his ass or suffer eternal torture. I am not a piece of property. I am not a kid. I do not need someone to threaten me or bribe me to know what is right or wrong.

and yet you still screw up.  Unless you're one of those pompus morons who think the world owes them a favor because they think they're better than everyone else.  Did you kiss your parents asses?  I don't think so.  if you had a good family life you respected your parents out of love, not fear.

We've discussed your "eternal torture" fantasy as well and it's not congruent with what I believe... can we at least be on the same frikken page!

Brian37 wrote:

I cut to the chase. You want to drag me down your Yellow Brick Road. I am not fooled.

no, but you are a fool aren't you.  Not because you wont' accept what I believe, but because you won't defend what you believe.

Brian37 wrote:

Your beating this like a dead horse.

pop a pill and it's like you're beating a dusty car mat.

Brian37 wrote:

If you want to avoid a long winded argument, you can. (Well, you can try, but will fail) We told you what would convince us. You admitted that you cant do it. Not our problem.

it is your problem if what you're asking isn't logical.  God DNA, not logical unless you're going to present me a graviton in the same manner.

The case study?  Yea, you ran from that.  I wanted to work the kinks out with you and actually go through with it.. of course I couldn't do it on my own, i'd need the guidance of the initiator, namely you.

Brian37 wrote:

Seriously Cap, you claim to truely believe this. Instead of wasting your time here, set up a lab on your own and have your findings kicked around by the entire world. If you can do that, believe me, EVERYONE will beat down your door to find out how you figured this out. Until then, a claim is a claim, just like any other of any other god claim.

I am not going to do your homework for you.

 

of course not, but I'm not going to do your homework for you either.  If you challenge someone, you have to be prepared to take the heat and work out the details.  All ideas dropped into someone elses lap has usually vanished and never been realized... either that or discovered by a completely different entity.  i will work with you on your case study, but make no mistake, your the challenger, so it is your case study.

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: no, because

caposkia wrote:
no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so...

It's not difficult to feign that that is in fact what you are doing, in order to try and cast an aspersion that you are sincere.

It's a 'tactic' that theists are 'groomed' to 'project' that they are as critical as others.

It's called 'Malingering', and 'misdirecting' in criminal psychology.

It's called "jerking someone around" and 'projecting' in common language.

You 'project' that you are unique, when in actuality, you are 'garden variety' gullible and sceintifically and technologically ignorant.

caposkia wrote:
I have no reason to doubt my belief right now, so as far as i'm concerned it's true

Then you would be completely reconciled. 

But, your actions indicate otherwise, completely. 

caposkia wrote:
  but I'm willing to continuously reexamine it just as the Bible says.

That's a preoccupation with anecdotal literature and folklore, ( written by men, and used as social and political propaganda ) and a personal desire to overcomplicate things beyond necessity.

Not a preoccupation with examining the natural world through the lens of critical scientific methodologies.

Having comprehensive knowledge of literature, while not having vast knowledge of science and technology, certifies that you are handicapped at the possibility at being objective.

Science and technologies are cutting edge modern methodologies of analyzing, understanding and controlling the reality that we live in.

Those are progressive and liberating to individuals and groups.

Religions are regressive and oppressive social and cultural polemics, with the goal of assimilation of individuals under 1 theocratic rule of individuals, by means of tyranny, posing as 'love' and 'compassion'.

caposkia wrote:
You're working within the confines of the world. 

You're equivocating.

'Blowing smoke'.

Of course we work within the confines of whatever confines we work within.

You're a typical 'con man' using divisiveness tactics of the 'church'.

You're a 'good little doggie', but, the 'cat is out of the bag'.

We're onto you (the church and it's agents).

caposkia wrote:
God is understood to be a factor outside this world. 

Obviously you're mistaken.

The claims of supernatural phenomena are hardly unique. If you are monotheistic, you dismiss all supernatural 'being' claims, except 1.

The only distinction between a monotheist and an atheist, is that a monotheist is using a double standard to arbitrarily assume that 1 of the supernatural claims is compatible with reality, while the atheist has no such 'confirmation bias' for unprecedented claims of supernatural deity legends and personal testimonies of such.

Obviously, there's no 'dysfunction' or 'danger' in being skeptical of legends, social and political propaganda, and personal testimonies of any unprecedented claims.

The danger is in being gullible.

You simply have much lower standards, than many more 'analytical' people, in what legends and theories you are willing to adopt as reflections of reality.

And millions of people, just aren't 'buying it', 'hook, line and sinker', anymore.

 

We're not 'obligated' to follow the church.

We can ignore their agents, and their anecdotal supernaturalist claims.

We bask in our liberties and being 'naturalists'.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I recall

jcgadfly wrote:

I recall something about using one's discernment but I think the Bible exempts itself from that scrutiny.

well, there's a line between discernment and interpretation.  You can misinterpret scripture, but discernment of a properly interpreted piece of scripture is different.  The Bible is understood to be the basis of discernment and that one should use that to correct their understanding.  The Bible goes further to back itself up many times with many of its claims so that it can support itself better.  Keep in mind we're looking at a bunch of books compiled into one, kind of like having a volume set in one bind.  Therefore, the compilation of stories support themselves..  Does this mean there's no other outside interpretations, of course not.  But to look at the Bible as 66 separate books in agreement with the understanding of books that have later been established as working together helps it support itself historically.  

you seem to be talking about the Bible as if it's always been this one book.  How does that understanding apply to each individual book of the Bible I wonder

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so...

It's not difficult to feign that that is in fact what you are doing, in order to try and cast an aspersion that you are sincere.

of course not... it's even easier if you mean it.  I mean it.  Don't mistaken sincerity with kindness.  i will still call you out on every irrational concept.

redneF wrote:

It's a 'tactic' that theists are 'groomed' to 'project' that they are as critical as others.

Why would we need to?  Most non-believers I talk to on here seem to forget what 'critical' means.

redneF wrote:

It's called 'Malingering', and 'misdirecting' in criminal psychology.

It's called "jerking someone around" and 'projecting' in common language.

You 'project' that you are unique, when in actuality, you are 'garden variety' gullible and sceintifically and technologically ignorant.

this coming from the one who has run from a debate that didn't even get started... at least that's what your last successful post seemed to suggest.

redneF wrote:

Then you would be completely reconciled. 

Ok

redneF wrote:

But, your actions indicate otherwise, completely. 

why, because i'm willing to consider opposing ideas?  try it sometime.

redneF wrote:

That's a preoccupation with anecdotal literature and folklore, ( written by men, and used as social and political propaganda ) and a personal desire to overcomplicate things beyond necessity.

Not a preoccupation with examining the natural world through the lens of critical scientific methodologies.

you have research to support that conclusion I'm assuming... right...??? *chirp* *chirp*

Doesn't mean I don't examine the natural world through the lens of critical scientific methodologies.  Get back to the one on one.. .You made the mods create a page just for us, let's use it.

redneF wrote:

Having comprehensive knowledge of literature, while not having vast knowledge of science and technology, certifies that you are handicapped at the possibility at being objective.

how can you make that conclusion about me?  you haven't even challenged me in the scientific front yet.  

redneF wrote:

Science and technologies are cutting edge modern methodologies of analyzing, understanding and controlling the reality that we live in.

Those are progressive and liberating to individuals and groups.

Religions are regressive and oppressive social and cultural polemics, with the goal of assimilation of individuals under 1 theocratic rule of individuals, by means of tyranny, posing as 'love' and 'compassion'.

You're thinking of dispensationalists and work based religions.  Not my following.

redneF wrote:

You're equivocating.

'Blowing smoke'.

yea, had a lot of beans for dinner... sorry all

redneF wrote:

Of course we work within the confines of whatever confines we work within.

good job being redundant.  i guess I could say that i'm confined to work within the confines of whatever confines we work within.  Though what you think you might be confined to might not be the confines of what you're capable of working in, but you may only be confined to what you choose to work in...  heh... that was fun.. moving on.

redneF wrote:

You're a typical 'con man' using divisiveness tactics of the 'church'.

what church might this be? I've been following your lead, what have I tried to con you into?  Oh, i get it... i conned you into leading the conversation and challenging me on any avenue you choose... VICTORY IS MINE!

redneF wrote:

You're a 'good little doggie', but, the 'cat is out of the bag'.

We're onto you (the church and it's agents).

a conspiracy theory!  sweet.  This is getting juicy

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
God is understood to be a factor outside this world. 

Obviously you're mistaken.

The claims of supernatural phenomena are hardly unique. If you are monotheistic, you dismiss all supernatural 'being' claims, except 1.

your statement has nothing to do with mine, but i'll play along.

i dont' follow others that claim to be gods, doesn't mean they don't exist.

redneF wrote:

The only distinction between a monotheist and an atheist, is that a monotheist is using a double standard to arbitrarily assume that 1 of the supernatural claims is compatible with reality, while the atheist has no such 'confirmation bias' for unprecedented claims of supernatural deity legends and personal testimonies of such.

aren't atheists assuming that supernatural claims are not compatible?  The best support for that case I've gotten so far is lack of evidence.  They tend to use a double standard by claiming that you can't prove that something's not there and yet hold onto their belief with... well support that's not there.

redneF wrote:

Obviously, there's no 'dysfunction' or 'danger' in being skeptical of legends, social and political propaganda, and personal testimonies of any unprecedented claims.

The danger is in being gullible.

if I'm so gullible, why haven't you duped me into disbelief yet?

redneF wrote:

You simply have much lower standards, than many more 'analytical' people, in what legends and theories you are willing to adopt as reflections of reality.

well then... this one on one debate should be easy for you.  Get back there and let's see what you've got you analytical genius you.

redneF wrote:

We're not 'obligated' to follow the church.

We're not obligated to follow the church.

redneF wrote:

We can ignore their agents, and their anecdotal supernaturalist claims.

We can ignore their agents, and their anecdotal supernaturalist claims.

redneF wrote:

We bask in our liberties and being 'naturalists'.

We are grateful for understanding what we know. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so...

It's not difficult to feign that that is in fact what you are doing, in order to try and cast an aspersion that you are sincere.

of course not...

I know. That's why I stated it.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

It's a 'tactic' that theists are 'groomed' to 'project' that they are as critical as others.

Why would we need to?  

Well, as I already outlined, it's to 'project' that they're as 'critical' as skeptics.

It's part of the brainwashing, and 'confidence' building strategy of the church.

Like a pep rallying, because religions, are by their nature, divisive.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

It's called 'Malingering', and 'misdirecting' in criminal psychology.

It's called "jerking someone around" and 'projecting' in common language.

You 'project' that you are unique, when in actuality, you are 'garden variety' gullible and sceintifically and technologically ignorant.

this coming from the one who has run from a debate that didn't even get started

I ran?

Did I?

Or did I clearly indicate I was going to get back to you after my post got lost when I tried to post it?

 

Stop projecting that you're that important, or challenging. I'm debating a handful of theists all at the same time, in dozens of threads, on dozens of different topics, and from dozens of different percspectives and disciplines.

 

You fucking can't even articulate clearly the timeline and accurately outline what your childhood exposure to religion was.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Then you would be completely reconciled. 

Ok

redneF wrote:

But, your actions indicate otherwise, completely. 

why, because i'm willing to consider opposing ideas?  

No, because you're willing to keep going in circles over something that should be 'absolute' in your mind.

know alien life most probably exists, but I won't engage in 2000 post threads challenging whether or not they do. It doesn't really matter that other people don't believe.

know gravity most certainly exists, but I would never engage in 2000 post threads challenging whether or not it exists, nor would I have any reason to 'question' or 'consider' whether or not I may have been 'premature' in my decision to 'adopt' the theory of gravity as a 'reality'.

That's the distinction between 'understanding' something is 'true', and just 'hoping' something is true. I have no 'uplifting' beliefs or emotions about gravity.

You 'hope' gods are possible, because for some bizarre reason, you don't think the universe could work without them.

One saying they cannot 'deny' existence of gods, because the evidence is all around them, is completely retarded, when juxtaposed next to someone who says they cannot 'deny' the existence of gravity, because the evidence is all around them.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

That's a preoccupation with anecdotal literature and folklore, ( written by men, and used as social and political propaganda ) and a personal desire to overcomplicate things beyond necessity.

Not a preoccupation with examining the natural world through the lens of critical scientific methodologies.

you have research to support that conclusion I'm assuming... right...??? *chirp* *chirp*

Well, of course.

Metaphysical entities and/or gods existing are scientifically unprecedented.

Your position that gods exist, is simply not tenable to begin with. It would have to be falsifiable.

You would have the burden to prove that our set of reality could not have materialized by any other means.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Having comprehensive knowledge of literature, while not having vast knowledge of science and technology, certifies that you are handicapped at the possibility at being objective.

how can you make that conclusion about me?  

I haven't seen any posts from you where you display any vast knowledge of science and technology.

If you have done so, please link me to them.

caposkia wrote:

you haven't even challenged me in the scientific front yet.  

I debate plenty in science and technology rebuttals on the typical ignorant theist challenges, and I've never once seen you in 1 of those threads.

If I'm mistaken, please post a link.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Of course we work within the confines of whatever confines we work within.

good job being redundant. 

It was a sarcastic follow up to you stating the glaringly obvious.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

You're a typical 'con man' using divisiveness tactics of the 'church'.

what church might this be?

Ones where they preach religion.

caposkia wrote:
VICTORY IS MINE!

Congratulations for having deviated from being skeptical, and out onto thin ice.

I'll remain where it's most practical and safe to be. I hate being wrong, and wasting my life being it.

caposkia wrote:
i dont' follow others that claim to be gods, doesn't mean they don't exist.

So?

caposkia wrote:
aren't atheists assuming that supernatural claims are not compatible? 

No.

The different factions and religions have different incompatible ideologies, otherwise, they wouldn't exist, by definition.

caposkia wrote:
The best support for that case I've gotten so far is lack of evidence. 

Right.

If there was evidence, other than anecdotes.

caposkia wrote:
They tend to use a double standard by claiming that you can't prove that something's not there

You're equivocating.

The topic isn't merely something trivial. Otherwise you people wouldn't be so emotionally invested in the topic, and pattern your entire lives around something trivial.

Get fucking real...

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Obviously, there's no 'dysfunction' or 'danger' in being skeptical of legends, social and political propaganda, and personal testimonies of any unprecedented claims.

The danger is in being gullible.

if I'm so gullible, why haven't you duped me into disbelief yet?

Because you can't fix stupid.

And brainwashing is incredibly difficult to overcome, because people of low enough intelligence to be assimilated into cults, tend to find strength in numbers, and don't want to be separated from the herd.

caposkia wrote:

well then... this one on one debate should be easy for you.  

It is.

They always are.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:CHALLENGE WHAT i KNOW

Quote:
CHALLENGE WHAT i KNOW TO BE TRUE.

No, that is what you say to us, that is not what you are doing for yourself.

WE, not just me, but we, in our totality have given you our tools, most specifically scientific method.

That is what it boils down to IF you want to truly challenge what you believe. You have demonstrated that you don't really want to do that by our standards, so that means you merely want to apologize for your position. That is what all theists do, not just you or your pet label.

A challenge is not something you set out with a pre-determined outcome. A challenge is one which leads you to where it goes, not where you want it to go.

 

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So you have research to back up your claim that it was never intended to be a history? 

I can show how a writer like the author of Matthew took no regard for history.

 

that's not what i asked.

That's what I said.  Matthew by many did not intend history rather Mishna.

Right, so i'll be blunt then.  Are you intentionally ignoring the question or is that your answer to the question?  

If it's your answer, then I must ask what would Matthew's resources be for a historical intent if in fact he intended it to be historical?  This question is assuming by stating what you said, you're claiming that Matthew didn't intend it to be a history.

 

Matthew intentionally alters documentation he has to change historical circumstance to meet his theological aims.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, because I'm willing to admit that what I think is true might not be so...

It's not difficult to feign that that is in fact what you are doing, in order to try and cast an aspersion that you are sincere.

of course not...

I know. That's why I stated it.

K... so what's your point?  If you're suggesting that I'm being dishonest, then I believe I have built a credible reputation with many on here and they can support me in the fact that I am very sincere and would not make something up.  

redneF wrote:

It's a 'tactic' that theists are 'groomed' to 'project' that they are as critical as others.

caposkia wrote:

Why would we need to?  

Well, as I already outlined, it's to 'project' that they're as 'critical' as skeptics.

It's part of the brainwashing, and 'confidence' building strategy of the church.

Like a pep rallying, because religions, are by their nature, divisive.

Ok, be it that now you know the church didn't teach me what I know and follow today, what are you suggesting about my stance?

 

 

redneF wrote:

I ran?

Did I?

Or did I clearly indicate I was going to get back to you after my post got lost when I tried to post it?

You did state that... but it seems that it's taking you a while to get back to it when you seem to have plenty of time to discuss...well.. nothing of importance with me on this thread.   This coming from the one who was counting the days it took me to reply to him on the debate thread.

redneF wrote:

 

Stop projecting that you're that important, or challenging. I'm debating a handful of theists all at the same time, in dozens of threads, on dozens of different topics, and from dozens of different percspectives and disciplines.

I'm not projecting anything... you're coming to your own conclusions.  

I don't feel that I'm any more important than anyone else on this site or anywhere else for that matter.  Challenging?  Well i have yet to come by an atheist of any sort that has been able to successfully show me a good reason to even question what I know.  Many have not been able to support their own claims let alone debunk mine, you seem to fall under that same category.  Oh, and just so you don't get too cocky, there's a difference between thinking you have and empirically doing so logically and rationally.

redneF wrote:

 

You fucking can't even articulate clearly the timeline and accurately outline what your childhood exposure to religion was.

no?  I wasn't going to go through a literal timeline of everything that happened to me in my childhood.  I don't know you so i gave you what was important to know.  The only importance in the timeline is understanding what I used to believe as a child, when i turned away and when i started to research and discover the truth about Christianity.  BTW, that would be the order in which it happened..  Catholicism... walking away... then reseraching and discovering,.  

 

redneF wrote:

No, because you're willing to keep going in circles over something that should be 'absolute' in your mind.

They are absolute in my mind... I only express that I'm willing to reexamine them... in other words, I'm not afraid to find out I'm wrong if in fact i am.  so far I've only further affirmed my belief on this site.

i should note that any conversation on this site I follow... even in the threads I start, I allow the challengers to lead the conversation... therefore if you see me going in any circles, I'm only following those who converse with me.  if you talk in circles, I will be going in circles with you.  There are threads outside this one that i intentionally try to avoid circles..  I've given up on this one.  Our debate thread is one I'm going to try to avoid circles in... however I predict that's going to be hard with you.

redneF wrote:

know alien life most probably exists, but I won't engage in 2000 post threads challenging whether or not they do. It doesn't really matter that other people don't believe.

Do you think i lose sleep over the fact that you and others on this site don't believe as I do?  really?  Who thinks they're important now?

redneF wrote:

know gravity most certainly exists, but I would never engage in 2000 post threads challenging whether or not it exists, nor would I have any reason to 'question' or 'consider' whether or not I may have been 'premature' in my decision to 'adopt' the theory of gravity as a 'reality'.

ok

redneF wrote:

That's the distinction between 'understanding' something is 'true', and just 'hoping' something is true. I have no 'uplifting' beliefs or emotions about gravity.

good for you.  don't cry when you trip and fall next time.

You 'hope' gods are possible, because for some bizarre reason, you don't think the universe could work without them.

is that my basis for belief? 

redneF wrote:

One saying they cannot 'deny' existence of gods, because the evidence is all around them, is completely retarded, when juxtaposed next to someone who says they cannot 'deny' the existence of gravity, because the evidence is all around them.

 

ok.  So... because the evidence of gravity is all around us... there couldn't possibly be evidence of God all around us.. I get it.. I'm sure you're aware of all the things gravity does to every object it encounters and how different things would look without those changes it causes too right?

redneF wrote:

Well, of course.

Metaphysical entities and/or gods existing are scientifically unprecedented.

as much as anything else that is only theory in science.  metaphysics is a theory in science under the category of quantum theory.

redneF wrote:

Your position that gods exist, is simply not tenable to begin with. It would have to be falsifiable.

scientific theory is not falsifiable.  If it was, it wouldn't be theory.

redneF wrote:

You would have the burden to prove that our set of reality could not have materialized by any other means.

ah, so you're a 'gods can only exist if absolutely necessary scientifically speaking' kind of person.  Ok

statistical probability of life happening in the universe itself suggests scientifically speaking that life is not a plausible occurrence.   

redneF wrote:

I debate plenty in science and technology rebuttals on the typical ignorant theist challenges, and I've never once seen you in 1 of those threads.

If I'm mistaken, please post a link.

I typically don't spend my time on here searching for threads to post in.  Therefore, it's likely i have not been aware of those.

redneF wrote:

Of course we work within the confines of whatever confines we work within.

good job being redundant. 

It was a sarcastic follow up to you stating the glaringly obvious.

yea, i know.  i'm full of sarcasm too... I'll give you a little in on my posts.  If I happen to state something glaringly obvious... It is a safe conclusion to assume I'm being sarcastic with you.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
VICTORY IS MINE!

Congratulations for having deviated from being skeptical, and out onto thin ice.

sarcasm again!  bare with me here... i think I'm losing you already

redneF wrote:

I'll remain where it's most practical and safe to be. I hate being wrong, and wasting my life being it.

Does this mean then that if someone points something out that you might be wrong about, it's going to be difficult for you to accept the fact that you're wrong?  You seem to portray yourself as such a person.  i hope this is not the case.

redneF wrote:

The topic isn't merely something trivial. Otherwise you people wouldn't be so emotionally invested in the topic, and pattern your entire lives around something trivial.

neither would you Eye-wink

redneF wrote:

Because you can't fix stupid.

you can brainwash intelligence, why not fix stupid while you're at it?

redneF wrote:

And brainwashing is incredibly difficult to overcome, because people of low enough intelligence to be assimilated into cults, tend to find strength in numbers, and don't want to be separated from the herd.

that would require an immediate close group that supports every aspect of your belief.  There's a lot of parts of my belief that "my herd' if you will don't agree with me on.  yet we still get along.  I have recently separated myself from my particular herd and am looking for another one... it wasn't that hard be it that this herd wasn't in much agreement with me in the first place.... i'm assuming you're referring to a church body in this particular case and not the Christian herd in general.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Matthew

TGBaker wrote:

 Matthew intentionally alters documentation he has to change historical circumstance to meet his theological aims.

can you send me references detailing this?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I recall something about using one's discernment but I think the Bible exempts itself from that scrutiny.

well, there's a line between discernment and interpretation.  You can misinterpret scripture, but discernment of a properly interpreted piece of scripture is different.  The Bible is understood to be the basis of discernment and that one should use that to correct their understanding.  The Bible goes further to back itself up many times with many of its claims so that it can support itself better.  Keep in mind we're looking at a bunch of books compiled into one, kind of like having a volume set in one bind.  Therefore, the compilation of stories support themselves..  Does this mean there's no other outside interpretations, of course not.  But to look at the Bible as 66 separate books in agreement with the understanding of books that have later been established as working together helps it support itself historically.  

you seem to be talking about the Bible as if it's always been this one book.  How does that understanding apply to each individual book of the Bible I wonder

 

You cannot argue over physics or biology. Those are not subject to mere interpretation. Those things that are established to be fact in science are subject to testing and falsification.

The bible has never been one book, it has been an ongoing ever changing bookS of myth which reflects humans wishful thinking, not a real deity.  And an immoral gang manual at that.

. What YOU cannot do is establish the fantastic claims within it as being testable or falsifiable. What you cannot do is even establish this invisible being as being testable or falsifiable.

The bible is only fact in that it has been a book of myth people falsely believe to be the product of a deity(NO MATTER WHAT SECT THEY ARE)

 

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Matthew intentionally alters documentation he has to change historical circumstance to meet his theological aims.

can you send me references detailing this?

Sure how many do you want? One look at what Mark presents in the original Greek about Jesus's baptism.  The language uses the prepostion EIS which means into. Mark has an early adoptionistic Christology so has no problem with Jesus being baptized into the remsisson of sin and the Spirit  coming into (EIS) him which is the function of baptism,,,example Acts 2:38. Both MAtthew and Luke change the prepositions so that the Spirit settles on Jesus rather than as a reception of the Holy Spirit. The original personal message of god that You are my beloved son is changed by Matthew so that that the audience around Jesus hear god saying this is my beloeved son. So Mark's sentences are changed to accomadate what Matthew wants to present, theology not history.  We also see  Matthew adds a dialogue between John and Jesus in attempt to explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.  This very function is continued even more strongly in gospels that did not make it into the canon. These things show that the church after Mark had trouble with Jesus being a follower of the Baptist and having been baptized for the remission of sin, not a problem for earlier Christianity but a problem a decade later after the fabrication of the virgin birth doctrine derived from a poor understanding of the Septuagint's Isaiah 7:14. That Matthew is dependent on his understanding of OT scripture through the LXX( Septuagint )Greek is exampled in the triumphant entry where he changes Jesus riding on a donkey to riding on a donkey and a colt because he misunderstands the KAI  of the LXX as and instead of even.

Matthew also changes the story if I remember correctly ( I am in the hospital and have no NT ) of a man coming up to Jesus and saying Good teacher what must I do to be saved. In Mark Jesus is human and can say Why do you call me good. There is no one good but god.  Matthew and Luke both redact this story to why do you ask me about the good. These are intentional redactions that change history if Mark did in fact reflect any history himslef.  I could go through Matthew and give you tons more but this post is long enough.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:K... so

caposkia wrote:

K... so what's your point? 

I made my point.

I think you're full of shit.

caposkia wrote:
I believe I have built a credible reputation with many on here and they can support me in the fact that I am very sincere and would not make something up.

None of that is proof that you're not full of shit. 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, be it that now you know the church didn't teach me what I know 

I don't know that for certain.

I'm a skeptic. 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

I ran?

Did I?

Or did I clearly indicate I was going to get back to you after my post got lost when I tried to post it?

You did state that...

No shit, Sherlock.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

 Stop projecting that you're that important, or challenging. I'm debating a handful of theists all at the same time, in dozens of threads, on dozens of different topics, and from dozens of different percspectives and disciplines.

I'm not projecting anything...

You lie.

You were projecting that I 'ran' from our debate.

You recount your life like a drunk person recounts facts.

You can't have an intelligent, cogent dialogue with a drunk.

caposkia wrote:
 Challenging?  Well i have yet to come by an atheist of any sort that has been able to successfully show me a good reason to even question what I know. 

That's totally natural given your delusion, and your level of sobriety of thought.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

 You fucking can't even articulate clearly the timeline and accurately outline what your childhood exposure to religion was.

no? 

No.

caposkia wrote:
i started to research

You use incompatible terms interchangeably.

You did not do 'research'.

You 'presupposed', and concluded 'correlation=causation', and got 'false positives'.

caposkia wrote:
and discover the truth about Christianity. 

Then you're not very bright.

Do your homework.

It's merely literature.

Jesus and all.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

No, because you're willing to keep going in circles over something that should be 'absolute' in your mind.

They are absolute in my mind...

Obviously not.

caposkia wrote:
I only express that I'm willing to reexamine them...

No.

What you're doing is being obnoxious, and practicing 'arguing'.

caposkia wrote:
  so far I've only further affirmed my belief on this site.

That's stupid.

There's no evidence of anything supernatural to be found here.

caposkia wrote:
 I allow the challengers to lead the conversation... therefore if you see me going in any circles, I'm only following those who converse with me. 

No.

The burden starts with theism. Which is from the bottom up, or from the top down, a circular argument. 

caposkia wrote:
 if you talk in circles, I will be going in circles with you.

No.

There's no evidence of anything supernatural.

Just 'suspicions'.

That's the long and the short of it.

If you extend past that, you are going in circles.

Ipso facto, you are constantly arguing in circles.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Our debate thread is one I'm going to try to avoid circles in...

You completely blew that opportunity.

caposkia wrote:
however I predict that's going to be hard with you.

That's funny, because I've stopped trying to go anywhere with you there because you couldn't stop going around in circles...

 


caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

know alien life most probably exists, but I won't engage in 2000 post threads challenging whether or not they do. It doesn't really matter that other people don't believe.

Do you think i lose sleep over the fact that you and others on this site don't believe as I do?  

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China, or what you quoted from me?

Did you miss the point where I stated it would be completely retarded to be 'willing to challenge my beliefs', for 2000+ posts, when I adopted them as being completely probable??

caposkia wrote:
 really?  Who thinks they're important now?

I don't know WTF you're referring to.

Again, that's not a sober pattern of linear thought...

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

You 'hope' gods are possible, because for some bizarre reason, you don't think the universe could work without them.

is that my basis for belief? 

Well duhhh...

You keep saying that things happen for a 'reason', and in your mind conclude that reason is 'God'.

That's pretty fucking indicative that God would be a 'universal' factor, now, isn't it?

caposkia wrote:
ok.  So... because the evidence of gravity is all around us... there couldn't possibly be evidence of God all around us..

There's no parallel to be drawn between gravity and God.

You can distinguish between gravity/no gravity.

caposkia wrote:
  metaphysics is a theory in science ...

No.

It's philosophy. And it's about 'speculating' what things must exist, and why, whether or not it's compatible with reality.

It's hubris.

caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

Your position that gods exist, is simply not tenable to begin with. It would have to be falsifiable.

scientific theory is not falsifiable.  If it was, it wouldn't be theory.

Are you that fucking dense?

If something is not falsifiable, you'd have no way to distinguish predictable from unpredictable.

caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

You would have the burden to prove that our set of reality could not have materialized by any other means.

ah, so you're a 'gods can only exist if absolutely necessary scientifically speaking' kind of person. 

No.

I never said that.

Gods could exist, even if they weren't necessary.

caposkia wrote:
 statistical probability of life happening in the universe itself suggests scientifically speaking that life is not a plausible occurrence. 

Patently false.

Patently absurd.

That canard has been debunked on the internet so many fucking times it's not even funny. 

You really are fucking ignorant if you think you've done your 'research'.

Read up on Computational Mathematics, or Quantum Mathematics.

caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

I'll remain where it's most practical and safe to be. I hate being wrong, and wasting my life being it.

Does this mean then that if someone points something out that you might be wrong about, it's going to be difficult for you to accept the fact that you're wrong? 

Huh?

How the fuck did you come to that conclusion, based on my statement????

You really must post when you're not sober.

I'm not 'dogmatic', or emotionally married to 'ideas'.

If someone demonstrates that something is correct, and it contradicts and idea I had, I'm thankful for the truth.

caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

The topic isn't merely something trivial. Otherwise you people wouldn't be so emotionally invested in the topic, and pattern your entire lives around something trivial.

neither would you Eye-wink

Huh?

I don't pattern my life on whether or not gods are possible, or probable. Because it doesn't matter.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

Because you can't fix stupid.

you can brainwash intelligence

Not if they're skeptics, no matter their IQ.

caposkia wrote:
 

why not fix stupid while you're at it?

Because you can't fix stupid.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, isn't "challenging what you know to be true" an impossibility?

If you know something to be true, you will refuse any challenge against it, legitimate or not.

The infinite regress we face.With this freaking acute leukemia I may only have a few weeks left. I'd like to get a straight answer out of him.

1) There is a possible world of only  well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

 

You're working within the confines of the world.  God is understood to be a factor outside this world.    What strait answer are you not getting from me?  or was that intended for someone else?

Actually I am not. This is universally accepted logic by such Christian philosophers as Plantinga etc.;  What it does better than an ontological proof of god is allow the actual world to be one of the possible worlds. Since an all loving all powerful god could remove suffering or create a world without suffering it means if there is a god he is not all loving or all powerful. iT DEMONSTRATES  that the classical theistic god simply does not exist because there is suffering of the innocent or anyone for that matter. The nature of possible world scenarios indicates that the argument covers both a transcendent and imminent god. Neither of which is compatible with the world as it is.  There is certainly room to discuss a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient and all loving god. In fact CALVINISM WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLLY TO PRESENT GOD AS NOT ALL LOVING. A Calvinistic god is a god who prior to creation plans to create evil people (non-elect) along with the elect.  A dispicable god that should live in his own hell he created. I would look at contemporary theology and various models that have been constructed of the post theistic god such as Pannenberg, Hartshorne, Whitehead, TIllich,etc.;

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: God is

caposkia wrote:
 God is understood to be a factor outside this world. 

That's complete dishonesty and misrepresentation of facts.

You know well that there's only a legend and folklore, and that there are hundreds of millions of people who understand that it's nothing more than a rumour.

An honest person would admit that there's no actual evidence, but they still are willing to believe the assertions in the literature.

But it's completely dishonest to posit that "God" is 'understood' to be one thing or another, as if it's a universal understanding.

So, you're a fucking liar, and merely 'posturing' that you are 'sincere' and authentic, in your 'inquiries'.

 

Typical, garden variety theist.

Just like I concluded in our 'debate'.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:. What YOU

Brian37 wrote:

. What YOU cannot do is establish the fantastic claims within it as being testable or falsifiable. What you cannot do is even establish this invisible being as being testable or falsifiable.

The bible is only fact in that it has been a book of myth people falsely believe to be the product of a deity(NO MATTER WHAT SECT THEY ARE)

 

I cannot establish Biblical stories as testable and falsifiable any more than you can take any scientific theory and establish IT as being testable and falsifiable.  Anything that is is no longer theory.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Sure how

TGBaker wrote:

 Sure how many do you want? One look at what Mark presents in the original Greek about Jesus's baptism.  The language uses the prepostion EIS which means into. Mark has an early adoptionistic Christology so has no problem with Jesus being baptized into the remsisson of sin and the Spirit  coming into (EIS) him which is the function of baptism,,,example Acts 2:38. Both MAtthew and Luke change the prepositions so that the Spirit settles on Jesus rather than as a reception of the Holy Spirit. The original personal message of god that You are my beloved son is changed by Matthew so that that the audience around Jesus hear god saying this is my beloeved son. So Mark's sentences are changed to accomadate what Matthew wants to present, theology not history.  We also see  Matthew adds a dialogue between John and Jesus in attempt to explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.  This very function is continued even more strongly in gospels that did not make it into the canon. These things show that the church after Mark had trouble with Jesus being a follower of the Baptist and having been baptized for the remission of sin, not a problem for earlier Christianity but a problem a decade later after the fabrication of the virgin birth doctrine derived from a poor understanding of the Septuagint's Isaiah 7:14. That Matthew is dependent on his understanding of OT scripture through the LXX( Septuagint )Greek is exampled in the triumphant entry where he changes Jesus riding on a donkey to riding on a donkey and a colt because he misunderstands the KAI  of the LXX as and instead of even.

Matthew also changes the story if I remember correctly ( I am in the hospital and have no NT ) of a man coming up to Jesus and saying Good teacher what must I do to be saved. In Mark Jesus is human and can say Why do you call me good. There is no one good but god.  Matthew and Luke both redact this story to why do you ask me about the good. These are intentional redactions that change history if Mark did in fact reflect any history himslef.  I could go through Matthew and give you tons more but this post is long enough.

I am not as familiar with the Greek as I am with the Hebrew at this time.  I'll have to look at your claims a bit further.

Some problems though with your claim is saying Mark changed something to go along with Matthew.  Mark was written before Matthew and there is a theory that Matthew used Mark as a reference along with another unknown reference Q.  This assuming Matthew was not an eye witnessed as it seems to be claimed.  

Looking at the English translation of both books, I see no indication that both stories are saying something different about the Baptism, only that one has more detail than the other on the account.  Both seem to claim in English the same reasoning behind it.  I'm referencing from the NASB, which is typically understood to be quite literal to the original languages while still making sense in English.  Of course I understand the discrepency in languages and therefore will have to investigate this further.  

You seem to make a big deal out of donkey vs. donkey and colt.  To me i don't see a major problem here.  The idea is he was to ride in on a donkey or colt.  A colt being a young donkey in reference, it wouldn't matter which he rode in on or even if he rode in on both, the prophesy was still fulfilled.  

I honestly wonder how much of this is your own interpretation and how much of this is supported by scholars... this would include the religious scholars that are not bias to any particular viewpoint.  Do you have something I can look up myself to back up your claims?

Though there are a lot of things over the years that certain churches "had a problem with" in scripture only because it didn't support their ideals, but with the abilities we have today to accurately research sources and translate, those discrepencies typically can be bypassed... As you pointed out, we can see a difference in each book and are aware of it.  The differences you point out aren't as contradictory as you seem to be suggesting... in fact they seem to ultimately support each other.  Just one part has more information than another.  Of course there are small conflicting viewpoints, but then again, when isn't there in any account of an occurence when reported by multiple sources?  In the case of scripture, those conflicting viewpoints are consistent with any history be it that they're typically times or dates of happenings.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: but with

caposkia wrote:

 but with the abilities we have today to accurately research sources and translate, those discrepencies typically can be bypassed... As you pointed out, we can see a difference in each book and are aware of it.  The differences you point out aren't as contradictory as you seem to be suggesting... in fact they seem to ultimately support each other.  

No.

Take it up with Bart Erhman, and Tom Harpur.

I doubt you're more knowledgeable than either of those two.

Even William Lane Craig has no choice but to admit that there are over 1000 words that could not be successfully translated, or transposed, from the ancient scriptures, into english.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Sure how many do you want? One look at what Mark presents in the original Greek about Jesus's baptism.  The language uses the prepostion EIS which means into. Mark has an early adoptionistic Christology so has no problem with Jesus being baptized into the remsisson of sin and the Spirit  coming into (EIS) him which is the function of baptism,,,example Acts 2:38. Both MAtthew and Luke change the prepositions so that the Spirit settles on Jesus rather than as a reception of the Holy Spirit. The original personal message of god that You are my beloved son is changed by Matthew so that that the audience around Jesus hear god saying this is my beloeved son. So Mark's sentences are changed to accomadate what Matthew wants to present, theology not history.  We also see  Matthew adds a dialogue between John and Jesus in attempt to explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.  This very function is continued even more strongly in gospels that did not make it into the canon. These things show that the church after Mark had trouble with Jesus being a follower of the Baptist and having been baptized for the remission of sin, not a problem for earlier Christianity but a problem a decade later after the fabrication of the virgin birth doctrine derived from a poor understanding of the Septuagint's Isaiah 7:14. That Matthew is dependent on his understanding of OT scripture through the LXX( Septuagint )Greek is exampled in the triumphant entry where he changes Jesus riding on a donkey to riding on a donkey and a colt because he misunderstands the KAI  of the LXX as and instead of even.

Matthew also changes the story if I remember correctly ( I am in the hospital and have no NT ) of a man coming up to Jesus and saying Good teacher what must I do to be saved. In Mark Jesus is human and can say Why do you call me good. There is no one good but god.  Matthew and Luke both redact this story to why do you ask me about the good. These are intentional redactions that change history if Mark did in fact reflect any history himslef.  I could go through Matthew and give you tons more but this post is long enough.

I am not as familiar with the Greek as I am with the Hebrew at this time.  I'll have to look at your claims a bit further.

Some problems though with your claim is saying Mark changed something to go along with Matthew.  Mark was written before Matthew and there is a theory that Matthew used Mark as a reference along with another unknown reference Q.  This assuming Matthew was not an eye witnessed as it seems to be claimed.  

Looking at the English translation of both books, I see no indication that both stories are saying something different about the Baptism, only that one has more detail than the other on the account.  Both seem to claim in English the same reasoning behind it.  I'm referencing from the NASB, which is typically understood to be quite literal to the original languages while still making sense in English.  Of course I understand the discrepency in languages and therefore will have to investigate this further.  

You seem to make a big deal out of donkey vs. donkey and colt.  To me i don't see a major problem here.  The idea is he was to ride in on a donkey or colt.  A colt being a young donkey in reference, it wouldn't matter which he rode in on or even if he rode in on both, the prophesy was still fulfilled.  

I honestly wonder how much of this is your own interpretation and how much of this is supported by scholars... this would include the religious scholars that are not bias to any particular viewpoint.  Do you have something I can look up myself to back up your claims?

Though there are a lot of things over the years that certain churches "had a problem with" in scripture only because it didn't support their ideals, but with the abilities we have today to accurately research sources and translate, those discrepencies typically can be bypassed... As you pointed out, we can see a difference in each book and are aware of it.  The differences you point out aren't as contradictory as you seem to be suggesting... in fact they seem to ultimately support each other.  Just one part has more information than another.  Of course there are small conflicting viewpoints, but then again, when isn't there in any account of an occurence when reported by multiple sources?  In the case of scripture, those conflicting viewpoints are consistent with any history be it that they're typically times or dates of happenings.

OK I think I'm done. Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark I did not say Mark changed anything if I did was dyslexic.  I assume the Markan priority because of years of research. The BIG DEAL about the donkey is that the author of Matthew relies on the LXX and causes the two animals where in Mark there is one. THis means the author was NOT an eyewitness.  But then you have me repeating myself. I am remiss in what to say about the fact you do not see the significance of the changes to the text. As to you wondering how much is my own interpretation I have studied under some great scholars and have a long time friend who is a Christian scholar.  Now that I have typed this I am a little less insulted  and should not but will do a little of your work for you.  Buy some commentaries....off the top of my head: F.W. Beare on Matthew, Vincent Taylor, an evangelical scholar on Mark, Luke get an evangelical like I.H. Marshall; on John get Raymond E. Brown. I am giving you professing Christian commentaries that are on a scholarly level rather than popular. You will still see these issues.  It would be good to intentionally by conservative and liberal on each gospel. The parts of the gospel you mention having more details are additions that Matthew or Luke added as they redacted Mark.  Sometimes Luke or Matthew will shorten the Markan story as they edit. Look at the difference of meaing again the passage where Jesus says Why do you call me good, There is none good but God, That's MArk. look at how the meaning of the passage is changedby why do you ask me concerning the good.  The theology of Mark was not sufficient for MAtthew and Luke so they alter the saying . It really iis that bloody simple.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

deleted duplicate