The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:no, of course you

Quote:
no, of course you didn't... are you going to use any of them in your defense, other than points like things evolved and were not created?  I mean legitimately pull out the meat in each and use it to defend your point of view

No it does not work that way.

Your "meat" is wishful thinking.

The "meat" of science is based on fact backed up by prior data.

I am not "defending" a "point of view" because it is not a "point of view". It is fact. The earth being a globe is a FACT that was PROVEN through testing and observation. The claim that the earth was flat required no testing and was merely "defended" because people liked the idea and falsely thought it was true.

"Point of view" would be "Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream" "Republicans vs Democrats"

FACTS are. Entropy, DNA, mitosis.

And YES we evolved, we were NOT created. Just like a hurricane is not created by an ocean god but evolves because of non cognitive conditions.

 

 

"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


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Hi, caposkia.

Look, I was a born-again christian for about 18 years. I saw various "new approaches" come and go. Remember the whole "Jabez Prayer" craze or the "name it, claim it" approach?

No matter how you try, you can't escape science!

I appreciate you trying to establish a new understanding by encouraging atheists to read the book, but it just won't work.

The basics remain: There is no god!

It doesn't matter who "won" the debate......go and have a browse in the "talkorigins" website. God is a man-made concept, science is reality.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FMStereo wrote:Look, I was a

FMStereo wrote:

Look, I was a born-again christian for about 18 years. I saw various "new approaches" come and go. Remember the whole "Jabez Prayer" craze or the "name it, claim it" approach?

No matter how you try, you can't escape science!

I appreciate you trying to establish a new understanding by encouraging atheists to read the book, but it just won't work.

The basics remain: There is no god!

It doesn't matter who "won" the debate......go and have a browse in the "talkorigins" website. God is a man-made concept, science is reality.

 

 

Cap here has been at it for 4 years, just in this thread. I got ya, and many people here were believers at one point. I really wish Cap would listen to you. But my sad guess is in his head you weren't a "true" trademark, copywrite "believer".

He doesn't want to see that WE are trying to help him out of his delusion. He is fighting it because of all the time he invested would be wasted if he found out he was wrong. What we are saying is yea you may have wasted your time believing, but when you realize it is all bullshit, you feel much better because you don't have to defend a comic book.

I hold out hope for him. Sometimes it takes years. It took me almost a decade to go from believing with certainty to using the word atheist to describe myself.

I hold out hope because something keeps bugging him to the point he keeps coming back. I hope if we have put a crack in his subconscious that the crack grows and he wakes up.

It really is all in his head, I only hope he doesn't waste the rest of his life on a mere superstition.

 

 

"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


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
That's just the thing

That's just the thing: I WAS a true believer. I was born-again, baptized with water and the "holy ghost" and even spoke in tongues!!!

Now I realize what happened: I was influenced by a group of christians and once they suck you in, that's the only world that makes sense to you. I'm not suggesting I was a poor victim, at the time I was just overwhelmed by the kindness and support they offered. To become born-again felt like the right thing to do.

The mistake I made was not bothering to actually distance myself and think about what I was doing.

One of the reasons christians keep at it is that they operate within a closed, monitored system. When you as a christian starts asking questions, you are labeled a doubter or backslider and therefore a sinner who must repent and turn back to god.

You end up where you started: back to being a christian.

I was lucky because when I got angry with something that happened at church, I didn't go and talk about ny anger with my pastor.

I decided to follow my own thoughts and I glad I did!

Lastly, it seems to me that Cap is sometimes caught in the middle of trying to defend his faith and knowing that there is something very wrong with that believe.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FMStereo wrote:That's just

FMStereo wrote:

That's just the thing: I WAS a true believer. I was born-again, baptized with water and the "holy ghost" and even spoke in tongues!!!

Now I realize what happened: I was influenced by a group of christians and once they suck you in, that's the only world that makes sense to you. I'm not suggesting I was a poor victim, at the time I was just overwhelmed by the kindness and support they offered. To become born-again felt like the right thing to do.

The mistake I made was not bothering to actually distance myself and think about what I was doing.

One of the reasons christians keep at it is that they operate within a closed, monitored system. When you as a christian starts asking questions, you are labeled a doubter or backslider and therefore a sinner who must repent and turn back to god.

You end up where you started: back to being a christian.

I was lucky because when I got angry with something that happened at church, I didn't go and talk about ny anger with my pastor.

I decided to follow my own thoughts and I glad I did!

Lastly, it seems to me that Cap is sometimes caught in the middle of trying to defend his faith and knowing that there is something very wrong with that believe.

 

 

The way Cap, and he can correct me if I am wrong, did not come to his theism this way.

My history with him in dealing with his argument which is quite common is "I am not like the others" and I suspect this is the doge he will use to avoid the commonality of what you and he did.

You both got sucked in. He confuses the differences as being important, when the reality you finally faced was "I didn't think about what I was doing".

It would be like a cop pulling you over for a DWI and you argue that you were drunk on beer while another driver says they were drunk on Vodka. Missing the point that you both got drunk and drinking and driving are bad no matter  what you got drunk on.

My understanding is that in his past some houses magically survived a fire(selection bias and bad sample rates), then he read the book he posted in the OP and that set his position in concrete.

You finally realized that you were drunk and merely liked what you believed. He hasn't gotten to that point yet. I hope he does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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: you can't

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match

caposkia wrote:
Keep on that plane of thinking, don't make conclusions on things you can't support.

Why are you deliberately avoiding being logical in drawing your conclusions?

The law of identity states that (a) is not (not a).

According to you a 'miracle' is not 'not a supernatural event' (aka 'a natural event')

By your own standards, a lack of discovering a natural event is not sufficient to conclude that it could not be a 'natural event'.

 

So, by your own standards, you have no rational justification to insist that 'natural events' cannot be the reasons why statistical anomalies occur, yet you not only insist there are 'miracles', but you build your entire life around these irrational conclusions.

To continually blather about your careful and methodical insistence on 'support' to avoid erroneous conclusions, in light of the fact that you obviously avoid intellectually honest 'due diligence' isn't surprising to me, however, it's your persistent characterizations of yourself as being 'thorough' in your investigations that clearly demonstrates a lack of self awareness.

 

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

6. I've been debunking the process by asking questions about the flaws in the process - where have you been? Oh yeah, you've been telling me that I haven't been doing research instead of defending your position. support your stance - don't make it easy on me. Oh wait... you don't like to look at opposing views. so much for checking one's understanding". Never mind.

Dude, I had answered some of your questions... but then you complain about taking my word on it. 

No.

The 'complaints' are about the fallacies that you use to 'support' your claims. Arguments from authority (The Vatican) are a fallacy. Arguments from personal experience are a fallacy.

Fallacies are neither 'evidence', 'support'. You cannot use these to rationally argue a claim is 'true'.

'Logic' is a bitch like that.

caposkia wrote:
So I tell you to go find the information yourself.

Ahhhh, the shifting of the burden.

Since you cannot defend your claim, attempt to send the 'non believer' on a wild goose chase to 'find' the evidence.

Is this the type of evidence that would win a Nobel Prize and rewrite our understanding of reality? You found it, but can't remember where it is??

Doesn't that make you a pathetic Christian? Isn't it your duty to be always prepared to defend your faith? Isn't that in the bible?

caposkia wrote:
Make up your mind...

He has. He's pointed out the fallacies you are using.

caposkia wrote:
...do you want me to defend what I have presented

It's your burden, so if the evidence fails 'due diligence' the answer is 'yes' you would have to defend it or admit you're not being logical.

caposkia wrote:
...or are you going to need more than my word on it?

Yes 'Father', I need more than simple 'testimony' to believe a claim...

caposkia wrote:
The best defense is the evidence the opposing side discovers on their own.

Then the question is why you aren't an atheist till there's sufficient evidence to logically conclude there is a supernatural deity?

caposkia wrote:
You're so sure you're in the right, give me something to investigate on this that will show me why this process is flawed to the point of discrediting any confirmed miracles by this entity.

You don't even need to go further than reading the abstract to see that the process is flawed. It's been shown to you by numerous different individuals, and should be something you as an adult can train yourself to spot.

How many times does the painfully obvious need to be pointed out to you before you accept reality?

caposkia wrote:
the Bible never discredits evolution, only inter-special evolution.

A bunch of ignorant long dead authors making claims about things they knew nothing about is not something worth rational consideration or reliance upon as 'factual'. The question is why do you people persist in doing it and thinking that you're on equal footing to debate and argue evidence, rigorous scientific inquiry and the theories derived from them?

Ignorant long dead authors writing about what each other's personal experiences or what they thought about isn't rational argumentation or evidence for or against our modern theories.

Why would you be so adamant that others should seriously consider convincing themselves that these are rational argumentation, as you have?

caposkia wrote:
Darwin himself has questioned his own conclusions on evolution.

Because he only developed the theory. That's how science works. You develop a theory, then find either mathematical proofs to confirm it, or evidence that will either support or falsify the theory. 

caposkia wrote:
everything we have tangibly requires material.

Does it?

So, are you claiming that everything that exists takes up space and has mass?

caposkia wrote:
  A dead person does not interact with the world because they are dead

Actually they do. Do you know anything about the conservation of energy?

caposkia wrote:
... but the Bible says they are not dead, only dead to the physical existence.

Let's be clear that claims made by a bunch of ignorant authors from thousands of years ago are not considered 'evidence' of anything but what they claimed. Using their 'claims' to justify their 'claims' is circular reasoning, completely irrational, and hardly 'scientific'.

caposkia wrote:
What is alive to us is something with a working physical body that can interact with the physical world around.

Now you've made the positive claim that what is 'alive' to us is 'something' (a) with a physical working body (b).

If you're intellectually honest, you should have arguments for that claim. I know Platinga has one. It has to do with being able to imagine yourself in the body of a beetle being 'sufficient' to prove that (a) and (b) are distinctly separate.

What's your argument?

caposkia wrote:
This is where the difference lies.

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

 

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


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Good post, Rednef.IMO, these

Good post, Rednef.

IMO, these low standards they rely on is caused by a fatal flaw which is a believe in a unseen, spiritual entity who's "rules" is provided in the bible, which is never questioned.

They usually never bother in actually investigating the unbiased evidence science provides.

We know that science don't have all the answers and christians use this as an argument. They don't realize that what is known can't be refuted by them.

It's hard to argue with an unseen spiritual entity!

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:We know that

FMStereo wrote:

We know that science don't have all the answers and christians use this as an argument. 

While exercising a ludicrous double standard in 'lack of evidence'.

It's their signature...

 

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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FMStereo wrote:Good post,

FMStereo wrote:

Good post, Rednef.

IMO, these low standards they rely on is caused by a fatal flaw which is a believe in a unseen, spiritual entity who's "rules" is provided in the bible, which is never questioned.

They usually never bother in actually investigating the unbiased evidence science provides.

We know that science don't have all the answers and christians use this as an argument. They don't realize that what is known can't be refuted by them.

It's hard to argue with an unseen spiritual entity!

 

Imaginations are the only thing that are "all powerful". Not in a real sense, but in the mental ability to make shit up and swallow it blindly.

Naked assertions don't require scrutiny. They can only be propped up by willful ignorance and credulity.

He keeps saying I don't have evidence that there isnt a god.

YES I DO,

The human brain exists. It has a structure. It is made of material. If that structure is damaged to the point where it fails, it is no longer capable of thought.

So to suggest that thoughts can occur without a physical process is FUCKING ABSURD.

It would be like claiming a hurricane can occur without a planet or atmosphere.

He doesn't want to accept that he is merely falling for his own wishful thinking and allowing his sense of awe to falsely do what the moth does in mistaking the light bulb for moonlight(Dawkins moth in the God Delusion)

He doesn't want to accept that he is not doing anything any differently than any other human in history that has made up gods in their image. It is mere anthropomorphism. He thinks that by proxy of popularity and tradition and the pretty stories in the babble make his super hero real.

It wasn't true when people thought the sun was a god. It wasn't true when people thought that Possiden controled the ocean. It wasn't true when humans thought vocanos could think like humans and got angrey at the humans. It wasn't true when Jews claimed Yahweh as the one true god, and his pet invisible non material super brain with magical super powers is no different.

You could argue about what "The Force" is. You could argue about what broom brand is best for Harry Potter to fly on, and it would still be bullshit.

He keeps coming back because he has nothing and doesn't want to face it. If he had something he could take it to the patent office and win a Nobel Prize. If he were being honest with himself he'd merely accept it as the fiction it really is. I hope someday he does. He'll feel lots better once he realizes he doesn't have to defend fiction.

 

 

 

"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'll take the

jcgadfly wrote:

I'll take the last part here. The problem is that you want me to find support for my position while at the same time accepting your unsupported assertions. 

That's not fair. I think you know that.

I do and though I've said it before, I'll say it again... that's not what I'm expecting of you.  I have simply given you an entity that claims to confirm miracles and I've asked you to show me how their method of confirming miracles of God is flawed.  I did not ask you to accept their method or the fact that miracles definitely do come from God, I didn't even ask you to accept the existence of God, only tear apart the methodology of an entity claiming the existence of God and His interaction in the world.  

You on the other hand have only defended yourself by coming up with excuses as noted above.  Excuses that are very obviously not true not only because I've repeatedly told you otherwise, but because I have shown that in my presentation.  I'm not Brain sitting here telling you that you're delusional because you won't accept my understanding of reality.

 You I am messing with a little bit now because you're getting a bit short sighted in your responses... I say this because I know you're capable of more.  I just want you to start being honest again, stop looking for excuses, just be honest and rational.   

jcgadfly wrote:

You also know that my questions were about more than a dead guy answering prayers. They also concerned the fact that the Church selects the people on the Consulta so it is far more likely that they will come up with conclusions that the Church wants to see. That is a question of bias which you answered with "No they don't" and refused to support it.

I mentioned your "dead guy answering prayers" thing because you presented it as if it was reasoning to believe the complete process to be flawed.  I clarified that though they may have their wires crossed, they're still thorough.  

Beyond that, sure, there could be bias in the Consulta, but my answer to "no they don't" also included the little piece written about how they use outside sources e.g. doctors and scientists that are not selected by the church.  Why do you feel you have to leave out those pieces of information?  Are you trying to figure this out or are you only trying to prove your understanding?  It seems to me the latter.   If so, then again, just be honest, you and I both know this is going nowhere if that's the case.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I also brought up how easy it is to fake miracles and the signs and wonders that the RCC is so fond of. Again, all I got from you was "No they don't".

I'm telling you they don't and the research supports it.  Let's put it this way, sure it's easy to fake miracles... its' also easy to fake a scientific discovery.  The catch is, when confronted on your findings, you must back yourself up... this applies to the church as well, soooooo.... though it's easy to fake, it brings no further ground to your case.  therefore:

Me:  no they don't

YOu:  but they could

Me:  But they don't

You:  there's no proof

Me: so investigate and show me, the evidence is out there. 

You:  it's not my burden

...and so it has been for 100's of years.  Will they ever stop?  only time will tell.

jcgadfly wrote:

I may not have a brain (in your view) but you've given up on using yours. Not sure if we have much more to discuss until that changes.

The problem is, I know you have a brain and the worst part is you know how to use it.. you seem to be accusing me of not using mine, but I have been.  I'm smart enough to know that I shouldn't waste my time explaining something to you when you're in the state of mind your in because instead of coming back with grounded information, you're aloft with hypotheticals and opinions that never bring progress to such a conversation as these.  

Let's put it this way... I know you have told me the most reasonable excuse for not accepting the existence of God, which is "I have yet to see any reasoning to believe..."   therefore, would a hypothetical like "God could be real" or an opinion like; "my life is the way it is because of God"  convince you to consider God further?  if your answer is "No" then why would you expect the same approach to work on me?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:no, of

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
no, of course you didn't... are you going to use any of them in your defense, other than points like things evolved and were not created?  I mean legitimately pull out the meat in each and use it to defend your point of view

No it does not work that way.

Your "meat" is wishful thinking.

The "meat" of science is based on fact backed up by prior data.

I am not "defending" a "point of view" because it is not a "point of view". It is fact. The earth being a globe is a FACT that was PROVEN through testing and observation. The claim that the earth was flat required no testing and was merely "defended" because people liked the idea and falsely thought it was true.

"Point of view" would be "Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream" "Republicans vs Democrats"

FACTS are. Entropy, DNA, mitosis.

And YES we evolved, we were NOT created. Just like a hurricane is not created by an ocean god but evolves because of non cognitive conditions.

 

...and yet, I'm STILL waiting for you to defend that with "the 'meat' of science"...  I would LOVE to have that conversation with you... I don't think you can do it.  Wait... I know you can't do it because I've been trying to pull that out of you for years.  Come back when you have something to back youself up with.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Look, I was a

FMStereo wrote:

Look, I was a born-again christian for about 18 years. I saw various "new approaches" come and go. Remember the whole "Jabez Prayer" craze or the "name it, claim it" approach?

No matter how you try, you can't escape science!

I appreciate you trying to establish a new understanding by encouraging atheists to read the book, but it just won't work.

The basics remain: There is no god!

It doesn't matter who "won" the debate......go and have a browse in the "talkorigins" website. God is a man-made concept, science is reality.

 

 

yea, I've looked at it all.. haven't seen anything yet that was substantial enough for me to consider it fact.  I'm still keeping an open mind though. 

If you research some of my threads, you'll notice I use science to support my understanding and am not trying to escape it.  
By you telling me you were a born-again Christian, it leads me to believe dispensationalism might have been a part of your past... that would explain why you've rejected it.  Am I on the right track with you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap here has

Brian37 wrote:

Cap here has been at it for 4 years, just in this thread. I got ya, and many people here were believers at one point. I really wish Cap would listen to you. But my sad guess is in his head you weren't a "true" trademark, copywrite "believer".

He doesn't want to see that WE are trying to help him out of his delusion. He is fighting it because of all the time he invested would be wasted if he found out he was wrong. What we are saying is yea you may have wasted your time believing, but when you realize it is all bullshit, you feel much better because you don't have to defend a comic book.

I hold out hope for him. Sometimes it takes years. It took me almost a decade to go from believing with certainty to using the word atheist to describe myself.

I hold out hope because something keeps bugging him to the point he keeps coming back. I hope if we have put a crack in his subconscious that the crack grows and he wakes up.

It really is all in his head, I only hope he doesn't waste the rest of his life on a mere superstition.

 

 

A good sign that someone is trying to support a delusion is by them trying to appeal to the masses.  Every time someone new comes on, you seem compelled to explain your perspective of me so that they might side with you and not actually try to think for themselves.  You'd make a good trial lawyer, that's for sure...

..."HAVE YOU BEEN INJURED DUE TO SOMEONE ELSES NEGLEGENCE???  CALL THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN.  HE WILL DEFEND YOU NO MATTER HOW IGNORANT YOU WERE IN THE INCIDENT.  HIS METHOD IS PESISTENCE.  IF YOU TELL A JURY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BELIEVE IT, SO YOUR CASE IS GUARANTEED."  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:That's just

FMStereo wrote:

That's just the thing: I WAS a true believer. I was born-again, baptized with water and the "holy ghost" and even spoke in tongues!!!

Now I realize what happened: I was influenced by a group of christians and once they suck you in, that's the only world that makes sense to you. I'm not suggesting I was a poor victim, at the time I was just overwhelmed by the kindness and support they offered. To become born-again felt like the right thing to do.

The mistake I made was not bothering to actually distance myself and think about what I was doing.

One of the reasons christians keep at it is that they operate within a closed, monitored system. When you as a christian starts asking questions, you are labeled a doubter or backslider and therefore a sinner who must repent and turn back to god.

You end up where you started: back to being a christian.

I was lucky because when I got angry with something that happened at church, I didn't go and talk about ny anger with my pastor.

I decided to follow my own thoughts and I glad I did!

Lastly, it seems to me that Cap is sometimes caught in the middle of trying to defend his faith and knowing that there is something very wrong with that believe.

I should have read this before I responded... you were a victim of dispensationalism.  That type of Christianity cannot be supported scripturally no matter what anyone wants to think.  I grew up Catholic, so I know what it's like.  Excommunication can be your fate if you dare question the authority of the church.  True followers accept that there are degrees of understanding and that even the highest of church members can be mistaken in their understanding, therefore, just as the Bible says, they constantly recheck their understanding and continuously learn more about what we follow and why.  

The reason why many churches are rejecting their community of churches like BCOA or CCU is because these are the churches that have discovered flaws in the teachings and understand that it would be nearly impossible to get the entities to change their doctrine.  Some churches stay a part of the unit to be a thorn in their side in hopes that they would eventually change the core doctrine of the following.  Either way, constant investigation and study is followed all the time by true followers.  

I'm not caught in the middle, I am sure of what i know, but on here, I've expressed that I will keep an open mind.  So much so that at times it may seem that I'm being washy in my belief.  I assure you, I am only trying to keep perspective on truth and not questioning what I know yet... that doesn't mean that I'm right... it only means I have no reason to doubt what I know at this time.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The way Cap,

Brian37 wrote:

The way Cap, and he can correct me if I am wrong, did not come to his theism this way.

My history with him in dealing with his argument which is quite common is "I am not like the others" and I suspect this is the doge he will use to avoid the commonality of what you and he did.

You both got sucked in. He confuses the differences as being important, when the reality you finally faced was "I didn't think about what I was doing".

It would be like a cop pulling you over for a DWI and you argue that you were drunk on beer while another driver says they were drunk on Vodka. Missing the point that you both got drunk and drinking and driving are bad no matter  what you got drunk on.

My understanding is that in his past some houses magically survived a fire(selection bias and bad sample rates), then he read the book he posted in the OP and that set his position in concrete.

You finally realized that you were drunk and merely liked what you believed. He hasn't gotten to that point yet. I hope he does.

 

 

well you are mistaken about those 2 things "setting my position in concrete"  The house was only one example of a miracle I accepted due to circumstances of the situation and how it happened (based on what reasons do I have to believe personally)  and the book was just to initiate conversation... I'd say it worked.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

*edit*

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

nice to see you again.  Why do you even bother?  The second I mention something that might make you think, you disappear.  I already have a Brian to entertain me.  if you want to have a conversation, pick something, support it and stick with it.  Until then, good day *tips hat*

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: you can't

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

redneF wrote:

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

*edit*

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

caposkia wrote:
if you want to have a conversation, pick something, support it and stick with it. 

Sure.

Here goes:

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

redneF wrote:

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

*edit*

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

caposkia wrote:
Until then, good day *tips hat*

Was there a rebuttal in there somewhere to what you quoted from me? 

 

 

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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

*edit*

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

nice to see you again.  Why do you even bother?  The second I mention something that might make you think, you disappear.  I already have a Brian to entertain me.  if you want to have a conversation, pick something, support it and stick with it.  Until then, good day *tips hat*

No this website has you to entertain us. We are not the ones claiming invisible magical super heros with no brain or material, you are. The only thing I can give you credit for is sticking around for so long. But being brave trying to cling to a myth is not a virtue.

 

 

 

"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
if you want to have a conversation, pick something, support it and stick with it. 

Sure.

Here goes:

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

redneF wrote:

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

If I did, then I very well couldn't tell you as I did without being a hypocrite.  If you've read some of my posts, you'd already know this about me.  You've appeared and disappeared enough times to have had time to review some of our conversations... one would think.  

So by your assumption above, I would assume that you would not accept that line of reasoning then right?   I would agree with you there.... so where to from here?  

redneF wrote:

*edit*

In your estimation.

I don't hold to circular reasoning.

Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?

I can't explain that because I don't.  You also know this about me... or at least should.  Maybe it's the "ignorance is bliss" state of mind.  Would you agree to this?    

Next case


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No this

Brian37 wrote:

No this website has you to entertain us.

OH excuse me!  Let's agree we entertain each other

Brian37 wrote:

We are not the ones claiming invisible magical super heros with no brain or material, you are.

No, but you are claiming a reality based on personal thought. 

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing I can give you credit for is sticking around for so long. But being brave trying to cling to a myth is not a virtue.

Hey, what can I say!  You entertain me and every once in a while someone comes by that actually knows why they believe what they do and so a legitimate conversation ensues.  for those reasons, it's worth sticking around.  


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

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
if you want to have a conversation, pick something, support it and stick with it. 

Sure.

Here goes:

caposkia wrote:
you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.

redneF wrote:

You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.

That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.

Hypocrite much?

-Game

-Set

-Match...............................

If I did, then I very well couldn't tell you as I did without being a hypocrite. 

You posted a response that clearly shows a double standard in judgment. This was in response to you attempting to shift the burden to anyone who would correctly conclude that there are no scientifically confirmed supernatural events.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
I would assume that you would not accept that line of reasoning then right?  

I don't accept a fallacious argument, no.

caposkia wrote:
I would agree with you there...

Obviously not. You keep using fallacious arguments, and we keep pointing out the fallacies.

This isn't anything new in this thread, or in Christian apologetics where fallacies are de rigueur, and why so many people who question whether their beliefs in gods are 'true' or even simply 'justifiable' are becoming 'godless'.

caposkia wrote:
...so where to from here? 

To demonstrate why should anyone believe in the supernatural, and the Christian god.

If there are good reasons, then they should be forthcoming. If you can't provide them, then concede.

Your 'focus' should be on the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian god.

Your dance of shifting the burden onto the reader (of what you claim are powerful reasons) to 'provide' you with a more narrow 'focus', is pure bunk.

The 'reader' is not obligated to provide you with anything but an ear to bend.

 

We're all ears...

 

 

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


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Your mistake

Your mistake is thinking that you're on the right track with your version of christianity. I had the same idea once. I wasn't scared of being sanctioned by the church because I wasn't even a member of the congregation, it wasn't even required. So, in a sense, I was a "free agent" like you. Also, questioning my "brand" of christianity by implying that it wasn't scripture- based, is a mistake. 

You know what?: Any viewpoint you believe in can be supported by reading the bible as you want to read it. Hell, I remember a time when "apartheid" was preached in certain South-African churches as being a doctrine from god (I'm South-African), supported with scripture!

No matter how you try to dress-up christianity, it won't change the fact that there are no gods.

Or have you found scientific proof to the contrary?


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Imaginations are the only thing that are "all powerful". Not in a real sense, but in the mental ability to make shit up and swallow it blindly.

Naked assertions don't require scrutiny. They can only be propped up by willful ignorance and credulity.

He keeps saying I don't have evidence that there isnt a god.

YES I DO,

The human brain exists. It has a structure. It is made of material. If that structure is damaged to the point where it fails, it is no longer capable of thought.

So to suggest that thoughts can occur without a physical process is FUCKING ABSURD.

It would be like claiming a hurricane can occur without a planet or atmosphere.

He doesn't want to accept that he is merely falling for his own wishful thinking and allowing his sense of awe to falsely do what the moth does in mistaking the light bulb for moonlight(Dawkins moth in the God Delusion)

He doesn't want to accept that he is not doing anything any differently than any other human in history that has made up gods in their image. It is mere anthropomorphism. He thinks that by proxy of popularity and tradition and the pretty stories in the babble make his super hero real.

It wasn't true when people thought the sun was a god. It wasn't true when people thought that Possiden controled the ocean. It wasn't true when humans thought vocanos could think like humans and got angrey at the humans. It wasn't true when Jews claimed Yahweh as the one true god, and his pet invisible non material super brain with magical super powers is no different.

You could argue about what "The Force" is. You could argue about what broom brand is best for Harry Potter to fly on, and it would still be bullshit.

He keeps coming back because he has nothing and doesn't want to face it. If he had something he could take it to the patent office and win a Nobel Prize. If he were being honest with himself he'd merely accept it as the fiction it really is. I hope someday he does. He'll feel lots better once he realizes he doesn't have to defend fiction.

 

 

 

Brian,

Don't you believe in things you cannot see?

You say there can be no hurricanes without planets and that makes sense. There can be no war also with such things.

But the book of Revelations talks about war in heaven. We cannot see such things but scripture tells us they happen. That is what enlightens us. You know we don't know everything and that is why Jesus came to earth to educate us and teach us to love one other. He pulled back the curtain on things we can not even imagine with our "all powerful" imaginations.

Blessings.

John 3:16


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume wrote:Brian37

nomdeplume wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Imaginations are the only thing that are "all powerful". Not in a real sense, but in the mental ability to make shit up and swallow it blindly.

Naked assertions don't require scrutiny. They can only be propped up by willful ignorance and credulity.

He keeps saying I don't have evidence that there isnt a god.

YES I DO,

The human brain exists. It has a structure. It is made of material. If that structure is damaged to the point where it fails, it is no longer capable of thought.

So to suggest that thoughts can occur without a physical process is FUCKING ABSURD.

It would be like claiming a hurricane can occur without a planet or atmosphere.

He doesn't want to accept that he is merely falling for his own wishful thinking and allowing his sense of awe to falsely do what the moth does in mistaking the light bulb for moonlight(Dawkins moth in the God Delusion)

He doesn't want to accept that he is not doing anything any differently than any other human in history that has made up gods in their image. It is mere anthropomorphism. He thinks that by proxy of popularity and tradition and the pretty stories in the babble make his super hero real.

It wasn't true when people thought the sun was a god. It wasn't true when people thought that Possiden controled the ocean. It wasn't true when humans thought vocanos could think like humans and got angrey at the humans. It wasn't true when Jews claimed Yahweh as the one true god, and his pet invisible non material super brain with magical super powers is no different.

You could argue about what "The Force" is. You could argue about what broom brand is best for Harry Potter to fly on, and it would still be bullshit.

He keeps coming back because he has nothing and doesn't want to face it. If he had something he could take it to the patent office and win a Nobel Prize. If he were being honest with himself he'd merely accept it as the fiction it really is. I hope someday he does. He'll feel lots better once he realizes he doesn't have to defend fiction.

 

 

 

Brian,

Don't you believe in things you cannot see?

You say there can be no hurricanes without planets and that makes sense. There can be no war also with such things.

But the book of Revelations talks about war in heaven. We cannot see such things but scripture tells us they happen. That is what enlightens us. You know we don't know everything and that is why Jesus came to earth to educate us and teach us to love one other. He pulled back the curtain on things we can not even imagine with our "all powerful" imaginations.

Blessings.

John 3:16

See if you can spot the pattern.

"The bible says, so therefore the bible is true"

"The Koran says, so therefor the Koran is true"

"The Torah/Talmud say, so therefore they are true"

It's called "circular reasoning" and even before you get to those comic books, you are STILL starting with the naked assertion that  magical invisible super brain with no material exists.

You could argue the god of the Ancient Egyptians in the sun being a deity, but since the sun is not shaped nor does function like a human brain, it is a stupid ignorant claim. You have even less to point at than they did.

Thoughts require a material process, thus making ALL CLAIMS of non-material super brains ABSURD bullshit claims. God/s god/ deity/entity/super natural, are all the placebo fantasy wishful thinking gap answers humans invent because they merely like the idea of a super hero.

So while picking apart the verses in any comic book of myth, ANY, can be fun for the atheist, it is irrelevant because the god itself is not provable. If I wrote a book claiming snarfwidgets were real, would it be true simply because I wrote it in a book?

"My bible says"........Don't care. Muslims quote their books. Jews quote their books. Hindus and Buddhists quote their superstitious writings too. Quoting a writing of myth is hardly impressive, no matter who is doing it or what pet god they claim. You might as well be quoting Harry Potter or Star wars to me.

 

 

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


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
 Brian,Everyone knows Harry

 Brian,

Everyone knows Harry Potter and Star Wars were written as fiction. But scripture is different. It was written by men who experienced God and subsequent generations who felt the same presence. It is clear evidence of the unseen, mankind's yearning for God. God has spoken to each culture even as He is now speaking to you. If you look inside you will see a need, we call it a God hole. If you come to church and worship you will feel that presence and be satisfied. All scripture is collections of mankind's experience with God. God cannot be codified, only worshipped and felt. We are finite and don't always comprehend what He is telling us and that accounts for the differences. But studies have shown that if you take away the top layers and personalities religions all say the same thing. Love God, keep His commandments and love your neighbor as yourself.

Blessings.

John 3:16


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

nomdeplume wrote:

 Brian,

Everyone knows Harry Potter and Star Wars were written as fiction. But scripture is different. It was written by men who experienced God and subsequent generations who felt the same presence. It is clear evidence of the unseen, mankind's yearning for God. God has spoken to each culture even as He is now speaking to you. If you look inside you will see a need, we call it a God hole. If you come to church and worship you will feel that presence and be satisfied. All scripture is collections of mankind's experience with God. God cannot be codified, only worshipped and felt. We are finite and don't always comprehend what He is telling us and that accounts for the differences. But studies have shown that if you take away the top layers and personalities religions all say the same thing. Love God, keep His commandments and love your neighbor as yourself.

Blessings.

John 3:16

1. The bible is different because you say it is? Got anything else?

2. Many of us have been to church and worshipped. Some have even filled the God shaped hole with God. When that didn't work as advertised and promised, we gave it up. Some of us (myself included) keep going back to it in the hope that God will actually get around to keeping his promises. I, for one, would really like to see God keep his word. Still waiting...

3. God cannot be codified yet we have a book called the Bible that you claim codifies him?

4. Which God? Whose commandments? Modern Christianity (the one that spends more time on Paul than Jesus) doesn't have love your neighbor as yourself as a necessary thing.

"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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume

nomdeplume wrote:

 Brian,

Everyone knows Harry Potter and Star Wars were written as fiction. But scripture is different. It was written by men who experienced God and subsequent generations who felt the same presence. It is clear evidence of the unseen, mankind's yearning for God. God has spoken to each culture even as He is now speaking to you. If you look inside you will see a need, we call it a God hole. If you come to church and worship you will feel that presence and be satisfied. All scripture is collections of mankind's experience with God. God cannot be codified, only worshipped and felt. We are finite and don't always comprehend what He is telling us and that accounts for the differences. But studies have shown that if you take away the top layers and personalities religions all say the same thing. Love God, keep His commandments and love your neighbor as yourself.

Blessings.

John 3:16

YES they are different. One is known fiction, the other is fiction sold as fact. But both ARE fiction.

What you call a "God hole" we call "god of the gaps". It is gap filling out of willful ignorance. It is pretending to be special. It is wanting a super hero. Nothing more.

Quote:
religions all say the same thing.

And that should tell you something. That human morals do not come out of a label or religion or invisible friend. Human actions, both good and bad, are a result of human evolution in no need of comic book super heros vs super villains. Your fictional friend you falsely believe to be real, did not invent human behavior.

Do you think because someone isn't a Christian that they would simply have orgies on the street and rape and rob people? If they don't do that, and out of the 7 billion on this planet, plenty who don't hold your label are perfectly decent, including atheist. Which proves that your pet god and the comic book that claims he exists is not needed to live life.

Neither Allah, Vishnu, Jesus or Yahweh are needed to be a decent human. Gods are not needed to live life. Our species was around and survived long before those fictional beings were invented, and our species can and will survive if people give up on them.

Wanting your super hero to be real, and popularity of belief, does not constitute evidence, otherwise the earth would be flat, I've left the superstitious caves, and you can too, you just don't want to because the idea of having a magic daddy in the sky appeals to you.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: If you come to church

Quote:
If you come to church and worship you will feel that presence and be satisfied.

I've gotten an emotional "high" listening to the roar of the crowd  being at a Redskins Cowboys game. That intense feeling was fun, but it didn't mean it was "my team" or that my life would mean less if I wasn't a Redskins fan.

If someone is having a good time shooting heroine, does that mean you should too?

You simply fell for the emotional appeal to the environment. You fell for the emotional appeal of being surrounded by like minded people making emotional connections through group think. If "worship" were evidence, and popularity were evidence, then you should be a Muslim because they worship too and they have far more in numbers. I am sure they experience the same warmth going to a mosque you do in going to a church.

You wouldn't simply become a Muslim because you went to Mecca and experienced their fellowship. Now, apply that logic in rejecting claims of Allah and feeling "Allah's presence" AND apply that same logic to your "feelings".

It is merely mistaking your "sense of awe" as being something magical. I have a sense of awe too. I have it when hug my mom. I have it when I pet my cat. I have it when I see a pretty sunset. I have it when I go to atheist conventions. What I don't do is assign that sense of awe to non existent things.

You see a bunch of other people connecting and have a desire to belong to something, and conflate what is in reality, merely being social, to a magic man in the sky existing.

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other god claims besides yours, you will understand why I reject yours as well.

 

 

"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


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. The bible

jcgadfly wrote:
1. The bible is different because you say it is? Got anything else?

2. Many of us have been to church and worshipped. Some have even filled the God shaped hole with God. When that didn't work as advertised and promised, we gave it up. Some of us(myself included) keep going back to it in the hope that God will actually get around to keeping his promises. I, for one, would really like to see God keep his word. Still waiting...

3. God cannot be codified yet we have a book called the Bible that you claim codifies him?

4. Which God? Whose commandments? Modern Christianity (the one that spends more time on Paul than Jesus) doesn't have love your neighbor as yourself as a necessary thing.

It is not me who says it's different, everyone says it's different, including you Mr. Jesus Christ Gadfly. Why are you do focused on Jesus if he is the same as Harry Potter? There must be something there. It shows mankind's need for god that you either love Him or you struggle with Him. You have always resisted and that is why you have never found satisfaction in the Lord. You and Brian are trying too hard. Relax, your salvation has already been won. Only acceptance is necessary. Don't focus on those who don't rather focus on those who do.

Blessings.

John 3:16


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

nomdeplume wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. The bible is different because you say it is? Got anything else?

2. Many of us have been to church and worshipped. Some have even filled the God shaped hole with God. When that didn't work as advertised and promised, we gave it up. Some of us(myself included) keep going back to it in the hope that God will actually get around to keeping his promises. I, for one, would really like to see God keep his word. Still waiting...

3. God cannot be codified yet we have a book called the Bible that you claim codifies him?

4. Which God? Whose commandments? Modern Christianity (the one that spends more time on Paul than Jesus) doesn't have love your neighbor as yourself as a necessary thing.

It is not me who says it's different, everyone says it's different, including you Mr. Jesus Christ Gadfly. Why are you do focused on Jesus if he is the same as Harry Potter? There must be something there. It shows mankind's need for god that you either love Him or you struggle with Him. You have always resisted and that is why you have never found satisfaction in the Lord. You and Brian are trying too hard. Relax, your salvation has already been won. Only acceptance is necessary. Don't focus on those who don't rather focus on those who do.

Blessings.

John 3:16

1. Why are we focused on Jesus if he's as fictitious as Harry Potter? Because, unlike Harry Potter, fans of the Bible are trying to pass laws using those archaic ideas. 

2. Before I can accept salvation I'd like to know what I'm being saved from and (if it's hell) why God felt it necessary to create the situation that he wants to save me from?

3. You've spent a lot of time on the last question - do you not have am answer for the others?

"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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume wrote:jcgadfly

nomdeplume wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. The bible is different because you say it is? Got anything else?

2. Many of us have been to church and worshipped. Some have even filled the God shaped hole with God. When that didn't work as advertised and promised, we gave it up. Some of us(myself included) keep going back to it in the hope that God will actually get around to keeping his promises. I, for one, would really like to see God keep his word. Still waiting...

3. God cannot be codified yet we have a book called the Bible that you claim codifies him?

4. Which God? Whose commandments? Modern Christianity (the one that spends more time on Paul than Jesus) doesn't have love your neighbor as yourself as a necessary thing.

It is not me who says it's different, everyone says it's different, including you Mr. Jesus Christ Gadfly. Why are you do focused on Jesus if he is the same as Harry Potter? There must be something there. It shows mankind's need for god that you either love Him or you struggle with Him. You have always resisted and that is why you have never found satisfaction in the Lord. You and Brian are trying too hard. Relax, your salvation has already been won. Only acceptance is necessary. Don't focus on those who don't rather focus on those who do.

Blessings.

John 3:16

First off, I was the one who equated Jesus to Harry Potter. It is an apt analogy. Flying around on brooms is a fantastic claim. Virgin births are fantastic claims(fyi, Christianity was not the first to claim purity birth).  Surviving death and rising from the dead is also a fantastic claim. Again, the only difference between Harry Potter and Jesus is that the hocus pocus of Harry Potter is known fiction, and the hocus pocus of the magical Jesus is falsely believed to be fact. Both are fiction.

Quote:
Relax, your salvation has already been won. Only acceptance is necessary. Don't focus on those who don't rather focus on those who do.

As strictly a claim, going by your assertion, If I've already been saved, then why would I need to accept it? If the choice has already been made for me, how can I change that? If you value being a puppet controlled by a puppet master, thats on you. I don't need a fictional super hero to live my life.

I do focus on those who do, I focus on reality. I focus on those who do prove their claims instead of simply spewing them. That is why humans don't believe the earth is flat. Those who studied the stars DID, and because of such we no longer think the earth is the center of the universe. THAT IS DOING.

Theism teaches you DON'T THINK, DON'T QUESTION. It teaches you to be satisfied with myth. If you are satisfied with falsely believing there is a magical super hero and you are a chosen person, I cant stop you via government. But I DO value challenging such absurd claims and I DO IT all the time.

 

"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


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Gadfly, (1)So you are

Gadfly, (1)So you are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Under that logic we should reject atheism because of Communism. Again follow those who do, not those who don't. And besides aren't you atheist trying to change the laws also? (2)What are you being saved from? You are being saved from death and the torture of rejecting your Creator. My dear mother died when I was 14, in fact on my birthday. I miss her dearly and a day doesn't go back where she isn't in my thoughts. When I close my eyes in death, I will reopen them and I know her face will be the first I see. That is what my faith in Jesus gives me. My Redeemer liveth. If atheism can give me a better promise and comfort I would join. (3) I think I covered the other questions before. All scripture is men's views of God. I heard it like this. There were 5 blind men standing around an elephant. One man said the elephant is like a strong tree trunk. Another said no he is like a small twig with hair on the end. Another said no he stands above the ground and is very large. You see what I mean? We only can see so much of God as individuals. But the larger picture is the true one. You can feel such a thing in yourself if you look deep enough and stop trying so hard. The God hole is in everyman and what is more beautiful than this: Philippians 4:4-8 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which >>> transcends all understanding <<<<, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian,Flying around on a

Brian,

Flying around on a broom is not a spiritual truth. From all scripture we learn how to live for this life and for the life to come. Salvation has been won, but our part is to accept it. We create our own hell by rejecting it. That is what you are doing. Hell is not being with God. Once you truly accept Him life falls into place. There is no struggle anymore, just hope, faith and love. We still have trials but we can see the big picture. It allows us TO think. Our head is no longer cluttered with the pain and suffering of this life. We know it is for a moment and have great comfort from it. Atheism cannot do that for you. This is what the ancients have taught us. We are more advanced these days for sure, but not in spiritual things. God revealed those important things to us long ago. We can get from A to B much faster these days but the important things in life are all the same whether you were born today or thousands of years ago. Understanding we are not on a flat earth is good, but doesn't make us better people.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
nomdeplume wrote: So you are

nomdeplume wrote:
So you are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater? 

No.

We just throw out the bathwater.

When you can't distinguish between something that's imagined to exist and something that doesn't exist at all, it's obviously irrelevant.

nomdeplume wrote:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Why would you assume that people who don't model their thoughts after yours not think about 'such' things?

Paranoid much?...

 

 

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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume

nomdeplume wrote:

Brian,

Flying around on a broom is not a spiritual truth. From all scripture we learn how to live for this life and for the life to come. Salvation has been won, but our part is to accept it. We create our own hell by rejecting it. That is what you are doing. Hell is not being with God. Once you truly accept Him life falls into place. There is no struggle anymore, just hope, faith and love. We still have trials but we can see the big picture. It allows us TO think. Our head is no longer cluttered with the pain and suffering of this life. We know it is for a moment and have great comfort from it. Atheism cannot do that for you. This is what the ancients have taught us. We are more advanced these days for sure, but not in spiritual things. God revealed those important things to us long ago. We can get from A to B much faster these days but the important things in life are all the same whether you were born today or thousands of years ago. Understanding we are not on a flat earth is good, but doesn't make us better people.

You are deliberately dodging my point. Flying around on a broom is scientifically impossible. All the claims in the bible of Jesus's magic tricks are scientifically impossible. Not to mention the claim of a disembodied magical super brain in the sky, is impossible. "Spiritual truth" is no more than your willful ignorance and wishful thinking "I like what I believe'.

And FYI, you are preaching, not debating. The guy who started this thread Caposkia is at least trying to debate.

If you are going to preach, spare us and yourself from wasting your time.

"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:You posted a

redneF wrote:

You posted a response that clearly shows a double standard in judgment. This was in response to you attempting to shift the burden to anyone who would correctly conclude that there are no scientifically confirmed supernatural events.

If you claim it, I will challange it.  Doesn't mean I accept the standard, only that someone claimed they knew there was no supernatural events... in order to claim that, they must have some sort of scientifically confirmed study, otherwise, it's opinion and nothing more.  

redneF wrote:

Obviously not. You keep using fallacious arguments, and we keep pointing out the fallacies.

well same here, but instead of confronting them, you cry "shift of burden".   but please, humor me... point those fallacies out again.. and back them up this time.. dont' run either... it's not becoming of you.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...so where to from here? 

To demonstrate why should anyone believe in the supernatural, and the Christian god.

from what angle would you like?

redneF wrote:

If there are good reasons, then they should be forthcoming. If you can't provide them, then concede.

of course... i would expect the same for you with anything you claim as fact.

redneF wrote:

Your 'focus' should be on the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian god.

the "best" reason is subjective.  What works is what focus is of interest to the person... be it that this is not strictly a scientific, historical, archealogical etc. focus, it could take many different paths.

redneF wrote:

Your dance of shifting the burden onto the reader (of what you claim are powerful reasons) to 'provide' you with a more narrow 'focus', is pure bunk.

The burden is not on the reader, but on the challenger... if you're going to tell me, "prove God"... I'm going to ask you what you're looking for.  if you're vague, I will ask you to be more specific.  The thing is, if all the scholarly Christians of the world got together and decided to write books on "the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian God"  I believe there would have to be a whole library dedicated to such a focus.  In other words, it's not really a focus.  With that said, I don't know how you expect me to pull a page out of a random book in this library and expect it to be sufficient for you.  It doesn't work that way.  

redneF wrote:

The 'reader' is not obligated to provide you with anything but an ear to bend.

maybe if I was writing a book and not to any one person in particular.

redneF wrote:

 

We're all ears...

The truth can't be told to you unless you're willing to hear it.   

in the case of your broad question, its' a 2 way conversation... it's not you ask a question and me write you a book.  

if you have a new scientific idea that you want to share with the scientific community, sure you could write a book about it, but a conversation will still ensue because people are going to have questions and you're going to need clarification for understanding.  Either way, to just ask a question places burden on the question bearer to further clarify if too vague or not understood.  In your case, it's too vague due to the subjectivity of proof due to the spectrum of focuses that can be considered for proof.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Your mistake

FMStereo wrote:

Your mistake is thinking that you're on the right track with your version of christianity. I had the same idea once. I wasn't scared of being sanctioned by the church because I wasn't even a member of the congregation, it wasn't even required. So, in a sense, I was a "free agent" like you. Also, questioning my "brand" of christianity by implying that it wasn't scripture- based, is a mistake. 

You know what?: Any viewpoint you believe in can be supported by reading the bible as you want to read it. Hell, I remember a time when "apartheid" was preached in certain South-African churches as being a doctrine from god (I'm South-African), supported with scripture!

No matter how you try to dress-up christianity, it won't change the fact that there are no gods.

Or have you found scientific proof to the contrary?

I have expressed scientific reasoning in the past along with other avenues of focus.  The latest scientific approach was of a Quantum understanding... not sure where you stand on that.  

To address your post specifically, all "versions of Chrsitianity" are scripture based... Scripture based does not mean they're accurate, only based on scripture.  If they weren't there would be no way of labeling them Christian or the like.  

You seem to understand my position.  I know many people who are in my same position and are believers... I also am friends with people who are or were in my same position that are non-believers.  

I agree with you that any viewpoint can be supported by reading the Bible as you want to read it... "the truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it"... this is also an implication that you're going to believe what you want to and not necessarily what is true.  

The thing is, I never ask anyone to prove a negative, but when they claim as you do and I quote "it won't change the fact that there are no gods", the statement claims you have at least reasoning if not proof behind the statement, otherwise, you're telling me an opinion and you can't claim it as fact.  Do you?  scientific or otherwise.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
nomdeplume

nomdeplume wrote:

Brian,

Flying around on a broom is not a spiritual truth. From all scripture we learn how to live for this life and for the life to come. Salvation has been won, but our part is to accept it. We create our own hell by rejecting it. That is what you are doing. Hell is not being with God. Once you truly accept Him life falls into place. There is no struggle anymore, just hope, faith and love. We still have trials but we can see the big picture. It allows us TO think. Our head is no longer cluttered with the pain and suffering of this life. We know it is for a moment and have great comfort from it. Atheism cannot do that for you. This is what the ancients have taught us. We are more advanced these days for sure, but not in spiritual things. God revealed those important things to us long ago. We can get from A to B much faster these days but the important things in life are all the same whether you were born today or thousands of years ago. Understanding we are not on a flat earth is good, but doesn't make us better people.

Hi, glad you're here.  Can always use a new perspective.  It's good to know that many on this thread have had a religious experience and background, but have rejected it due to one reason or another, many cases, it has to do with their studies into sciences or history and how the Bible and those avenues don't fit together.   this would be likely based on a dispenstionalist upbringing, which not only doesn't coenside with history or science, but the Bible as well.  

I started with this focus and have turned to focusing on their accepted avenues.  Certain individuals as you've found out are really good at talking, but not showing reasoning for understanding.... this is where I am trying to show them where thinking needs to start... it's all good to have differing beliefs, it's what keeps us on our toes and assured of what we know to be true, but when confronted, it is a perfect time to reflect on what we think we know and reinvestigate.  This way truth reveils itself to us.

God Bless

1 John 3:16 Eye-wink

 


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

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

You posted a response that clearly shows a double standard in judgment. This was in response to you attempting to shift the burden to anyone who would correctly conclude that there are no scientifically confirmed supernatural events.

If you claim it, I will challange it. 

I know that.

The problem is your double standards. 

caposkia wrote:
Doesn't mean I accept the standard

I know that.

The problem again is your double standards, and attempts to prop up pseudo scientific speculations and ad/post hoc reasonings.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Obviously not. You keep using fallacious arguments, and we keep pointing out the fallacies.

well same here

You'll need to demonstrate where you think I've argued using a fallacy.

caposkia wrote:
...but instead of confronting them, you cry "shift of burden". 

Ummm, by pointing out a shifting of burden, I have confronted your claims.

caposkia wrote:
...but please, humor me...

Why? Because you said 'please'?...

caposkia wrote:
point those fallacies out again..

Why would I spend the time to go back, copy/paste what's there in black and white, and put them in another post, just because you're too lazy to simply re-read them?

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

If there are good reasons, then they should be forthcoming. If you can't provide them, then concede.

of course...

Still waiting...

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Your 'focus' should be on the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian god.

...the "best" reason is subjective. 

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Still waiting...

caposkia wrote:
What works is what focus is of interest to the person...

I'm interested in those theories that can be falsified, and that have met their burden of proof, so far.

That should help narrow it down.

Got anything like that?...

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Your dance of shifting the burden onto the reader (of what you claim are powerful reasons) to 'provide' you with a more narrow 'focus', is pure bunk.

The burden is not on the reader, but on the challenger...

You are using incompatible words interchangeably. You are labelling the 'skeptic' as the 'challenger', hoping that will allow you to shift the burden away from you and your 'superstitiousness'.

caposkia wrote:
 The thing is, if all the scholarly Christians of the world got together and decided to write books on "the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian God"  I believe there would have to be a whole library dedicated to such a focus. 

That's why it's called a 'faith'. Because people are 'hoping' the absence of evidence isn't actually evidence of absence.

caposkia wrote:
 With that said, I don't know how you expect me to pull a page out of a random book in this library and expect it to be sufficient for you. 

Because I can give you a simple theory that greatly undermines religious claims and rational justifications for invoking a 'supernatural creator'.

It's called 'Evolution By Natural Selection'. 

caposkia wrote:
 It doesn't work that way.

Ya, it does, actually...

caposkia wrote:
The truth can't be told to you unless you're willing to hear it. 
 

That's not a problem here.

I'm willing to hear it.

 

Again, the problem is not with 'skepticism'.

Skepticism has long been justified.

Science has long been justified.

Theology has obviously never actually been justifiable.

The cosmological and biological 'god' claims are in direct competition with science.

Science places the burder of proof squarely on it's own shoulders and shows the evidence that justifies higher and higher probablities being given to naturalistic explanations on the mechanics of 'reality', the 'origins' of humans, and less and less reasons to invoke gods.

 

So, do you have any rational justification to reject the high probablities given to naturalistic explanations of the cosmos and biological life, or was this thread mainly a shill for Becky Garrison's book?

Are you Becky Garrison?

 

 

 

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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:nomdeplume

caposkia wrote:

nomdeplume wrote:

Brian,

Flying around on a broom is not a spiritual truth. From all scripture we learn how to live for this life and for the life to come. Salvation has been won, but our part is to accept it. We create our own hell by rejecting it. That is what you are doing. Hell is not being with God. Once you truly accept Him life falls into place. There is no struggle anymore, just hope, faith and love. We still have trials but we can see the big picture. It allows us TO think. Our head is no longer cluttered with the pain and suffering of this life. We know it is for a moment and have great comfort from it. Atheism cannot do that for you. This is what the ancients have taught us. We are more advanced these days for sure, but not in spiritual things. God revealed those important things to us long ago. We can get from A to B much faster these days but the important things in life are all the same whether you were born today or thousands of years ago. Understanding we are not on a flat earth is good, but doesn't make us better people.

Hi, glad you're here.  Can always use a new perspective.  It's good to know that many on this thread have had a religious experience and background, but have rejected it due to one reason or another, many cases, it has to do with their studies into sciences or history and how the Bible and those avenues don't fit together.   this would be likely based on a dispenstionalist upbringing, which not only doesn't coenside with history or science, but the Bible as well.  

I started with this focus and have turned to focusing on their accepted avenues.  Certain individuals as you've found out are really good at talking, but not showing reasoning for understanding.... this is where I am trying to show them where thinking needs to start... it's all good to have differing beliefs, it's what keeps us on our toes and assured of what we know to be true, but when confronted, it is a perfect time to reflect on what we think we know and reinvestigate.  This way truth reveils itself to us.

God Bless

1 John 3:16 Eye-wink

Cap I would expect better from you than ending your post with such a dead and tired cliche verse.

"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:The problem

redneF wrote:

The problem again is your double standards, and attempts to prop up pseudo scientific speculations and ad/post hoc reasonings.

explain those double standards I allegedly have please

redneF wrote:

You'll need to demonstrate where you think I've argued using a fallacy.

well, that's difficult with you... see you really haven't argued a point yet... You have made a lot of assumptions and have concluded there is no God without backing yourself up.  You mentioned "we" so I was assuming you were trying to reference to everyone not just yourself... in that case, I can say many have tried to use a basis such as the capability of people to make up stories and excuses like people only believe because it feels good or it gives them what they want to hear.  Fallacies right there, but none the less can't apply to you due to the fact that you haven't stuck around long enough to even have a valid argument to stand on let alone a fallacy.  

redneF wrote:

Ummm, by pointing out a shifting of burden, I have confronted your claims.

ah... so if I took the same approach with you you'd accept that as me confronting yours?  Don't be a hypocrite now.  e.g. I can validly say that you shift the burden because you're making a factual claim that there is no God and yet expect me to prove that for you.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...but please, humor me...

Why? Because you said 'please'?...

yea, I'm looking for something of substanence from you... I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and trying really hard not to categorize you with delusional religious nuts.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
point those fallacies out again..

Why would I spend the time to go back, copy/paste what's there in black and white, and put them in another post, just because you're too lazy to simply re-read them?

I said that because I don't believe you have specified any falacies in the past.. but that's ok, if you could just reference the post number, I'll go back and look.  I will repost if you'd like on all the alleged points you made in the referenced post.

redneF wrote:

Still waiting...

same here... reference to a point please... preferably one you've already made... if you can find it.... shift of buden is not a point, it's a back door.

redneF wrote:

Your 'focus' should be on the best reasons that people should believe in the supernatural and the Christian god.

Quote:
...the "best" reason is subjective. 

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

HAH! so then why the hell are you asking me to base my reasoning on something so broad and subjective? 

redneF wrote:

Still waiting...

I'm guessing that's your best support for your POV.  Kudos

redneF wrote:

I'm interested in those theories that can be falsified, and that have met their burden of proof, so far.

That should help narrow it down.

Got anything like that?...

Quantum Theory... wanna go there?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Your dance of shifting the burden onto the reader (of what you claim are powerful reasons) to 'provide' you with a more narrow 'focus', is pure bunk.

The burden is not on the reader, but on the challenger...

You are using incompatible words interchangeably. You are labelling the 'skeptic' as the 'challenger', hoping that will allow you to shift the burden away from you and your 'superstitiousness'.

To be politically correct here, We're both the 'skeptic'  I'm skeptical of your POV and you're skeptical of mine, therefore the skeptic always holds the burden in these instances... yes, that's applying to both of us.  In a debate, both sides need to pull their weight.  I'm not standing up in front of an audience here claiming that God is going to walk out on stage and introduce himself.  I know that's what you're looking for, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way, it's about building a relationship.  

It's like you telling me you want a wife and me telling you I can help, then you concluding that I will bring her to your door tomorrow without any further consultation.  You and I both know that's absurd.  

redneF wrote:

That's why it's called a 'faith'. Because people are 'hoping' the absence of evidence isn't actually evidence of absence.

So in conclusion, you have no clue what faith is.  It has nothing to do with hoping absence of evidence isn't so, but has to do with trusting what you already know.  In order to get there, you need to know something and then trust... e.g. you have faith that if you jump, gravity will pull you back down, why?  It is said to do that and general knowledge says that you will always be pulled back to Earth... the sources aren't questioned and if you test it, it happens every time.  the difference with gravity and God is the constants aren't instantaniously testable, why?  Choice... Can you prove that I am capable of lifting 400 LBS if I never do it in front of you?  no, but with the compilation of eye-witness accounts and support of recorded events, it shouldn't be doubtful to you that i likely can... Then again, you seem like the person who would refuse to accept it unless you and I both got together and I actually did it in front of you.  That requires no faith or understanding or even thought on your part.  Few things would be understood scientifically and historically if everyone held that POV

redneF wrote:

Because I can give you a simple theory that greatly undermines religious claims and rational justifications for invoking a 'supernatural creator'.

It's called 'Evolution By Natural Selection'. 

Ah, so finally, a focus... is this what you want to discuss???  Let's go with it.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 It doesn't work that way.

Ya, it does, actually...

do you even know what you're referencing to here?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
The truth can't be told to you unless you're willing to hear it. 
 

That's not a problem here.

I'm willing to hear it.

no, you're not... you're willing to accept your own understanding and if it defies your own understanding, you don't want to hear it.  Your inconsistent presence supports this perspective.

redneF wrote:

The cosmological and biological 'god' claims are in direct competition with science.

no, they're not... but then again this is a factual claim, so please reference specifically to where... again this is burden on you because you're the one making the claim.

redneF wrote:

Science places the burder of proof squarely on it's own shoulders and shows the evidence that justifies higher and higher probablities being given to naturalistic explanations on the mechanics of 'reality', the 'origins' of humans, and less and less reasons to invoke gods.

A true scientist considers all angles... the simple explanation isn't always the right one.

redneF wrote:

So, do you have any rational justification to reject the high probablities given to naturalistic explanations of the cosmos and biological life, or was this thread mainly a shill for Becky Garrison's book?

Are you Becky Garrison?

 

I'm not her.  this thread was to start conversation and fish out the intelligence on this site... it has worked to a point... it also brought the crazies out of the woodwork Eye-wink


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap I would

Brian37 wrote:

Cap I would expect better from you than ending your post with such a dead and tired cliche verse.

LOL, 

First, the verse wasn't for you

Second... how many other Christians do you see ending their post with a reference to FIRST John 3:16... I'm guessing you didn't look close enough to the verse reference to get that part.


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

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

So, do you have any rational justification to reject the high probablities given to naturalistic explanations of the cosmos and biological life, or was this thread mainly a shill for Becky Garrison's book?

Are you Becky Garrison?

 

I'm not her.  this thread was to start conversation and fish out the intelligence on this site...

No.

You must be thinking about some other thread you may have started.

This one is a complete shill for Becky's book.

Do you suffer from amnesia, or have ADD or something?

You have a habit of being completely out of touch with reality with what you think has happened, and what actually happened...

 

 

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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap I would expect better from you than ending your post with such a dead and tired cliche verse.

LOL, 

First, the verse wasn't for you

Second... how many other Christians do you see ending their post with a reference to FIRST John 3:16... I'm guessing you didn't look close enough to the verse reference to get that part.

 

Actually, I should correct myself. Quoting any holy book of any religion is self serving and circular reasoning. I'm just tired of seeing that one all the time.

There was nothing selfless about that STORY, and that is all it was. The alleged motif of morality in "sacrifice" is feigned. First off, it is just a parlor trick to gain attention to himself to get people to worship him. Secondly, he doesn't stay dead. The Allied invaders on D-day who died, stayed dead, they made a real sacrifice and they didn't do it for attention. How many of the D-Day dead can you name?

Morality isn't about attention seeking. Morality is doing the right thing even when no one is watching, even if you don't get famous or get rewarded. The whole publicity stunt in a fake suicide is all about him getting attention for himself.

THIRD, the act of forgiving is taken away from the individual as a choice and robbed from them by a third party without their consent or permission. It makes humans a mere pawn, lab rats for god.

As a STORY, it sucks morally as a motif. Not to mention human flesh cannot survive all organs dying, all brain cells dying and suffering rigor mortis.

So morally and scientifically the story SUCKS.

I Star Trek, "DAMN IT JIM, I'M JUST A DOCTOR!" So does that make Klingons or Transporter's real?

John 3:16 is just as much a steamy pile to quote as any other verse in that book and no more evidence of your pet deity than when a Muslim quotes their Koran.

 

 

"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


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:nomdeplume

caposkia wrote:

nomdeplume wrote:

Brian,

Flying around on a broom is not a spiritual truth. From all scripture we learn how to live for this life and for the life to come. Salvation has been won, but our part is to accept it. We create our own hell by rejecting it. That is what you are doing. Hell is not being with God. Once you truly accept Him life falls into place. There is no struggle anymore, just hope, faith and love. We still have trials but we can see the big picture. It allows us TO think. Our head is no longer cluttered with the pain and suffering of this life. We know it is for a moment and have great comfort from it. Atheism cannot do that for you. This is what the ancients have taught us. We are more advanced these days for sure, but not in spiritual things. God revealed those important things to us long ago. We can get from A to B much faster these days but the important things in life are all the same whether you were born today or thousands of years ago. Understanding we are not on a flat earth is good, but doesn't make us better people.

Hi, glad you're here.  Can always use a new perspective.  It's good to know that many on this thread have had a religious experience and background, but have rejected it due to one reason or another, many cases, it has to do with their studies into sciences or history and how the Bible and those avenues don't fit together.   this would be likely based on a dispenstionalist upbringing, which not only doesn't coenside with history or science, but the Bible as well.  

I started with this focus and have turned to focusing on their accepted avenues.  Certain individuals as you've found out are really good at talking, but not showing reasoning for understanding.... this is where I am trying to show them where thinking needs to start... it's all good to have differing beliefs, it's what keeps us on our toes and assured of what we know to be true, but when confronted, it is a perfect time to reflect on what we think we know and reinvestigate.  This way truth reveils itself to us.

God Bless

1 John 3:16 Eye-wink

 

I cannot tell if you are mocking me and my faith? There is so much to read in this thread. Well, it is John 3:16, by the way. 1 John is a later letter from the  beloved apostle.

Have you lost your way? I pray not. You are brave to take on the lost, but beware. They will twist your words to deceive you. Is the Bible still your bedrock? If that is not the true article of faith what are you left with?

For those who have bad upbringings and have left His fold He has a special place in His heart for them. The parable of the prodigal son and the shepherd who left the 99 to find the one lost sheep shows His great love for them. Science and history are invented by man. So you have to take it with a big grain of salt. Your time would be better spent reading the good book rather than the ever shifting opinions of mortal men. Everyday they contradict themselves. Let everyman be a liar but God remains true.

 

Blessings.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap likes this one

...though it is an inequitable trade. I John 3:16 says

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

Jesus laid down his life for a long weekend so others should lay down their lives permanently?

"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


nomdeplume
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-10-29
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:...though it

jcgadfly wrote:

...though it is an inequitable trade. I John 3:16 says

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

Jesus laid down his life for a long weekend so others should lay down their lives permanently?

Oh, thank you for explaining. If you believe in His promise to us, it is not permanent, but a twinkling of an eye.

Blessings.

John 3:16 & 1 John 3:16  Smiling


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume wrote:caposkia

nomdeplume wrote:
I cannot tell if you are mocking me and my faith? There is so much to read in this thread. Well, it is John 3:16, by the way. 1 John is a later letter from the  beloved apostle.

Have you lost your way? I pray not. You are brave to take on the lost, but beware. They will twist your words to deceive you. Is the Bible still your bedrock? If that is not the true article of faith what are you left with?

For those who have bad upbringings and have left His fold He has a special place in His heart for them. The parable of the prodigal son and the shepherd who left the 99 to find the one lost sheep shows His great love for them. Science and history are invented by man. So you have to take it with a big grain of salt. Your time would be better spent reading the good book rather than the ever shifting opinions of mortal men. Everyday they contradict themselves. Let everyman be a liar but God remains true.

 

Blessings.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Caposkia is on your team, well, in the sense that both of you believe in an invisible friend. But he is of the ilk that organized religion is bunk, and like far to many believers, he seems to think he magically got the inside track where all others have failed. So, I'll be happy as an atheist to take a step back, grab my popcorn bucket and watch the Star wars and Star Trec fans fight amongst themselves.

To me when a theist criticizes another theist, it is funny. It is like a fan of Big Foot arguing with a fan of the Loc Ness monster.

But I am mocking John 3:16. even if Cap isn't. Quoting a book of myth is like quoting Harry Potter. You don't buy Allah as your deity just because a Muslim quotes the Koran.

Humans do not survive permanent death. Once your cells die and decay, you cant come back. The death story of Jesus is bullshit. "Poof" is not evidence, it is a naked assertion.

And the motif of the story as I mentioned sucks. It is not a selfless "sacrifice" where Jesus dies, doesn't come back and does it even if no one remembers him. Firefighters, cops and our military constantly do things of risk and even die without their names becoming famous. Those are real sacrifices. Those are real heros who do it, even if their actions never get rewarded.

The actions of the God of the bible in this story, are selfish and self centered and all done to gain gang members to cheer lead for him. Doing the right thing is doing it even when no one notices. God doesn't behave like that as a literary character.

Both on the moral scale and scientific scale, the Jesus character is hardly worth value.

The Jesus character is like the stalker of a celebrity who shows up to their house and puts a gun to his own head and shouts, "I love you, I'm going to kill myself for you'.

Sick sick sick.

 

 

 

"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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
nomdeplume wrote:jcgadfly

nomdeplume wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

...though it is an inequitable trade. I John 3:16 says

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

Jesus laid down his life for a long weekend so others should lay down their lives permanently?

Oh, thank you for explaining. If you believe in His promise to us, it is not permanent, but a twinkling of an eye.

Blessings.

John 3:16 & 1 John 3:16  Smiling

If your god told you to kill me would you?

If you going to be loyal, don't be half assed about it.

Now, here is your answer, even though you don't realize it.

No, you would not. Not because you don't believe, you do. You don't do it because your non fictional conscious does not jive with your fictional fantasy. Otherwise to be loyal, you would have to do what your god says.

Which makes you have to water down your belief to cling to the absurd concept of blind loyalty.

"Follow me" in the theist world is based on emotional blackmail with false promises of utopias that dont exist and false threats of punishment that dont exist.

"Follow me" in civil society, in pluralistic societies is done through consent of the governed. Since your god cannot be voted out of office or impeached, or questioned, I see no value in a dictator. So any fake suicide and claims of love can only be viewed as insane.

 

 

"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
nomdeplume wrote:jcgadfly

nomdeplume wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

...though it is an inequitable trade. I John 3:16 says

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

Jesus laid down his life for a long weekend so others should lay down their lives permanently?

Oh, thank you for explaining. If you believe in His promise to us, it is not permanent, but a twinkling of an eye.

Blessings.

John 3:16 & 1 John 3:16  Smiling

No problem - It's pretty typical for Christians to come here not knowing their Bible.

"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