The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

If you read back on PJTS and I's thread, you'll notice that we've agreed that the exact timing of the stories are not precisely known and they may be off by many hundreds of years.  This being the case, the Egypt flood and the Noah flood may be in sync.  So you have evidence to believe the Egypt flood is mythical?  Be it that the papyrus is damaged and hard to interpret, I'm quite shocked, but I'll see what you have to present.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

Of course, you should know beer and wine take priority over all creation!

jcgadfly wrote:

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

that's a claim that would suggest you are holding out on us... what empirical evidences do you have now?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

He never said when it would happen... the other problem with your conclusion above is God is going to judge according to his own understanding and not yours or anyone elses.  Your "mucking with scripture" I've learned is a bit different than actually changing what it says or changing the words within.  The ones who do change it are held accountable to it.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

I accuse you because you used to be someone who actually asked good questions.  I don't know what happened.  The answers you're getting are as reasonable as the questions you ask.  They are literally simple, strait forward answers focused specifically and solely on what you asked.

You simply go around in circles. We provide empirical proof and you ignore it. The creation story is purely a myth as is the flood story. Read the earlier version of the Epic of Gilgemish.

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

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

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

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

 

Other fall of man myths :

Other traditions

  • In Gnosticism, the snake is thanked for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve, and thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's control. The Demiurge banished Adam and Eve, because man was now a threat.
  • Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age, until Prometheus brought them fire to help them live through cold. The gods punished humans allowing Pandora to release the evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity. See Ages of Man for more.
  • In classic Zoroastrianism, humanity is created to withstand the forces of decay and destruction through good thoughts, words and deeds. Failure to do so actively leads to misery for the individual and for his family. This is also the moral of many of the stories of the Shahnameh, the key text of Persian mythology.

 

 

I'll try to read those links at some point.  I feel I've been answering you quite directly.  how have I been ignoring empirical evidence?  How about what I just presented?

So the Creation story is a myth but the redemption that you claim is needed because of the actions in that story is real and a must have? Or are you admitting that Jesus' atoning death is a myth as well because there is/was nothing to atone for?

"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:Where does

caposkia wrote:

Where does sacrifice of a human being on a cross come into the scientific understanding of the Genesis story?  What are your thoughts on the possibility that the Earth was not yet in orbit?  If your thoughts have anything to do with me trying to justify something that is obviously false, then I think we're done here.

The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import.  To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god.  It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.  I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.


 

"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: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Are you

caposkia wrote:
Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Where does sacrifice of a human being on a cross come into the scientific understanding of the Genesis story?  What are your thoughts on the possibility that the Earth was not yet in orbit?  If your thoughts have anything to do with me trying to justify something that is obviously false, then I think we're done here.

The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import.  To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god.  It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.  I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

 

 

What kind of question is that. Once you buy "God can do whatever he wants" you can twist your own brain to make the bible mean whatever you want it to mean.

There is NOTHING scientific about Genesis. Genesis is the most laughable part of the bible scientifically, not that the rest of it is any better. But even the "sacrifice" story of Jesus is absurd too.

Cap is merely desperate for a super hero. He knows that is really what is going on, he simply refuses to admit it.

IF Cap were brave enough to pretend for a second that the bible was suddenly dropped in front of him today, instead of being written in an unscientific age. If Cap were brave enough to swap reading page for page next to a copy of Harry Potter, if he were brave enough to do this, he would, or should see what we see, that the fantastic claims of each are indistinguishable.

When you read ANY HOLY BOOK of any religion it is clear that these books are tribal books of legend, and should be rightfully in the same category as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Cap is merely letting his ego and emotions fool him into thinking his "experiences" were real, when all they were was his mind inserting a myth into something he merely wants to be true.

He knows this, but he is in denial because of the appeal of having a super hero save him.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

You guys do it on my thread if you want since Cap quit  the thread.  redneF I can see what progress you can make. I have some nice anti acid stuff I am taking if you need it. 


 

"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
Brian37 wrote:TGBaker

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Where does sacrifice of a human being on a cross come into the scientific understanding of the Genesis story?  What are your thoughts on the possibility that the Earth was not yet in orbit?  If your thoughts have anything to do with me trying to justify something that is obviously false, then I think we're done here.

The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import.  To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god.  It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.  I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

 

 

What kind of question is that. Once you buy "God can do whatever he wants" you can twist your own brain to make the bible mean whatever you want it to mean.

There is NOTHING scientific about Genesis. Genesis is the most laughable part of the bible scientifically, not that the rest of it is any better. But even the "sacrifice" story of Jesus is absurd too.

Cap is merely desperate for a super hero. He knows that is really what is going on, he simply refuses to admit it.

IF Cap were brave enough to pretend for a second that the bible was suddenly dropped in front of him today, instead of being written in an unscientific age. If Cap were brave enough to swap reading page for page next to a copy of Harry Potter, if he were brave enough to do this, he would, or should see what we see, that the fantastic claims of each are indistinguishable.

When you read ANY HOLY BOOK of any religion it is clear that these books are tribal books of legend, and should be rightfully in the same category as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Cap is merely letting his ego and emotions fool him into thinking his "experiences" were real, when all they were was his mind inserting a myth into something he merely wants to be true.

He knows this, but he is in denial because of the appeal of having a super hero save him.

 

Hey Brian look at this post I copied below and let me know what you think.  I have been writing some articles  for the author John W. Loftus on his blog. In one of his books he has comprised an Outsider's Test of Faith which asks the believer to stand outside your faith and analyse it as you do the other religions which you reject.Here is a nice overview of John's test that Cap and other theists should take.

 

 

It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith

Let's try this one more time shall we? This time in short numbered points for the reading impaired:

1) We are all raised as believers. As children we believed whatever our parents told us, all of us.

2) We were raised in our respective families and cultures to believe what our parents told us about religion.

3) Psychological studies have shown that people have a very strong tendency to believe what they prefer to believe. Cognitive Bias studies show this.

4) Psychological studies have shown that most of us, most of the time, look for that which confirms what we believe rather than that which disconfirms it, even though the latter is the best way to get at the truth. This is known as Confirmation Bias.

5) Neurological studies have shown that people have a sense of certainty about the beliefs they have that is unrelated to the strength of the actual evidence, as Robert Burton argues in On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not

6) Skepticism is not usually an inherited characteristic. We must acquire the capacity to doubt what we are raised to believe. Skepticism is the adult attitude.

Full stop. There are a lot of books on these subjects. This data is undeniable, noncontroversial and obvious. We must think about the implications of what these undeniable facts tell us about who we are as human beings. If we were raised as Christians then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Muslims then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Orthodox Jews then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Scientologists then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Hindu's then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe.

7) When there are billions of people who are certain of an inherited faith they all learned in the same manner, who live in separate geographical locations around the globe, who all prefer to believe what they were raised to believe, and who all seek to confirm that which they were raised to believe, it should cause them to doubt what they were raised to believe. What is there not to understand about this?

Cool It will not do to argue against atheists that this data applies to us too. This is a fallacious argument that cannot be used to sidestep the implications for one's own inherited religious faith. All believers who are certain of their faith will use this same fallacious argument against atheists. But doing so does nothing to solve the problem of religious diversity, since they still have not come up with a method that can solve their own differences. Atheists are doubters. We are skeptics. Knowing this data causes us to require hard, cold evidence for that which we can accept. We have concluded this requirement is never met by any religious faith.

9) Skepticism is a filter that adults use to help us sift out the wheat of truth from the chaff of falsehood. We cannot doubt that filter! There is no other alternative.

10) The Outsider Test for Faith is the best and only way to get at the truth if you want to know the truth. Examine your own faith with the same level of skepticism you use when examining the other religious faiths you reject. We cannot have a milquetoast test when it comes to the truth. We cannot merely say to people that they should be skeptical without offering a standard of skepticism. Why? Because if we ask believers who are certain of their faith to test it with doubt then to a person they will say they have, and that their faith is sure. But ask them to test their faith with the same level of skepticism they use when examining the other religious faiths they reject and that will get their attention. I have their attention now.

If anyone thinks the Outsider Test for Faith is unfair or faulty in any way then propose a better alternative. What is the alternative? 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/its-time-once-again-boys-and-girls-for.html#more

 

And for a list of sites on the test:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/outsider-test-for-faith.html

 

 

 

"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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:  I feel

jcgadfly wrote:

 

 I feel I've been answering you quite directly.  how have I been ignoring empirical evidence?  How about what I just presented?

If you're talking about the Egypt flood, then I explained that the Papyrus for that particular story was quite damaged and hard to interpret.  I also claimed that stories are said to be not exact when estimating dates.  It is likely those stories are congruent.  

I think I also said something about if you seem to know more about the Bible being false, or claimed to be the revealed though not, then you've been holding out on us.  

 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

 I feel I've been answering you quite directly.  how have I been ignoring empirical evidence?  How about what I just presented?

If you're talking about the Egypt flood, then I explained that the Papyrus for that particular story was quite damaged and hard to interpret.  I also claimed that stories are said to be not exact when estimating dates.  It is likely those stories are congruent.  

I think I also said something about if you seem to know more about the Bible being false, or claimed to be the revealed though not, then you've been holding out on us.  

 Ok stories are stories and they don't have to be taken literally.

Why do you take the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus literally? Seems like you are simply picking and choosing the stuff you like.

As for the Bible being false, there have been so many additions and deletions to the Bible depending on the prevailing orthodoxies and political powers of the time (look up how the Bible was put together yourself). I don't need to add to the history of how the Bible was written in order to dispute the claims of magic in it.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: The

TGBaker wrote:

 The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import. 

... or their happenings were possibly millions of years apart... I'm not sure if I get the link you're trying to make... other than the point that the Bible isn't supported period in your eyes.

TGBaker wrote:

To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god. 

It was written by a human and thus from a human perspective at the time... to go beyond a human perspective at the time would have been futile and the story would have been lost in the ages due to lack of purpose for the cultures at the time.

TGBaker wrote:

It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.

so... are you saying that I'm trying to justify a story that I believe is false, or are you trying to make an assumption that the story's false?

TGBaker wrote:

I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

I'm not going to quit on you as long as you can accept the fact that I'm not trying to justify anything falsely.   I'm on here to "challenge what I know"  by what i know I mean my understanding of truth.  I accept that I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong in many aspects of life.  I will look at evidences and reasoning when it is presented to me, but I will not buy into an assumption without a rational and logical reasoning.  You telling me that I'm trying to justify something false is not showing me why its false.  Keep in mind I believe it to be true.  You've been there.  If I refute your reasoning at all, it's because I am challenging what you know just like you're doing with me... this way if what you believe really is true, then we will hit it at every angle and make sure of it. 

The only problem with my approach is that if we stick on only one subject, we're never going to get anywhere.  We have to analyze each point and keep it in a bank when we move on.  This way, we can compile all the information after a point so that we can see what makes the most logical sense.  I have been doing this since I was a pre-teen.  this analytical approach is how I got to what I believe today.  It is just as likely in my history that research could have brought me to disbelief be it that I was basically there for a time.  I had opened my mind to any possibility and had no hold on any perspective.  In other words, I was a completely neutral entity.  To take a side, I needed evidences and reasoning and I looked at both.  Some of those evidences are first hand accounts.  they mean nothing to anyone trying to disprove my belief because they were my own experiences.  Yes there were witnesses, but they only work if you accept them as credible... be it that you don't know them and I'd label them as friends, I'm sure you'd assume they'd side with me.  

Some evidences came from the universal truths of science, some came from reasoning through statistical reference and evidences we know and agree on in sciences, history, archaeology, etc.  

I'm not here and I did not come onto this site to prove to you that what I know is true.  I came to dispute a terrible debate on both sides and challenge what I know.  You seem to be one that could very well challenge what I know, but you keep getting stuck in me trying to justify stuff.  You give me evidences, I will tear them apart, and after I tear them apart, if they still hold water, then these evidences will be acceptable.  some subjects don't have such absolute answers and we'd have to agree on reasoning.  Though that's hard when one side is holding onto an opposite belief of the other.  

I have agreed to be a neutral mind on the subject of God.  Yes, I have my beliefs, but I will look at it objectively.  I've had to do it for some years before and promised myself I would continue in my best efforts to keep my approach objective when it comes to new reasoning.  I will play the opposing role no matter what.  I debate with believers as well as non-believers.  I discuss with opposing denominations about their differing beliefs.  This is what I do.  I'm a believer of unity and compromise.  both sides would have to be willing to give up what they know in order to accept the possibility of anything being presented to them.   


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

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

Ok.  No excuses, pick a topic, stick with it and we'll see what works and what doesn't.   Remember, sometimes it takes me a bit to reply.  I may have to research something, life soemtimes gets in the way... please be patient.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What kind of

Brian37 wrote:

What kind of question is that. Once you buy "God can do whatever he wants" you can twist your own brain to make the bible mean whatever you want it to mean.

Once you become comfortable with your belief, nothing will convince you otherwise.  Human nature makes you want to stay in your comfort zone.

Brian37 wrote:

There is NOTHING scientific about Genesis. Genesis is the most laughable part of the bible scientifically, not that the rest of it is any better. But even the "sacrifice" story of Jesus is absurd too.

It's funny to think people want to make it into a scientific book.

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is merely desperate for a super hero. He knows that is really what is going on, he simply refuses to admit it.

My grandfather is my superhero.  I don't know why you're so stuck on needing a superhero... did yours let you down?

Brian37 wrote:

IF Cap were brave enough to pretend for a second that the bible was suddenly dropped in front of him today, instead of being written in an unscientific age. If Cap were brave enough to swap reading page for page next to a copy of Harry Potter, if he were brave enough to do this, he would, or should see what we see, that the fantastic claims of each are indistinguishable.

Right... from the one who runs screaming every time opposition comes his way.

Brian37 wrote:

When you read ANY HOLY BOOK of any religion it is clear that these books are tribal books of legend, and should be rightfully in the same category as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Cap is merely letting his ego and emotions fool him into thinking his "experiences" were real, when all they were was his mind inserting a myth into something he merely wants to be true.

You really don't read anything I write do you... it's the only explanation that really makes sense.  IT's not possible that you're that diluted.  is it...?

Brian37 wrote:

He knows this, but he is in denial because of the appeal of having a super hero save him.

I'll give you some homework as much as you don't like it... start reading posts.  That's it... not too hard.  Try it, you might learn something.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

You guys do it on my thread if you want since Cap quit  the thread.  redneF I can see what progress you can make. I have some nice anti acid stuff I am taking if you need it. 

 

 

wait... when did i quit the thread?  I just posted a reply


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

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import. 

... or their happenings were possibly millions of years apart... I'm not sure if I get the link you're trying to make... other than the point that the Bible isn't supported period in your eyes.

TGBaker wrote:

To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god. 

It was written by a human and thus from a human perspective at the time... to go beyond a human perspective at the time would have been futile and the story would have been lost in the ages due to lack of purpose for the cultures at the time.

TGBaker wrote:

It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.

so... are you saying that I'm trying to justify a story that I believe is false, or are you trying to make an assumption that the story's false?

TGBaker wrote:

I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

I'm not going to quit on you as long as you can accept the fact that I'm not trying to justify anything falsely.   I'm on here to "challenge what I know"  by what i know I mean my understanding of truth.  I accept that I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong in many aspects of life.  I will look at evidences and reasoning when it is presented to me, but I will not buy into an assumption without a rational and logical reasoning.  You telling me that I'm trying to justify something false is not showing me why its false.  Keep in mind I believe it to be true.  You've been there.  If I refute your reasoning at all, it's because I am challenging what you know just like you're doing with me... this way if what you believe really is true, then we will hit it at every angle and make sure of it. 

The only problem with my approach is that if we stick on only one subject, we're never going to get anywhere.  We have to analyze each point and keep it in a bank when we move on.  This way, we can compile all the information after a point so that we can see what makes the most logical sense.  I have been doing this since I was a pre-teen.  this analytical approach is how I got to what I believe today.  It is just as likely in my history that research could have brought me to disbelief be it that I was basically there for a time.  I had opened my mind to any possibility and had no hold on any perspective.  In other words, I was a completely neutral entity.  To take a side, I needed evidences and reasoning and I looked at both.  Some of those evidences are first hand accounts.  they mean nothing to anyone trying to disprove my belief because they were my own experiences.  Yes there were witnesses, but they only work if you accept them as credible... be it that you don't know them and I'd label them as friends, I'm sure you'd assume they'd side with me.  

Some evidences came from the universal truths of science, some came from reasoning through statistical reference and evidences we know and agree on in sciences, history, archaeology, etc.  

I'm not here and I did not come onto this site to prove to you that what I know is true.  I came to dispute a terrible debate on both sides and challenge what I know.  You seem to be one that could very well challenge what I know, but you keep getting stuck in me trying to justify stuff.  You give me evidences, I will tear them apart, and after I tear them apart, if they still hold water, then these evidences will be acceptable.  some subjects don't have such absolute answers and we'd have to agree on reasoning.  Though that's hard when one side is holding onto an opposite belief of the other.  

I have agreed to be a neutral mind on the subject of God.  Yes, I have my beliefs, but I will look at it objectively.  I've had to do it for some years before and promised myself I would continue in my best efforts to keep my approach objective when it comes to new reasoning.  I will play the opposing role no matter what.  I debate with believers as well as non-believers.  I discuss with opposing denominations about their differing beliefs.  This is what I do.  I'm a believer of unity and compromise.  both sides would have to be willing to give up what they know in order to accept the possibility of anything being presented to them.   

I do not see how you supposedly are refuting accepted common scientific knowledge.  You seem to reject rational and logical reasons.  It is quite simply to point to the elements of Gensis that are mythological one need only show that they are not true. The sun was not created after the earth and plants. So that is mythological. The sky does not have the primal waters above it so that is false and a myth. There were no Adam and Eve so that is a myth. There was no fall of adam and eve becasue of a Sspeaking serpent so that is a myth.  Eve ddid not come out of Adam's side and so become femael so that is a myth. Females are actually the default state in the embryo and must hcange to a male.  Females existed before Adam and Eve and so did animals.  The whole story is simply a myth. There is no reason to hold to any part of it.  To do so is not RATIONAL. If you believe otherwise then show the evidence against it.

 

The flood was a myth and it was one that was taken from an earlier non-Biblical myth. There was no world wide flood.  It goes against real evidence. There are crackpots who attempt to create evidence because they believe the bible has to be true but then that ultimately is forgery.  Jesus was orginally viewed as a man. It took a humdred years of rewriting and changing history before he was thought of as divine.

 

 

"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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:It's Time Once

TGBaker wrote:

It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith

Let's try this one more time shall we? This time in short numbered points for the reading impaired:

1) We are all raised as believers. As children we believed whatever our parents told us, all of us.

2) We were raised in our respective families and cultures to believe what our parents told us about religion.

3) Psychological studies have shown that people have a very strong tendency to believe what they prefer to believe. Cognitive Bias studies show this.

4) Psychological studies have shown that most of us, most of the time, look for that which confirms what we believe rather than that which disconfirms it, even though the latter is the best way to get at the truth. This is known as Confirmation Bias.

5) Neurological studies have shown that people have a sense of certainty about the beliefs they have that is unrelated to the strength of the actual evidence, as Robert Burton argues in On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not

6) Skepticism is not usually an inherited characteristic. We must acquire the capacity to doubt what we are raised to believe. Skepticism is the adult attitude.

Full stop. There are a lot of books on these subjects. This data is undeniable, noncontroversial and obvious. We must think about the implications of what these undeniable facts tell us about who we are as human beings. If we were raised as Christians then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Muslims then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Orthodox Jews then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Scientologists then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Hindu's then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe.

7) When there are billions of people who are certain of an inherited faith they all learned in the same manner, who live in separate geographical locations around the globe, who all prefer to believe what they were raised to believe, and who all seek to confirm that which they were raised to believe, it should cause them to doubt what they were raised to believe. What is there not to understand about this?

Cool It will not do to argue against atheists that this data applies to us too. This is a fallacious argument that cannot be used to sidestep the implications for one's own inherited religious faith. All believers who are certain of their faith will use this same fallacious argument against atheists. But doing so does nothing to solve the problem of religious diversity, since they still have not come up with a method that can solve their own differences. Atheists are doubters. We are skeptics. Knowing this data causes us to require hard, cold evidence for that which we can accept. We have concluded this requirement is never met by any religious faith.

9) Skepticism is a filter that adults use to help us sift out the wheat of truth from the chaff of falsehood. We cannot doubt that filter! There is no other alternative.

10) The Outsider Test for Faith is the best and only way to get at the truth if you want to know the truth. Examine your own faith with the same level of skepticism you use when examining the other religious faiths you reject. We cannot have a milquetoast test when it comes to the truth. We cannot merely say to people that they should be skeptical without offering a standard of skepticism. Why? Because if we ask believers who are certain of their faith to test it with doubt then to a person they will say they have, and that their faith is sure. But ask them to test their faith with the same level of skepticism they use when examining the other religious faiths they reject and that will get their attention. I have their attention now.

If anyone thinks the Outsider Test for Faith is unfair or faulty in any way then propose a better alternative. What is the alternative? 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/its-time-once-again-boys-and-girls-for.html#more

 

And for a list of sites on the test:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/outsider-test-for-faith.html

Yes Brian, please tell us what you think about this.  I cant' wait.  Pay special attention to 4, 5 and 8.  

This is great.  I'm going to save this one.  This would be useful for all dispensationalists to see.  I wonder how many of them would dispute it's validity.  

BTW, this test is the solution, but the religious diversity is still there because no one wants to take on the challenge.  

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

Ok.  No excuses, pick a topic, stick with it and we'll see what works and what doesn't.   Remember, sometimes it takes me a bit to reply.  I may have to research something, life soemtimes gets in the way... please be patient.  

Ok.

I'd like to respond to your last points.

Rather than respond to your response (#2350) to me, in this thread, what are your thoughts on pasting that response, into our 1 on 1 thread, and I respond over there?

We just need to add a small post announcing that we've agreed to pick our 1 on 1 back up from a discussion on this thread.

What do you think?

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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Ok.I'd like to

redneF wrote:

Ok.

I'd like to respond to your last points.

Rather than respond to your response (#2350) to me, in this thread, what are your thoughts on pasting that response, into our 1 on 1 thread, and I respond over there?

We just need to add a small post announcing that we've agreed to pick our 1 on 1 back up from a discussion on this thread.

What do you think?

Ok.  Sounds like a plan.  


divinejustice10 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The End of America

Mod edit: Troll post was here.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
And the coward Dennis

And the coward Dennis Markuze ruins a decent thread.

"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
jcgadfly wrote:And the

jcgadfly wrote:

And the coward Dennis Markuze ruins a decent thread.

It's getting old ain't it????


 

"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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia certainly knows how

Caposkia certainly knows how I feel about his claims. But boy, when nuts like this jump in, it almost makes me want to pray to a god just to make morons like this stop.

Cap, in all seriousness. I'd much rather deal with you, and despite how much you make me want to pull my hair out, you are most certainly sane compared to this rubber room Hilton candidate.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia certainly knows how I feel about his claims. But boy, when nuts like this jump in, it almost makes me want to pray to a god just to make morons like this stop.

Cap, in all seriousness. I'd much rather deal with you, and despite how much you make me want to pull my hair out, you are most certainly sane compared to this rubber room Hilton candidate.

 

there's always 1 in the crowd.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
1 on 1 debate take 2

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia certainly knows how I feel about his claims. But boy, when nuts like this jump in, it almost makes me want to pray to a god just to make morons like this stop.

Cap, in all seriousness. I'd much rather deal with you, and despite how much you make me want to pull my hair out, you are most certainly sane compared to this rubber room Hilton candidate.

 

there's always 1 in the crowd.  

I think ANYONE, of any label, claiming super natural invisible friends are making nutty claims. But there is a difference between holding one nutty claim, and being a stalker. Shit, I think I am nuts for still being a Redskins fan considering how bad they suck.

I like you Cap, mostly in that you haven't run away like a childish brat. But also for the fact that you don't equate our bluntness and blasphemy as being a personal attack on you. But make no mistake about it, as long as you claim an invisible friend, I will attack that claim. We could still hang out and have a beer and still like each other.

I can live with the fact that humans, even outside the issue of god/s, have always made claims that are absurd and that humans are capable of believing false things. I can live with that, but there are most certainly some in every bunch that need a room at the rubber room Hilton.

This guy has stalked PZ Myers and is as insane as "Letterman's wife". (David Letterman had a stalker who claimed to be his wife)

 

 

 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So I have

caposkia wrote:

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

I posted, and spent more of my time trying to clean up the quoting in a plain text editor, than I care to do ever again.

Bring your 'A' game, if you've got one, so we can put an end to whether or not you have any grounds to put into question how 'rational' athiests are, if you yourself are nothing more than a garden variety theist who's all show and no go...

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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

I posted, and spent more of my time trying to clean up the quoting in a plain text editor, than I care to do ever again.

Bring your 'A' game, if you've got one, so we can put an end to whether or not you have any grounds to put into question how 'rational' athiests are, if you yourself are nothing more than a garden variety theist who's all show and no go...

As much as I love Cap for his stick to it attitude here, there isn't one argument a theist has made that has been the least bit persuasive. I do admit, it is still good fun because I am always impressed with the elaborate tux they dress the skunk up in.

It's funny how all god/s seem to have a huge problem with lab coats and beakers and the peering eyes of scientists.

Scientist, "God, where are you?"

God, "I'm invisible, you cant see me".

Scientist, "Come on, blood sample, DNA, something?"

God, "Nanny nanny boo boo I can magically turn you into doo doo"

Scientist, " What, are you afraid someone will see your ass through the hospital gown?"

 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:redneF

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

I posted, and spent more of my time trying to clean up the quoting in a plain text editor, than I care to do ever again.

Bring your 'A' game, if you've got one, so we can put an end to whether or not you have any grounds to put into question how 'rational' athiests are, if you yourself are nothing more than a garden variety theist who's all show and no go...

As much as I love Cap for his stick to it attitude here, there isn't one argument a theist has made that has been the least bit persuasive. I do admit, it is still good fun because I am always impressed with the elaborate tux they dress the skunk up in.

I get what you're saying, but I feel differently. 

 

 

 

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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I think

Brian37 wrote:

I think ANYONE, of any label, claiming super natural invisible friends are making nutty claims. But there is a difference between holding one nutty claim, and being a stalker. Shit, I think I am nuts for still being a Redskins fan considering how bad they suck.

Hey, I've been a Red Sox fan all my life... It was worth the wait Eye-wink

Brian37 wrote:

I like you Cap, mostly in that you haven't run away like a childish brat. But also for the fact that you don't equate our bluntness and blasphemy as being a personal attack on you. But make no mistake about it, as long as you claim an invisible friend, I will attack that claim. We could still hang out and have a beer and still like each other.

Absolutely.

Brian37 wrote:

I can live with the fact that humans, even outside the issue of god/s, have always made claims that are absurd and that humans are capable of believing false things. I can live with that, but there are most certainly some in every bunch that need a room at the rubber room Hilton.

yup.  I usually avoid those type... I make an exception for you though... JK Sticking out tongue

Brian37 wrote:

This guy has stalked PZ Myers and is as insane as "Letterman's wife". (David Letterman had a stalker who claimed to be his wife)

 

good to know

 

 


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

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

I posted, and spent more of my time trying to clean up the quoting in a plain text editor, than I care to do ever again.

Bring your 'A' game, if you've got one, so we can put an end to whether or not you have any grounds to put into question how 'rational' athiests are, if you yourself are nothing more than a garden variety theist who's all show and no go...

yea, I tried and failed I guess at organizing the quotes.  I saw.  Better than how it originally came out from the paste.    I'll check it out when I have more time.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: It's funny

Brian37 wrote:

 

It's funny how all god/s seem to have a huge problem with lab coats and beakers and the peering eyes of scientists.

Scientist, "God, where are you?"

God, "I'm invisible, you cant see me".

Scientist, "Come on, blood sample, DNA, something?"

God, "Nanny nanny boo boo I can magically turn you into doo doo"

Scientist, " What, are you afraid someone will see your ass through the hospital gown?"

lemme revise that a bit for you logically.  Here we go.

Scientist: "God, where are you?"

God:  "I'm not physical, you can't see me like you see others"

Scientist: "Come on, blood sample, DNA, something?"

God:  "I've told you I'm not physical, why do you keep looking for me in the physical?"

Scientist: "What, are you afraid someone will see your ass through the hospital gown?"

God:  "Are you afraid to look beyond what you know?"

Scientist:  "If I can't see you then you can't be real"

God:  "Then you belong in the nuthouse... you're talking to yourself again"

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Scientist: Let me understand

Scientist: Let me understand this. You are not physical but you claim to manifest yourself in the physical world in physical ways?

God: That is correct.

Scientist: Where have you done this?

God: All around.

Scientist: Where is the evidence that you did this instead of the natural processes we've observed?

God: I can't tell you where until you believe that I've done it.

------

There - fixed it for you cap.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Scientist:

jcgadfly wrote:

Scientist: Let me understand this. You are not physical but you claim to manifest yourself in the physical world in physical ways?

God: That is correct.

Scientist: Where have you done this?

God: All around.

Scientist: Where is the evidence that you did this instead of the natural processes we've observed?

God: I can't tell you where until you believe that I've done it.

------

There - fixed it for you cap.

actually the "where" is detailed in scripture... so your scientist is not talking to God.  If you mean today, there are documented accounts all over the world of these events and the "where and when".  Therefore again, your scientist is not talking to God.  Most non-believers however would deny the documentation as legitimate because of course God is not real and these people were: delusional, imagining things, ignorant, trying to get attention, etc... you pick the excuse.  

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you."    


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Scientist: Let me understand this. You are not physical but you claim to manifest yourself in the physical world in physical ways?

God: That is correct.

Scientist: Where have you done this?

God: All around.

Scientist: Where is the evidence that you did this instead of the natural processes we've observed?

God: I can't tell you where until you believe that I've done it.

------

There - fixed it for you cap.

actually the "where" is detailed in scripture... so your scientist is not talking to God.  If you mean today, there are documented accounts all over the world of these events and the "where and when".  Therefore again, your scientist is not talking to God.  Most non-believers however would deny the documentation as legitimate because of course God is not real and these people were: delusional, imagining things, ignorant, trying to get attention, etc... you pick the excuse.  

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you."    

Cap, there you go again projecting your own lack of evidence on us.

I've been told lots of things. I've been told Allah exists. I've been told vishnu exists. But I don't buy a car simply because the salesman tells me it is blue. I check under the hood. You think you are a teacher of facts, when you are nothing but a salesman.

Biology is taught, religion is sold. Astronomy is taught. Deities are sold. You have been trying to sell us your deity for 3 years now. And you have as much chance in convincing the world of your pet god as they do trying to convince you of theirs. The better option is that humanity simply likes the idea of a fictional super hero so they make them up.

Now you damned well if another person claiming another god used your same arguments you would not buy that god.

We also have offered you, as well as any other person with their pet god claim an absolutely irrefutable way to prove the claims you make. But just like all the other pet deity claims, past and present, all you can do is sell, not prove. You are in good company, no Muslim, Jew or Hindu can do what you are failing to do either.

You know you cannot convince us with a universal method so you resort to selling which is not evidence of anything that people market and buy claims all the time. The ability to fall for false claims and the ability to sell false claims do not make the claims true. They don't for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or you either.

 

 

 

 

"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


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

caposkia wrote:

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you." 

It's interesting that you added this in, cap, given that you accept:

Scripture, which is a compilation of stories others have told you.

Interpretations of scripture which others have told you.

Miracles, which are events others have told you of that are conveniently blocked from objective scrutiny (no, Rev. Dr. TheCatholicChurchispayingmetosupporttheirconclusion, M.D. doesn't count).

"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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you." 

It's interesting that you added this in, cap, given that you accept:

Scripture, which is a compilation of stories others have told you.

Interpretations of scripture which others have told you.

Miracles, which are events others have told you of that are conveniently blocked from objective scrutiny (no, Rev. Dr. TheCatholicChurchispayingmetosupporttheirconclusion, M.D. doesn't count).

It is beyond me, after shedding god belief, especially in our modern age, how anyone can look an an old book and buy any of the stories in it.

Cap doesn't want to face the fact that that book has no credibility as far as reality. It is not a textbook and has no universal practical application to be used as such. It is a book of myth based on what the people wanted to believe at the time.

Cap is clinging to this, not because of anything that can be empirically proven, but because emotion and ego. Cap has to fool himself into thinking he is objective to continue his clandestine goal.

Humans have always made up deities/gods and falsely believed these fictional beings to be fact. Cap would love to think his pet god is special, but what is really going on is the mind trap he has allowed himself to fall for.

 

"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


Anom (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not a Christian

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anom wrote:I hate to tell

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 

Who are you and how did you manage to hack your profile post stats below your avatar?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, there you

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, there you go again projecting your own lack of evidence on us.

I not only referenced the Bible, but mentioned the existence documentations around the world... What "lack of evidence" are you talking about?  Instead of being vague, why don't you actually call me out... this means pull out where I neglected to mention something you feel is necessary for my references and make me either admit that it doesn't exist or make me present it.  I've been waiting for this for a long time from you.

Brian37 wrote:

I've been told lots of things. I've been told Allah exists. I've been told vishnu exists. But I don't buy a car simply because the salesman tells me it is blue. I check under the hood. You think you are a teacher of facts, when you are nothing but a salesman.

Thank you for that.... now tell me, how have I tried to sell you?  I believe in God.. when have I told you to buy into my belief?   If you ever did find God, I wouldn't expect you to follow what I told you about God, I'd expect you to discover on your own what to believe about God.   Therefore, I don't get why you think I'm trying to sell you anything.  

Brian37 wrote:

Biology is taught, religion is sold. Astronomy is taught. Deities are sold. You have been trying to sell us your deity for 3 years now. And you have as much chance in convincing the world of your pet god as they do trying to convince you of theirs. The better option is that humanity simply likes the idea of a fictional super hero so they make them up.

Maybe you'd buy religion.  As for the rest of us, we'd actually teach it.  I don't believe you're that gullible though... then again, you haven't really proven yourself.

Brian37 wrote:

Now you damned well if another person claiming another god used your same arguments you would not buy that god.

if they're using my same arguments, then they must be talking about the same God... and I'd likely agree with them.

Brian37 wrote:

We also have offered you, as well as any other person with their pet god claim an absolutely irrefutable way to prove the claims you make. But just like all the other pet deity claims, past and present, all you can do is sell, not prove. You are in good company, no Muslim, Jew or Hindu can do what you are failing to do either.

here you go with the selling again..

let's use your car analogy.  You come into my lot looking for a car... 

Me:  What type of car are you looking for

You:  Show me your car

Me:  Well, it'd help if you told me what you're looking for.

You:  I want you to show me your car

Me:  Well, we have 100's of different cars and brands, each car has it's own design, power and abilities, if you would just tell me....

You:  You don't have a car do you.  You just think you have cars when in fact you don't.

Me:  I have everything you're looking for, but you need to tell me what you're looking for so we can get the car that fits your needs.

You:  I've asked you to show me your car and you can't do it because you don't have cars to sell.  I'll keep coming back to check and see if you have cars, but in the mean time, I'll go across the street and buy a car there.

Me:  ok.

I doubt you could disagree with this analogy above.  It's funny you have the perspective of me that you do and yet you're still here.  I've told you that if I'm really that way, then you shouldn't waste your time with me.  Your choice though.  

Brian37 wrote:

You know you cannot convince us with a universal method so you resort to selling which is not evidence of anything that people market and buy claims all the time. The ability to fall for false claims and the ability to sell false claims do not make the claims true. They don't for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or you either.

It'd be like you asking me to show you the universal method of getting bugs off the front of your car... there isn't one... that doesn't mean you can't get bugs off your car, it just means everyone has their own successful method of doing it.   Basically what I've given you is 10 different ways of doing it and I've asked you which way you'd prefer to try because each method is just as successful.  I've tried to even persue a specific method yet you seem to get scared...

basically instead of cleaning the bugs off your car for you... (comparing to cultic sects that basically tell you what to believe) I'm telling you how you can do it, but because I wont' do it for you, you're convinced that there's no way you can get bugs off your car... they're permanate.  


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

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you." 

It's interesting that you added this in, cap, given that you accept:

Scripture, which is a compilation of stories others have told you.

Interpretations of scripture which others have told you.

Miracles, which are events others have told you of that are conveniently blocked from objective scrutiny (no, Rev. Dr. TheCatholicChurchispayingmetosupporttheirconclusion, M.D. doesn't count).

Ok, lets tear this apart.  

I don't accept scripture based on stories of what others told me any more than you accept history in the same manner.  

I have actually interpreted scripture on my own and used other interpretations as a cross reference of what I have discovered or understand.   Just to avoid a step, a disagreeing cross reference does not convince me of changing my perspective.   

I have experienced miracles myself that I objectively can't explain.  Other claimed miracles that I accept are not accepted because of a review of your Rev. Dr. T.C.C.P.M.T.S.T.C.M.D. neighbor.  you may buy it... I don't.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is beyond

Brian37 wrote:

It is beyond me, after shedding god belief, especially in our modern age, how anyone can look an an old book and buy any of the stories in it.

yet we do that with history all the time

Brian37 wrote:

Cap doesn't want to face the fact that that book has no credibility as far as reality. It is not a textbook and has no universal practical application to be used as such. It is a book of myth based on what the people wanted to believe at the time.

I have tried to squeeze the reasoning out of you... but it just doesn't seem to exist.... so just as you can't accept anything less than something you can look at under a microscope, i can't just take your word on disbelief.  I need more.. be it that your unbelief is based on physical reasoning, I'm expecting rationally that you can present logical reasoning.  

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is clinging to this, not because of anything that can be empirically proven, but because emotion and ego. Cap has to fool himself into thinking he is objective to continue his clandestine goal.

despite the fact that I have told you many times that I don't believe in what i do because of emotion, you still think I do... so which one of us is clinging to their belief because of emotion and ego?  

Brian37 wrote:

Humans have always made up deities/gods and falsely believed these fictional beings to be fact. Cap would love to think his pet god is special, but what is really going on is the mind trap he has allowed himself to fall for.

 

Humans have made up many things beyond deities and gods and falsely believed in them... yet for some reason Brian buys into everything but the god myths.  I'm surprised he's not a Mormon or a Jehovah's witness.  Talk about car salesmen.  Brians buying.  Sell quickly.. unless you won't do the work for him, then forget it.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Anom wrote:I

Brian37 wrote:

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 

Who are you and how did you manage to hack your profile post stats below your avatar?

heh, so instead of questioning what they presented, you're more concerned about how they hacked below their avatar.  Do you even understand what they just represented?  I bet I already know your response.   Please shock this whole forum by writing something intelligent and not a repeat of something you've already said that brings no further ground for or against any belief.  


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 

Who are you and how did you manage to hack your profile post stats below your avatar?

heh, so instead of questioning what they presented, you're more concerned about how they hacked below their avatar.  Do you even understand what they just represented?  I bet I already know your response.   Please shock this whole forum by writing something intelligent and not a repeat of something you've already said that brings no further ground for or against any belief.  

 

Uhm....that Anom fella was addressing your OP, I think.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 

Who are you and how did you manage to hack your profile post stats below your avatar?

heh, so instead of questioning what they presented, you're more concerned about how they hacked below their avatar. 

Diversion tactic.

The rebuttal was directed at your OP.

You're not addressing the rebuking of your OP.

caposkia wrote:
 Do you even understand what they just represented?  

Diversion tactic.

The rebuttal was directed at your OP.

You're not addressing the rebuking of your OP.

caposkia wrote:
I bet I already know your response. 

Diversion tactic.

The rebuttal was directed at your OP.

You're not addressing the rebuking of your OP.

caposkia wrote:
Please shock this whole forum by writing something intelligent and not a repeat of something you've already said that brings no further ground for or against any belief.  

Why don't you give him a FRICKEN FOCUS???!!!!

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, your response here,

Cap, your response here, right from the beginning, is more like:

Us : show us what you think is your best car:

You: ok, here is a very good one.

Us: ( kick the tires, and the wheels fall off) That's not very good, doesn't seem like it will work.

You: That's not fair, you haven't tried to drive it.

Us: But its broken.

You: (hastily gets wheels reattached, invites us to sit in the driver's seat, and start it up)

Us: hmm, ok. (engine starts, then seizes up, stalls) It isn't drivable.

You: You didn't say what kind of car you want. I have a lot of different kinds.

Us : How about one that works and is going to keep working?

You: That's not fair., there are other criteria for being a good car, not just your opinion of what's important. This one looks very nice, at least to me.

And so on....

IOW, how about some actual independent, verifiable evidence that doesn't require us to buy into the lame idea of a divine being in the first place to be make sense of it?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap, your

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap, your response here, right from the beginning, is more like:

Us : show us what you think is your best car:

You: ok, here is a very good one.

Us: ( kick the tires, and the wheels fall off) That's not very good, doesn't seem like it will work.

You: That's not fair, you haven't tried to drive it.

Us: But its broken.

You: (hastily gets wheels reattached, invites us to sit in the driver's seat, and start it up)

Us: hmm, ok. (engine starts, then seizes up, stalls) It isn't drivable.

You: You didn't say what kind of car you want. I have a lot of different kinds.

Us : How about one that works and is going to keep working?

You: That's not fair., there are other criteria for being a good car, not just your opinion of what's important. This one looks very nice, at least to me.

And so on....

IOW, how about some actual independent, verifiable evidence that doesn't require us to buy into the lame idea of a divine being in the first place to be make sense of it?

Bob, now you are just being an asshole. Blue is your favorite color and that is the color of the car he is selling you. You ingrateful bastard! IT'S FUCKING BLUE DUDE!

 

"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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is beyond me, after shedding god belief, especially in our modern age, how anyone can look an an old book and buy any of the stories in it.

yet we do that with history all the time

Brian37 wrote:

Cap doesn't want to face the fact that that book has no credibility as far as reality. It is not a textbook and has no universal practical application to be used as such. It is a book of myth based on what the people wanted to believe at the time.

I have tried to squeeze the reasoning out of you... but it just doesn't seem to exist.... so just as you can't accept anything less than something you can look at under a microscope, i can't just take your word on disbelief.  I need more.. be it that your unbelief is based on physical reasoning, I'm expecting rationally that you can present logical reasoning.  

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is clinging to this, not because of anything that can be empirically proven, but because emotion and ego. Cap has to fool himself into thinking he is objective to continue his clandestine goal.

despite the fact that I have told you many times that I don't believe in what i do because of emotion, you still think I do... so which one of us is clinging to their belief because of emotion and ego?  

Brian37 wrote:

Humans have always made up deities/gods and falsely believed these fictional beings to be fact. Cap would love to think his pet god is special, but what is really going on is the mind trap he has allowed himself to fall for.

 

Humans have made up many things beyond deities and gods and falsely believed in them... yet for some reason Brian buys into everything but the god myths.  I'm surprised he's not a Mormon or a Jehovah's witness.  Talk about car salesmen.  Brians buying.  Sell quickly.. unless you won't do the work for him, then forget it.  

You have spent three years telling us your position is not based upon emotion, but funny how labs scare the shit out of you, well, independent labs at least. You have so much evidence that the world is beating down your door to make you the patient czar. Your "Nobel Prize" in "I HAVE THE SHIT" is nothing more than the man behind the curtain. I like you dude, I really do. But I wouldn't bet on your horse in the tri-fecta. Lousy odds.

You, "yea you could use that tire gauge to check the PSI of the tire , but this Harry Potter Broom will magically make it never go flat if you just "believe" my bullshit before it is tested independently."

I am quite sure you believe what you claim, but you are a fool to think out of human history that humanity could be saved, by you, by listing to you, instead of collectively using something beyond personal bias, something say like SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

You have no method. you have a pet claim, like some people like Star Trec and some people like Star Wars.

If what you had was credible, it would be taught along side mitosis and thermodynamics and could be universally understood beyond personal bias. What you have is a wish, a desire, and rooted in the worst book ever concocted by humans.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Uhm....that

Antipatris wrote:

Uhm....that Anom fella was addressing your OP, I think.

I know what Anom was addressing.  I was humored by the fact that Brian had a perfect opportunity to jump on and yet was more concerned about how they posted as they did.  

I planned on responding to it when I had more time.  Most posts on this forum are easy and quick... they don't require much thought... this one I would want to spend more time on.  Hopefully they're following and can respond.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anom wrote:I hate to tell

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

...so you're basing her faith off of who she uses to support her views in the book.  Granted certain perspectives of the people she interviewed may not agree with True Christianity, but Christians use the expertise of non-believers all the time to further a point.  That in no way decides whether they're a true follower of Christ or not.  To  decide a true Christian it's their walk and intentions that matter, not their perspective necessarily.

Anom wrote:

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

I believe holding onto the name is a heritage.  The basis of the following still must be concrete.  E.g. a Hindu Christ follower is not a Christian, but is a follower because they follow Christ in their walk and don't adhere to the opposing views of the religious Hindu.

Anom wrote:
 

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

is this your point of view?  Likely in reference to Rev. 21.1.  Granted I think most followers would accept the fact that Earth as we know it isn't going to be blown to bits and we believers be transported on a spaceship to the new Earth.  

It does seem to elude to the idea that Earth isn't going to look the same.  hence, new Earth likely is meant by reformation possibly.  

Anom wrote:

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Though i don't agree with everything, there was a lot I did agree with... what points exactly would you be referring to. 

Anom wrote:

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

It's hard to follow such a long random thread, but I don't.  True Christians investigate and study scripture and are not told what to believe by an entity or brainwashed by a particular group or sect.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Diversion

redneF wrote:

Diversion tactic.

The rebuttal was directed at your OP.

You're not addressing the rebuking of your OP.

heh... and see what happens when you make an assumption before addressing the issue.  Ya look like an idiot.  

So... is this a diversion tactic of your own as well... or are you just thinking really really hard about what you want to write in the debate thread.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Do you even understand what they just represented?  

Diversion tactic.

actually a question in reference to the post inviting a response as far as comprehension to the post is hardly a diversion tactic.. if anything, it brings more focus to the subject in question.  Do you even know what a diversion tactic is or do you just like typing the words in hopes that you might convince someone that I'm trying to divert.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I bet I already know your response. 

Diversion tactic.

yea, you just like typing the word. 

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Please shock this whole forum by writing something intelligent and not a repeat of something you've already said that brings no further ground for or against any belief.  

Why don't you give him a FRICKEN FOCUS???!!!!

uh... the focus here is the post genius. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap, your

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap, your response here, right from the beginning, is more like:

Us : show us what you think is your best car:

You: ok, here is a very good one.

Us: ( kick the tires, and the wheels fall off) That's not very good, doesn't seem like it will work.

You: That's not fair, you haven't tried to drive it.

Us: But its broken.

You: (hastily gets wheels reattached, invites us to sit in the driver's seat, and start it up)

Us: hmm, ok. (engine starts, then seizes up, stalls) It isn't drivable.

You: You didn't say what kind of car you want. I have a lot of different kinds.

Us : How about one that works and is going to keep working?

You: That's not fair., there are other criteria for being a good car, not just your opinion of what's important. This one looks very nice, at least to me.

And so on....

IOW, how about some actual independent, verifiable evidence that doesn't require us to buy into the lame idea of a divine being in the first place to be make sense of it?

I'd love to see what particular point I made that was "the wheels falling off"  this way we can talk about this poor excuse for verifiable evidence.  

I have offered many focuses.  My original scenario with the car still stands.  You've taken it one step further as to actually look at the car... sorry to say you haven't kicked any wheels yet.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You have spent

Brian37 wrote:

You have spent three years telling us your position is not based upon emotion, but funny how labs scare the shit out of you, well, independent labs at least.

labs scare who?  You've asked me to send you some God DNA.  I've asked you for a method of retrieving it and sending it so that I might be able to do that be it that you're so convinced that this is the sure fire verifiable way of studying God and yet you ran.  If you didn't run, then give me your methodology.  

Brian37 wrote:

You, "yea you could use that tire gauge to check the PSI of the tire , but this Harry Potter Broom will magically make it never go flat if you just "believe" my bullshit before it is tested independently."

heh. you're getting confused... that's the perspective you're trying to sell me.

Brian37 wrote:

I am quite sure you believe what you claim, but you are a fool to think out of human history that humanity could be saved, by you, by listing to you, instead of collectively using something beyond personal bias, something say like SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I have offered the scientific method... you again ran when confronted with your methodology.

Brian37 wrote:

You have no method. you have a pet claim, like some people like Star Trec and some people like Star Wars.

Right... and you like Spaceghost right?

Brian37 wrote:

If what you had was credible, it would be taught along side mitosis and thermodynamics and could be universally understood beyond personal bias. What you have is a wish, a desire, and rooted in the worst book ever concocted by humans.

Must be.  It's the only way you can sleep at night, right?  Strange that it is taught along side those topics in many schools around the world.... but of course not in your reality Brain.  What was I thinking