The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
As a simple question, why is

As a simple question, why is it that your holy book should be the central focus? IE that your book is right where the others aren't? After all, it is easily possible that humanity did end up losing the correct religion, Sol Invictus for example or perhaps the Egyptians actually had it right, or maybe the Greeks. I mean their stories predate yours, their texts are equally problematic if you want to talk about morals or consistency iwth reality. I mean frankly if you're going to claim an all powerful deity one would think that the least said deity could do is produce a functioning manual, especially if we're going to be judged on it.


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

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

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.

no, it's this one

redneF wrote:

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

Ah, so you're the one that helped me create it... and here I thought I did it on my own... thanks for your anonymous help.

redneF wrote:

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

Me having ADD is beside the point..   I started.... ohh.... a butterfly!!!

sorry.

I started this site with a specific intention in mind... to start conversations...  it has done its job... I know exactly what I wrote and why I wrote it... Are you trying to be a prophet?  That is something that is gifted to you... you don't have that gift.

redneF wrote:

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

yea, I must be the one out of touch with reality.  Thanks for the heads up Eye-wink


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I started this site

Quote:
I started this site with a specific intention in mind... to start conversations...  it has done its job... I know exactly what I wrote and why I wrote it... Are you trying to be a prophet?  That is something that is gifted to you... you don't have that gift.

That is silly that you would accuse an atheist of trying to be a con artist which is what a "prophet' is. There has never been a human that can "see the future" through a deity tapping them on the shoulder.

Mohammad was a mere man who re wrote the bible. The Jews who started Christianity made up their own magical hero in the Jesus character. These claims of "prophets" are just as stupid and fictional as the "Oracles" mentioned in the Oedipus trilogies.

The motif of a "seer" was around in polytheism long before the gods of Abraham were invented. Neither Hebrews or Christians or Muslims invented the idea of "prophets". "Prophets" were merely humans who managed to take advantage of the credulity of the surrounding society so they could get and maintain power.

 

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


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

Brian37 wrote:

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?

you are definitely an expert derailer.  I'll give you that.  can't just admit you were mistaken huh.

Brian37 wrote:

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.

The Bible tells you that about morality... Of course it was getting attention to Jesus, but was it for your reasoning or a greater one?  If Jesus didn't get attention for what had happened to him, then the purpose of doing it would have been in vain because no one would have known he did it.  The point was for people to know it happened.  That's pretty obvious.  You can make it a morality issue, but this was for everyone, plane and simple.  

By your perspective, anyone who performs music for a crowd is vain because they did it to get attention... they must not have any passion for music and the music they're performing couldn't possibly be from the heart or true poetry.  Not saying all artists are the same, but your pigeonholing.  

Brian37 wrote:

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.

it is your choice... you can choose to accept the gift understanding that you need forgiveness that is beyond your ability to achieve, or not.   Nothing was robbed of anyone, unless you telling me that if I give you $100 dollars as a gift I'm actually robbing you.   I guess this would be true if I had first taken the $100 from your pocket.  

Brian37 wrote:

So morally and scientifically the story SUCKS.

All the stories one doesn't understand suck... unless you idealize your personal preferences into the story,.

Brian37 wrote:

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.

Congratulations.  You've officially derailed the point that you made a mistake in reference and misread a quote.   When really all you had to say was; "my mistake" and if you're so inclined, give your criticism about the verse I actually referenced to.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
nomdeplume wrote:I cannot

nomdeplume wrote:

I cannot tell if you are mocking me and my faith?

I am a Christian.  I'm not mocking your faith.. only trying to get you up to speed in this rediculously long and random thread.  

nomdeplume wrote:

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.

I know what you referenced... I intentionally referenced 1st John 3:16... happens to be my favorite verse.  I also knew it would throw some of them for a loop be it that I don't typically reference scripture on here and due to the fact that it is same chapter and verse and name in a different book.  

nomdeplume wrote:

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?

No.  i approach them with the concept of a "completely open mind" which means I suggest that I will take into consideration everything they tell me.  That does not mean I will blindly accept it, only hear it and research it... if for some reason their information seems to make sense, I will look into it further.  In other words, I am secure in my faith and the Bible is still my bedrock, but I also accept that I don't know everything and am willing to "correct my ways" if they can show me how I am mistaken.  My hope with this approach is that they'd take the information I give them with the same state of mind.

All in all, I've been on here for over 4 years... No one has yet given me reason to "correct my ways" though I have learned a lot still.  Nothing that has gone against scripture, only stuff that has further helped me understand scripture.  some of these people are quite knowledgeable of scripture, they just don't have wisdom of it.  

nomdeplume wrote:

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.

I originally came on here to debate a poor excuse for a public debate between the creator of this site and Kirk Cameron.  It stemmed into just discussions about random topics be it that Sapient isn't so open to constructive criticism about his alleged claim to victory in that debate.  I found that I was learning a lot from them regardless of their perspective, and so I continued... I talk with people like Brian for sheer entertainment and know that nothing legitimate or rational will come of those conversations.   I'm still here because it constantly challenges what I know to be true... Bible elaborates that to be important in your walk to grow in faith.

nomdeplume wrote:

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.

 

Blessings to you

1 John 3:16 - We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the bretheren.   NASB


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
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?

Actually, he conquered death, and the promise is that we will too through Him... so does the Bible actually teach that we are permanently dead?  Sounds to me as if we have the same fate as Jesus... that being death then life.  

No that doesn't imply in 3 days people will come back BRIAN, but it does imply that we will be risen from the dead.  


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

Brian37 wrote:

If your god told you to kill me would you?

No... I'd have already done it ;P

Brian37 wrote:

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

what if the chair's too small to sit on?

Brian37 wrote:

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.

OR could it be that not only are we commanded not to kill, but God would not send someone out to kill someone like that.  He'd know it's not God asking him to do that.

Brian37 wrote:

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

naw, I was just making some tea.  it was a bit too hot.

Brian37 wrote:

"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.

[/quote

"Follow You" is to give up logic and rationality, believe nothing and criticize everything no matter how obvious the truth on the subject is.  Oh yea, and you must take derailing 101 as a prerequisite.   


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If Jesus didn't get

Quote:
If Jesus didn't get attention for what had happened to him, then the purpose of doing it would have been in vain because no one would have known he did it. 

PRECISELY MY POINT,

How is this selfless? This smacks of marketing and PR, not selflessness.

When you come across a desk at work with change on it, and pass it by without taking the change, do you advertise the fact that you didn't take it? Or do you simply go on with your day even though no one knows you did the right thing?

Doing the right thing is doing it even when you don't get credit for it. If others notice, that is one thing. But to expect it is absurd and immoral and defeats the purpose of claiming to be "selfless".

The god character and the split personality character of Jesus are NOT doing it for selfless reasons, otherwise it wouldn't matter if their names never became famous.

The reality is that the "motif" of the super hero is appealing to humans. Marketing does not have to be moral to be successful, it just has to sell.

The God character and Jesus character EXPECT and demand attention. Their reward is not freely given. Those who do not reward them or even merely reject them by picking another team or not having a god at all, are punished.

"God/god/diety" ARE mere human reflections of wishful thinking. It is what we project as our own narcissistic desire to reach a "perfection" THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY. It is our evolutionary childish desire to be on top, which is what a "god" concept is.

 

 

 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:As a simple

Joker wrote:

As a simple question, why is it that your holy book should be the central focus? IE that your book is right where the others aren't? After all, it is easily possible that humanity did end up losing the correct religion, Sol Invictus for example or perhaps the Egyptians actually had it right, or maybe the Greeks. I mean their stories predate yours, their texts are equally problematic if you want to talk about morals or consistency iwth reality. I mean frankly if you're going to claim an all powerful deity one would think that the least said deity could do is produce a functioning manual, especially if we're going to be judged on it.

The same reason why the television manual is the central focus of understanding how to work your tv and the car manual is the central focus of understanding how your car works.  I would take the word on my car's manual from the manufacturer rather than an unrelated entity claiming to know more about my car than the source and creator.  Wouldn't you?

You'd have to explain to me how this particular manual is not functioning.  Just you though, not looking for others opinion on this at the moment.  


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

Brian37 wrote:

That is silly that you would accuse an atheist of trying to be a con artist which is what a "prophet' is. There has never been a human that can "see the future" through a deity tapping them on the shoulder.

again, you must have the research on this right... or is this just another one of your naked assertion claims that gets lost in your derailing.  

Brian37 wrote:

Mohammad was a mere man who re wrote the bible. The Jews who started Christianity made up their own magical hero in the Jesus character. These claims of "prophets" are just as stupid and fictional as the "Oracles" mentioned in the Oedipus trilogies.

Mohammad claimed that one of Gods angels came to him and gave him the words he wrote... the angel did it quite forcefully if you read the Quran.  Not only does that not coenside with the behavior and approaches of angels throughout the Bible, but it doesn't seem that Mohammad had any significant influence in the Christian world nor did he understand who Jesus claimed to be, therefore its hard for him to back up his writings when referenced to the context of the Bible.  

Brian37 wrote:

The motif of a "seer" was around in polytheism long before the gods of Abraham were invented. Neither Hebrews or Christians or Muslims invented the idea of "prophets". "Prophets" were merely humans who managed to take advantage of the credulity of the surrounding society so they could get and maintain power.

 

no one ever claimed they did invent prophets.  prophets aren't significant to a particular religion... they are significant to a spiritual encounter however regardless of source.


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

Brian37 wrote:

How is this selfless? This smacks of marketing and PR, not selflessness.

how would it have been purposeful if it wasn't known?  You're in a catch 22 here.  Either it was very public and known and was a selfless act, or it was hidden and secret and then would not be a selfless act because then it would have benifitted no one be it that no one would know the gift that was given.  This understanding your presenting is a contradiction.  Just because something was made public or known does not automatically imply that it was not selfless.  Otherwise all our 9/11 heros were actually selfish bastards as well... Is this what you're implying?

Brian37 wrote:

When you come across a desk at work with change on it, and pass it by without taking the change, do you advertise the fact that you didn't take it? Or do you simply go on with your day even though no one knows you did the right thing?

well, it depends on the situation.  Is everyone in my company going to benefit from knowing that I decided to pass on taking the change?  If not, then why bother advertizing it?

Brian37 wrote:

Doing the right thing is doing it even when you don't get credit for it. If others notice, that is one thing. But to expect it is absurd and immoral and defeats the purpose of claiming to be "selfless".

The Bible teaches this type of selflessness too.  Jesus' story is necessary to be known.. it was an act that benifits all, therefore it is necessary for everyone to know about it.  it's like the government passing a bill saying that all americans with any college debt will get their debt paid in full by the government, but then telling no one about it.    How is it a selfless act if it benifits everyone but no one can use it?  

Brian37 wrote:

The god character and the split personality character of Jesus are NOT doing it for selfless reasons, otherwise it wouldn't matter if their names never became famous.

You and I both know it has nothing to do with fame.  If it did, then there would be stipulations to the gift and not just given for free.

Brian37 wrote:

The reality is that the "motif" of the super hero is appealing to humans. Marketing does not have to be moral to be successful, it just has to sell.

The God character and Jesus character EXPECT and demand attention. Their reward is not freely given. Those who do not reward them or even merely reject them by picking another team or not having a god at all, are punished.

"God/god/diety" ARE mere human reflections of wishful thinking. It is what we project as our own narcissistic desire to reach a "perfection" THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY. It is our evolutionary childish desire to be on top, which is what a "god" concept is.

this has been a reading from the gospel of Brian... this is the word of the bored.  Thanks be to none.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You and I both know it

Quote:
You and I both know it has nothing to do with fame.

No, it has everything to do with human marketing.

You keep missing my point.

The "fame" part comes in because of the absurd claim that an all powerful god would want or need so much attention. If it were perfect it woudn't need or want anything. The fact that this "god" would try to gain attention at all makes it absurd to claim it to be selfless. Unless we are toys or lab rats there should be no need for all this drama.

The real reason for the "fame" part is that humans don't like the idea of being wrong. So when they cling to a myth, rather than test it or discard it, they market it.

ALL religions succeed or fail like a business. They don't become successful because the product is pragmatic or good. They succeed because of marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi comes out with a Cherri soda and Coke looks at it and says  "We need to do that too to compete".

The "fame" of all popular religions are a result of marketing, not credibility, not because an invisible magical super brain exists.

 

"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:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

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

Ah, so you're the one that helped me create it... and here I thought I did it on my own... thanks for your anonymous help.

Just stop pissing in my ear and tell me it's just raining.

caposkia wrote:
Are you trying to be a prophet?  

Are you on glue?

Why would I ask you a question about you if I was a prophet?

I asked if you have ADD, because you seem to have gaps in your recollection of having your ass handed to you.

 

I still haven't heard the most convincing reasons from you for why anyone else should believe in the Christian god.

It's amazing how easily you can be silenced.

Just put the spotlight on you...

 

What are Becky's reasons?

Are her's any good?

 

 

 

 

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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

That is silly that you would accuse an atheist of trying to be a con artist which is what a "prophet' is. There has never been a human that can "see the future" through a deity tapping them on the shoulder.

again, you must have the research on this right... or is this just another one of your naked assertion claims that gets lost in your derailing.  

Brian37 wrote:

Mohammad was a mere man who re wrote the bible. The Jews who started Christianity made up their own magical hero in the Jesus character. These claims of "prophets" are just as stupid and fictional as the "Oracles" mentioned in the Oedipus trilogies.

Mohammad claimed that one of Gods angels came to him and gave him the words he wrote... the angel did it quite forcefully if you read the Quran.  Not only does that not coenside with the behavior and approaches of angels throughout the Bible, but it doesn't seem that Mohammad had any significant influence in the Christian world nor did he understand who Jesus claimed to be, therefore its hard for him to back up his writings when referenced to the context of the Bible.  

Brian37 wrote:

The motif of a "seer" was around in polytheism long before the gods of Abraham were invented. Neither Hebrews or Christians or Muslims invented the idea of "prophets". "Prophets" were merely humans who managed to take advantage of the credulity of the surrounding society so they could get and maintain power.

 

no one ever claimed they did invent prophets.  prophets aren't significant to a particular religion... they are significant to a spiritual encounter however regardless of source.

Wow, I have seen lots of steamy piles in my years of debate. But that last line has to be one of the most creative smelly stenches of ambiguity  my nose has been assaulted by.

A "Prophet" is merely the label in all given religions of a person who has been tapped by the god/s or a spirit via consultation who others believe have "seen" the future.

The reality is that all cultures have had these and none of them have been real or credible.

Cap, there never has been a crystal ball. There never has been an "oracle". There never has been a "prophet". If you truly believe this, then you might as well go down to your local Toys R Us and consult an 8 Ball or Ouija Board. Go watch the Wizard of Oz. Both the good witch and bad witch in that movie "saw" things. It was still a fictional story.

You are just too delusional to accept that your Jesus hero is merely another deity that in the future will end up in the graveyard of myths,where it should be.

 

 

"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
Way to argue.You really are

Way to argue.

You really are a fucking tool.

How many times are you going to quote a whole wall of post to just rant on 1 sentence? How many times does this have to be pointed out to you?

What is this OCD obsession of yours to claim absolute knowledge of everything that ever existed and never existed ??????????

You are the worst atheist contributor on this entire site, possibly in all of history and epitomize the 'fool' that theists take us for.

You are worse than the most ignorant theist.

You rant about unsupported assertions from theists and their flawed logic while doing nothing but the offering exactly the same in return.

You're a complete hypocritical imbecile.

 

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: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Way to

redneF wrote:

Way to argue.

You really are a fucking tool.

How many times are you going to quote a whole wall of post to just rant on 1 sentence? How many times does this have to be pointed out to you?

What is this OCD obsession of yours to claim absolute knowledge of everything that ever existed and never existed ??????????

You are the worst atheist contributor on this entire site, possibly in all of history and epitomize the 'fool' that theists take us for.

You are worse than the most ignorant theist.

You rant about unsupported assertions from theists and their flawed logic while doing nothing but the offering exactly the same in return.

You're a complete hypocritical imbecile.

 

Wskey Tango Foxtrot.

Cap started using the word "prophet". I was strictly addressing that usage. I don't see why you would get so upset over the fact that I continually and RIGHTLY equate his pet deity to fiction. You see it as unrelated as to what you were talking about, and I am focused on his ultimate end goal.

No matter the topic ANY theist brings up. Be it a quote from a holy book, to quoting apologists to bastardizing science, the end goal is the same. They are all attempting to prop up the claim that a non material thinking being exists. I simply refuse to walk down their Yellow Brick Road and like to cut to the chase.

Cap could be claiming Allah or Thor, or name his pet deity Frank, and it still amounts to a naked assertion not only lacking evidence, it goes in direct conflict with the scientific KNOWLEDGE that thoughts require a material process to occur.

I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing, but I will never apologize for calling "bullshit" on any god claim. There never has been or ever will be a god, PERIOD. Gods are mere human inventions reflecting their own wishful thinking in wanting a super hero to save them. It is merely comic book thinking falsely believed to be fact. I will never back down from this position.

 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, it has

Brian37 wrote:

No, it has everything to do with human marketing.

Ah, trafficking... didn't see that one

Brian37 wrote:

You keep missing my point.

Brian37 wrote:

You're making a point?

Brian37 wrote:

The "fame" part comes in because of the absurd claim that an all powerful god would want or need so much attention. If it were perfect it woudn't need or want anything. The fact that this "god" would try to gain attention at all makes it absurd to claim it to be selfless. Unless we are toys or lab rats there should be no need for all this drama.

so offer to pay off everyone's debt, but tell no one... I'll contact the president... He'll love the idea

Brian37 wrote:

The real reason for the "fame" part is that humans don't like the idea of being wrong. So when they cling to a myth, rather than test it or discard it, they market it.

yea, I get your point, but what it comes down to is that the people "marketing" it don't believe they're wrong, it has nothing to do with being wrong and most of them discovered this truth by realizing their mistakes in understanding.  It's about humbling yourself and correcting your mistakes, not the other way around.

Brian37 wrote:

ALL religions succeed or fail like a business. They don't become successful because the product is pragmatic or good. They succeed because of marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi comes out with a Cherri soda and Coke looks at it and says  "We need to do that too to compete".

As you know, I'd agree with you about religion here.

Brian37 wrote:

The "fame" of all popular religions are a result of marketing, not credibility, not because an invisible magical super brain exists.

you're pigeonholing again


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

redneF wrote:

Just stop pissing in my ear and tell me it's just raining.

You're the one sitting there trying to tell me you know more about why I started this thread than I do.  Are you really that dense?  You're messing with me right?  c'mon, I'm on to you, no one is this dense.

redneF wrote:

Are you on glue?

you really don't get sarcasm either do you

redneF wrote:

Why would I ask you a question about you if I was a prophet?

it's amazing what some people will think they're capable of doing despite how they present themselves.

redneF wrote:

I asked if you have ADD, because you seem to have gaps in your recollection of having your ass handed to you.

oh that part... yea, definite gaps in the ass handing part... in fact, you keep running... so I'm very curious...  Please do remind me about how I allegedly got my ass handed to me... can't wait for this one.  from the one who can't stick to a debate.. you have the floor.

redneF wrote:

I still haven't heard the most convincing reasons from you for why anyone else should believe in the Christian god.

It's amazing how easily you can be silenced.

Just put the spotlight on you...

I've already approached you with that, again you disappeared... try again.  I think I should ask you if you're suffering form Alzheimers.  

redneF wrote:

What are Becky's reasons?

Are her's any good?

She's a satirist... she's discussing more about the New Atheist movement and not so much her reason for believing.  She gives reasons why she can laugh at the new atheist persuit.  I'd have to relook... ti's been a while since I've read it.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, I have seen lots of steamy piles in my years of debate. But that last line has to be one of the most creative smelly stenches of ambiguity  my nose has been assaulted by.

A "Prophet" is merely the label in all given religions of a person who has been tapped by the god/s or a spirit via consultation who others believe have "seen" the future.

The reality is that all cultures have had these and none of them have been real or credible.

You were the one making the claim... I was only yet again debunking your claim.  Then you turn around and pretend like you didn't claim it... who's making steaming piles here?  Besides Rednef

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, there never has been a crystal ball. There never has been an "oracle". There never has been a "prophet". If you truly believe this, then you might as well go down to your local Toys R Us and consult an 8 Ball or Ouija Board. Go watch the Wizard of Oz. Both the good witch and bad witch in that movie "saw" things. It was still a fictional story.

You are just too delusional to accept that your Jesus hero is merely another deity that in the future will end up in the graveyard of myths,where it should be.

that must be it... Again the gospel according to Brain.  Congradulations, you have heard Brain calling Cap delusional for the 1000th time!  Will cap cave and accept his delusion claim this time?  Stay tuned to find out.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Wskey Tango Foxtrot.

Cap started using the word "prophet". I was strictly addressing that usage. I don't see why you would get so upset over the fact that I continually and RIGHTLY equate his pet deity to fiction. You see it as unrelated as to what you were talking about, and I am focused on his ultimate end goal.

No matter the topic ANY theist brings up. Be it a quote from a holy book, to quoting apologists to bastardizing science, the end goal is the same. They are all attempting to prop up the claim that a non material thinking being exists. I simply refuse to walk down their Yellow Brick Road and like to cut to the chase.

Cap could be claiming Allah or Thor, or name his pet deity Frank, and it still amounts to a naked assertion not only lacking evidence, it goes in direct conflict with the scientific KNOWLEDGE that thoughts require a material process to occur.

I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing, but I will never apologize for calling "bullshit" on any god claim. There never has been or ever will be a god, PERIOD. Gods are mere human inventions reflecting their own wishful thinking in wanting a super hero to save them. It is merely comic book thinking falsely believed to be fact. I will never back down from this position.

 

Brian... I...I can't believe I'm about to say this, but.. uh... Rednef has a point.. the same one I've been trying to tell you for quite some time.   If you won't listen to me, at least listen to your own kind. 


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, I have seen lots of steamy piles in my years of debate. But that last line has to be one of the most creative smelly stenches of ambiguity  my nose has been assaulted by.

A "Prophet" is merely the label in all given religions of a person who has been tapped by the god/s or a spirit via consultation who others believe have "seen" the future.

The reality is that all cultures have had these and none of them have been real or credible.

You were the one making the claim... I was only yet again debunking your claim.  Then you turn around and pretend like you didn't claim it... who's making steaming piles here?  Besides Rednef

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, there never has been a crystal ball. There never has been an "oracle". There never has been a "prophet". If you truly believe this, then you might as well go down to your local Toys R Us and consult an 8 Ball or Ouija Board. Go watch the Wizard of Oz. Both the good witch and bad witch in that movie "saw" things. It was still a fictional story.

You are just too delusional to accept that your Jesus hero is merely another deity that in the future will end up in the graveyard of myths,where it should be.

that must be it... Again the gospel according to Brain.  Congradulations, you have heard Brain calling Cap delusional for the 1000th time!  Will cap cave and accept his delusion claim this time?  Stay tuned to find out.

You just get frustrated with me because I won't walk down the Yellow Brick Road with you. You are in good company. I don't walk down the Yellow Brick Road with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists either. Woo is woo, and you are just too delusional to see your own self projection of your own wishful thinking.

YOU believe in a thinking entity with no material and no location. YOU could call this entity Jesus, God, Marduke, Pink Unicorn, and it still amounts to bullshit.

It's not the Gospel according to me. It is the scientific reality you don't want to face. Thoughts require a material process to occur. When you can empirically demonstrate in the scientific community with outside testing to confirm your findings then I will hand you the Nobel Prize myself. You know damned well you cant do that, so mental masturbation is what you resort to because it "feels good".

All you are proving is that you are a fan of a myth. No different than any other label of myth lovers.

 

 

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I don't see

Brian37 wrote:
I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

Because you're arguing from complete and utter ignorance of Quantum Physics, just like they are and have spewed it over 9000 times all over this forum.

There's hardly a place on the internet that you could find such a treasure trove of Moronic Atheism than the RRS, thanks to you.

Brian37 wrote:
If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing

What did you think I was doing? Writing you a love letter?

Brian37 wrote:
 I will never back down from this position.

And you're lucky this isn't my forum, or I would have banned your fucking ass a loooooooooong time ago, so you wouldn't stink up the joint with your utter Moronicism.

Think I'm not hitting the nail right on the head?

Why don't you start a blog and send out invitations to really intelligent atheist bloggers and see how many will link themselves to your blog and how many will avoid you more than Fred Phelps.

Let me put it to you this way, I don't want to be associated with you, in any fucking way. Especially as an atheist.

And I couldn't applaud the RRS more if they banned you completely. You are a detriment to all the intelligent rebuttals given for questioning the existence of gods.

You are the Fred Phelps of atheists.

 

 

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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Wskey Tango Foxtrot.

Cap started using the word "prophet". I was strictly addressing that usage. I don't see why you would get so upset over the fact that I continually and RIGHTLY equate his pet deity to fiction. You see it as unrelated as to what you were talking about, and I am focused on his ultimate end goal.

No matter the topic ANY theist brings up. Be it a quote from a holy book, to quoting apologists to bastardizing science, the end goal is the same. They are all attempting to prop up the claim that a non material thinking being exists. I simply refuse to walk down their Yellow Brick Road and like to cut to the chase.

Cap could be claiming Allah or Thor, or name his pet deity Frank, and it still amounts to a naked assertion not only lacking evidence, it goes in direct conflict with the scientific KNOWLEDGE that thoughts require a material process to occur.

I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing, but I will never apologize for calling "bullshit" on any god claim. There never has been or ever will be a god, PERIOD. Gods are mere human inventions reflecting their own wishful thinking in wanting a super hero to save them. It is merely comic book thinking falsely believed to be fact. I will never back down from this position.

 

Brian... I...I can't believe I'm about to say this, but.. uh... Rednef has a point.. the same one I've been trying to tell you for quite some time.   If you won't listen to me, at least listen to your own kind. 

My own kind? Oh, that's right, atheists are a species outside humanity. I forgot, I pee through my finger, and my eyeballs are on my big toes.

Part of this website is to also demonstrate that labels don't mean loyalty. Just like you don't agree with all people claiming to believe in the same god you do. I am not part of a "kind". Rendef and I share ONLY ONE position, and that is the "off" position when it comes to the pet gods of believers. Other than that we are as diverse as any other label.

Rednef got pissed at me because I short cut his walk with you through your argument. Nothing more. Atheists are not a separate species. Rednef doesn't like how I do things here. No different than how you don't like how some fans of Jesus make their arguments.

 

 

 

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


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

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

Because you're arguing from complete and utter ignorance of Quantum Physics, just like they are and have spewed it over 9000 times all over this forum.

There's hardly a place on the internet that you could find such a treasure trove of Moronic Atheism than the RRS, thanks to you.

Brian37 wrote:
If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing

What did you think I was doing? Writing you a love letter?

Brian37 wrote:
 I will never back down from this position.

And you're lucky this isn't my forum, or I would have banned your fucking ass a loooooooooong time ago, so you wouldn't stink up the joint with your utter Moronicism.

Think I'm not hitting the nail right on the head?

Why don't you start a blog and send out invitations to really intelligent atheist bloggers and see how many will link themselves to your blog and how many will avoid you more than Fred Phelps.

Let me put it to you this way, I don't want to be associated with you, in any fucking way. Especially as an atheist.

And I couldn't applaud the RRS more if they banned you completely. You are a detriment to all the intelligent rebuttals given for questioning the existence of gods.

You are the Fred Phelps of atheists.

 

 

Thanks for the laugh Red.

Look, it amounts to this. You refuse to accept that people are different in their comfort level of communication. YOU are the politically correct type who fails to give credit to dissent for having enough brains to not take blasphemy personally.

The comparison to Phelps is just plain childish and silly. Phelps is a bigot. All I have done is said to Cap and believers elsewhere is they are full of shit. If one claims a brain with no brain exists, what do you want me to say to that? "Thats not true" is what you might say. "You are full of shit" is merely a emphatic way of saying "that's not true"

Claimant " The Chargers won the Super Bowl"

Skeptic "That's not truem the Packers did"

Claimant "The Chargers won the Super Bowl"

Skeptic, "Bullshit, the Packers did"

The truth does not change merely because you don't like the delivery.

If you personally like the library, then hang out in a library. But Cap did not start this thread in "Kill Em With Kindness", so my responses are withing the TOS. And while I am quite sure I drive Cap crazy, he has been here for almost 5 years in this thread alone.

If I was actually like Phelps I would not be in this thread at all. I am quite sure outside the issue of god claims Caposkia and I could find other topics of interest, such as tv, sports, books, ect ect, where we could find agreement. But I do not pull punches on the issue of god claims, not for him, not for you, not for anyone.

I would suggest if you want to debate him personally, start a thread in KEWK in a one on one thread. But do not expect me to be a clone of 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: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because you're arguing

Quote:
Because you're arguing from complete and utter ignorance of Quantum Physics, just like they are and have spewed it over 9000 times all over this forum.

Quantum Physics IS science. I can't build a car from scratch, true. But just because I can't build a car doesn't mean it runs on pixey dust. Quantum physics will never justify a non material thinking entity. If you believe that it can, you might as well believe quantum physics justifies me farting a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

Quantum physics does not argue that "anything is possible", if it were, then an invisible version of Angelina Jolie is sucking my dick right now. If you really believe "You don't know everything Brian" means "So you're saying there's a chance" works, then you might as well be a believer.

Quantum mechanics merely amounts to severe number crunching. It does not justify fictional beings.

If you are going to take the attitude "since we don't know everything, then by default everything is possible" you are buying into Pascals wager and do not understand Bentrand Russel's teapot argument.

There are things humans can safely discard without loosing sleep. God/s/dieties/ entities/ super natural, are the things we can throw in the trash can of bad ideas without worrying,

 

 

"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: Please do

caposkia wrote:
Please do remind me about how I allegedly got my ass handed to me...

Like I told you a number of times; you're not much more than a typical theist.

1- Arguments from ignorance

2- Argument from the bible (which are virtually indistinguishable from 1)

3- Logical fallacies (arguments from authority, from popularity, from incredulity etc etc..)

You know....Confirmation Bias

God is not an axiom, obviously, so you can't start from:

P1 God....

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

What are Becky's reasons?

Are her's any good?

She's a satirist...

You must have a different definition of a satirist than I do.

Oh, wait, I get why that is now....she's actually a 'Religious Satirist'

caposkia wrote:
...she's discussing more about the New Atheist movement

Why does she think she's qualified to be objective and knowledgeable about the topic?

-"As I surveyed the Sea of Galilee from my vantage point on the Golan Heights, I uttered, "Richard Dawkins, you are so wrong. God is not a delusion. No way. No How. He's right here in the Holy Land." 

-"The New Atheist who started this whole public fracas is none other than media darling and pit bull Sam Harris. Put a blonde wig and too-tight black dress on him, and he could almost pass as an Ann Coulter act-alike." 

-"It's A-OK for a New Atheist to trash anyone who dares differ with their viewpoints even when there is a disagreement within their own scientific community as to their conclusions." : Becky Garrison

What disagreement is there in the scientific community again? About what exactly?

You mean the LCH found out that gods are really behind it all?

Maybe that DNA proves that gods are behind that as well? Maybe Becky should write a memo to Francis Collins, he's not aware of these new scientific conclusions.

caposkia wrote:
...and not so much her reason for believing. 
 

That's where you come in.

Apparently, you discovered all the best reasons to know that the Christian god exists (outside of the desperate hopes of Christians), but for some reason haven't yet presented them for a Nobel Prize and taught the 5 billion 'Non Christians' why they're wrong.

Glad that a priest had the balls to go up against Einstein and show us all that the Universe didn't happen the way the bible says it did.

Where are your balls, Caposkia?

Or are you just another pathetic Religious Satirist who's out of their 'scientific' and 'logical' league?...

caposkia wrote:
She gives reasons why she can laugh at the new atheist persuit.  

I don't see her having any better hope than you do of that...

 

 

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


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

Brian37 wrote:
Thanks for the laugh Red.

I wasn't kidding, at all...


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, I have seen lots of steamy piles in my years of debate. But that last line has to be one of the most creative smelly stenches of ambiguity  my nose has been assaulted by.

A "Prophet" is merely the label in all given religions of a person who has been tapped by the god/s or a spirit via consultation who others believe have "seen" the future.

The reality is that all cultures have had these and none of them have been real or credible.

You were the one making the claim... I was only yet again debunking your claim.  Then you turn around and pretend like you didn't claim it... who's making steaming piles here?  Besides Rednef

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, there never has been a crystal ball. There never has been an "oracle". There never has been a "prophet". If you truly believe this, then you might as well go down to your local Toys R Us and consult an 8 Ball or Ouija Board. Go watch the Wizard of Oz. Both the good witch and bad witch in that movie "saw" things. It was still a fictional story.

You are just too delusional to accept that your Jesus hero is merely another deity that in the future will end up in the graveyard of myths,where it should be.

that must be it... Again the gospel according to Brain.  Congradulations, you have heard Brain calling Cap delusional for the 1000th time!  Will cap cave and accept his delusion claim this time?  Stay tuned to find out.

You might go your entire life believing, but I am going to keep calling you delusional, on the issue of claiming a pet invisible friend. I tell you that till one of us kicks the bucket, hopefully that will merely mean old age for both of us.

It took humanity hundreds of years to accept that the earth rotated around the sun. If I don't sway you, there are others reading this that I might. But I also hold out hope for you too. It took me a decade to shed my superstition and finally become comfortable using the word atheist to describe my position.

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


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

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Thanks for the laugh Red.

I wasn't kidding, at all...

I know you weren't, but your equating me to Phelps was childish and silly., which is why I was laughing at it.

I am an individual. You are an individual. "Atheist" is merely a word WE use to describe the "off position". It is not a club or a gang or a religion.

If you want to call me an "asshole", that would be closer to a better argument, than equating me to someone who would make laws arresting people for merely not belonging to his club.

You simple don't like my style or my word choice. That does not make me a bigot or even an asshole.

The truth is, when humans don't discuss such deeply personally held positions, we do get along and do help each other. Does the fireman or policeman  or doctor, if ethical, ask the politics or religion of those they help? How many strangers have you helped with something? Maybe a jump on the battery? Maybe a call to 911 because of a fender bender?

Do you really think that if a Christian gave me CPR and saved me, I'd say "I wish you had let me die"? That is how childish your view of my tactics and arguments are.

If Cap or you or anyone were in a car accident in front of me, I would not simply pass if I knew no one was helping. I know Cap would do that and you would too. What makes us human, is not what we have in common, what makes us human, is knowing that we are all capable of the same thing.

You don't want to associate with me. Thats fine. But don't make the issue about atheists. If you don't want atheists being viewed as being the same, then don't demand that I am a clone of you. And don't speak for me and claim that atheists need to behave a certain way. Atheism is a position, not a moral code.

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And Red, do you really think

And Red, do you really think that a ignorant bigot like Phelps would have an Obama quote in his sig?

I may hate claims I find absurd, and I certainly don't mince words. But I do value the quote in my sig. We are a better nation because of our diversity. We are a stronger nation because we are not monochromatic like Stalin's Russia or the theocracy of Iran. That does not mean the I like claims of pet deities. It just means I can value individuals without liking everything they claim.

 

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


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

Brian37 wrote:
You simple don't like my style or my word choice.  

It's not that simple.

I don't make any distinction between your atheism or theism.

You truly define what a waste of human skin is, to me. I'm just glad that your prospects at spreading your genes are so low.

 

 

 

 

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

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
You simple don't like my style or my word choice.  

It's not that simple.

I don't make any distinction between your atheism or theism.

You truly define what a waste of human skin is, to me. I'm just glad that your prospects at spreading your genes are so low.

 

Stop it. I'm not fond of laughing and snorting my drink out of my nose. I doubt very seriously you could get my co-workers or my mother or Bob Spence or Brian Sapient here to agree that I am a waste of skin. All you are saying is you don't like me. So what. There are lots of people I don't like.

Fred Phelps would consider both you and I "wastes of skin"along with many Christians. So it seems to me you have more in common with Phelps than I do.

I don't consider you a waste of skin. I simply see an angry person who is throwing a fit because life isn't following their idea of a script. I am not a clone of you, and you are simply angry that I am not doing things the way you think I should.

 

 

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


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

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
You simple don't like my style or my word choice.  

It's not that simple.

I don't make any distinction between your atheism or theism.

You truly define what a waste of human skin is, to me. I'm just glad that your prospects at spreading your genes are so low.

 

Stop it. I'm not fond of laughing and snorting my drink out of my nose.

That's because there's an internet separating you from me, smart mouth...

 

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

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
You simple don't like my style or my word choice.  

It's not that simple.

I don't make any distinction between your atheism or theism.

You truly define what a waste of human skin is, to me. I'm just glad that your prospects at spreading your genes are so low.

 

Stop it. I'm not fond of laughing and snorting my drink out of my nose.

That's because there's an internet separating you from me, smart mouth...

 

I don't get physical with people. This isn't high school and we are not in a street gang. If you were face to face with me and you laid one hand on me you'd be in the back of a cop car. Adults don't settle beefs with fists. Words are one thing, but to even imply violence, is beyond the scope.

You can call me a dick, an asshole, whatever. But you will not get away with threatening me with violence. Do so and I will call the authorities and report you.

If anyone is taking this too far you are. This is a debate to me, nothing more. If it gets a believer to snap out of their delusion, great. If it does not, at least it gives both sides a venue to speak their mind uncensored.

I am going to let this veiled threat slide because I think you simply need a break to calm down. But do not ever threaten me again.

 

 

 

 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

As a simple question, why is it that your holy book should be the central focus? IE that your book is right where the others aren't? After all, it is easily possible that humanity did end up losing the correct religion, Sol Invictus for example or perhaps the Egyptians actually had it right, or maybe the Greeks. I mean their stories predate yours, their texts are equally problematic if you want to talk about morals or consistency iwth reality. I mean frankly if you're going to claim an all powerful deity one would think that the least said deity could do is produce a functioning manual, especially if we're going to be judged on it.

The same reason why the television manual is the central focus of understanding how to work your tv and the car manual is the central focus of understanding how your car works.  I would take the word on my car's manual from the manufacturer rather than an unrelated entity claiming to know more about my car than the source and creator.  Wouldn't you?

You'd have to explain to me how this particular manual is not functioning.  Just you though, not looking for others opinion on this at the moment.  

Is it a question of the manual being not functioning or the penchant that you and other Christians have for disregarding it when it becomes inconvenient to you?

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


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

caposkia 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?

Actually, he conquered death, and the promise is that we will too through Him... so does the Bible actually teach that we are permanently dead?  Sounds to me as if we have the same fate as Jesus... that being death then life.  

No that doesn't imply in 3 days people will come back BRIAN, but it does imply that we will be risen from the dead.  

No, I didn't say anything about the Bible at all. You say Jesus conquered death. wouldn't that mean that you believers will never die (as opposed to being raised)? Or is this an "eventual" conquering like the interpretation of "you shall surely (immediately) die" in the garden of Eden becoming "you'll die after a few centuries"

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


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

The death story no matter how you slice it, makes no sense. The dodges used are that of "he didn't really die" his "spirit" survived. And this is merely another dodge.

Again. Caposkia can pull his hair out all he wants over this, but I am not repeating myself to be mean or or to say I hate him. I am doing it because the story as written is both scientifically absurd and morally absurd.

There is no way to replicate or falsify such a claim, first and foremost. To buy this claim all one has to do is have "faith". But even before you get to the first word of the bible you are still starting from the core position that a non material thinking entity is a possibility. No matter how you slice it, or what name you want to call this "thing", it is a naked assertion.

But it is also, even outside our dispute over the "magic" of such claim, it is also morally bankrupt. I do not like the motif of the Jesus character as a claim of "sacrifice" in the context of this story because it takes away my personal right to forgive or not and I do not find that moral at all. It turns me into a pawn and robs me of my autonomy. Strictly speaking from a literary motif.

If one went to a Superman movie, and in the movie Superman went into an ally where a woman was being raped, didn't stop  it, and after it was over, demanded the woman forgive the rapist, or Superman forgave the rapist without regards to the wishes of the victim, who would pay good money to see such a movie? Who would find that moral?

Again Cap, this isn't personal. You may end up going your whole life believing. I hope for your own sake you don't. I once believed myself. I am merely trying to save you from a self inflicted placebo. I felt just as intense as you when I believed. But it wasn't until I lost my fear of possibly being wrong, that I was able to get on the road of skepticism and to the eventual position I hold now.

There REALLY is no god. I am not being arrogant or mean. I am taking the evolutionary totality of our species, our current scientific knowledge, and the history of dead myths, all together as a collective conclusion.

IF there were a thing called a "god" current and past definitions would have to be scrapped because they don't jive with reality. What does make sense is that our species has always been capable of believing false things. You can claim your god all you want till the cows come home. But you ARE despite what you want to believe, in the same boat as every other human living today or has lived in the past who has claimed some sort of non material entity.

I really would recommend the God Delusion by Dawkins and "The New Atheism" by Stinger to explain to you the placebo affect you fill in the gaps with. I am not kidding or trying to be mean to you when I say "It is all in your head". I am being very serious because I want to help you.

We collectively as a species are much more advanced in our knowledge of our universe, planet and even our own human psychology. It may be painful for you to hear and may offend you, but facing the truth is far better than defending a myth. We are better off as a species not believing that the sun is a god Cap. Take it one step further and accept that your deity is not needed to explain reality either.

 

 

 

 

 

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


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

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Please do remind me about how I allegedly got my ass handed to me...

Like I told you a number of times; you're not much more than a typical theist.

1- Arguments from ignorance

That's weak, I could claim the same about you... be more specific.  

redneF wrote:

2- Argument from the bible (which are virtually indistinguishable from 1)

Of course I'm going to argue from the Bible just as much as anyone would argue from a source they deem reliable... e.g. any science, history, math etc book to prove a point.  You should try it sometime.

redneF wrote:

3- Logical fallacies (arguments from authority, from popularity, from incredulity etc etc..)

You know....Confirmation Bias

God is not an axiom, obviously, so you can't start from:

P1 God....\

you should know better than that by now.  You know I'm willing to work with you, but you have to be willing to make an effort as well.  I will discuss with you on any empirical basis that can be associated to the subject at hand... the question is what angle do you want to go on?  That's the one big question you've been doing a great job of running from.  It's not about what is most convincing to me, that's subjective... it's about what would be most convincing to you... logically..  This would require you to actually consider for a moment that there could possibly be something that would convince you of the possibility of a metaphysical existence...and that could be empirically discussed which is why I shut Brian down when he told me what would convince him would be to fart a Lambrohgini out of is ass.  Hardly an empirical or logical discussion of metaphysics.

redneF wrote:

Why does she think she's qualified to be objective and knowledgeable about the topic?

-"As I surveyed the Sea of Galilee from my vantage point on the Golan Heights, I uttered, "Richard Dawkins, you are so wrong. God is not a delusion. No way. No How. He's right here in the Holy Land." 

-"The New Atheist who started this whole public fracas is none other than media darling and pit bull Sam Harris. Put a blonde wig and too-tight black dress on him, and he could almost pass as an Ann Coulter act-alike." 

-"It's A-OK for a New Atheist to trash anyone who dares differ with their viewpoints even when there is a disagreement within their own scientific community as to their conclusions." : Becky Garrison

What disagreement is there in the scientific community again? About what exactly?

You mean the LCH found out that gods are really behind it all?

Maybe that DNA proves that gods are behind that as well? Maybe Becky should write a memo to Francis Collins, he's not aware of these new scientific conclusions.

First quote is a self realization.  Hardly empirical... the second one was sarcasm making a point that their approach is no better than there opposing side.  The third quote if I remember correctly is in reference to the fact that scientists despite what the media says are split down the middle on the God discussion.  Most Atheists are quick to say science does not prove God, and most Theists are quick to say science proves God, but both sides cannot back themselves up further than that with the other side.  When it comes down to the reasoning behind it it seems to be perspective on both sides... 

It's literally:

Atheist scientist:  Science does not prove the existence of God because of X... but you cannot prove a negitive anyway so despite X, it cannot be proven.

Theist scientist:  assuming we're trying to prove a negative is automatically putting bias into the study... However, you're wrong, not only does Y prove God, but X supports Y. ....

And the discussion continues for centuries.   X being any number of theories or discussions that suggest evolutionary design or lack of intelligence in design and Y being other theories or evolutionary design ideas that weren't brought up initially.  

redneF wrote:

Apparently, you discovered all the best reasons to know that the Christian god exists (outside of the desperate hopes of Christians), but for some reason haven't yet presented them for a Nobel Prize and taught the 5 billion 'Non Christians' why they're wrong.

why are you assuming all 5 billion Christians believe different than me?  Granted a lot of them may not, but I didn't invent my own understanding of God.  

The problem with the Nobel Prize excuse here is that the majority of the non-believing world takes a perspective that if you can't touch it, feel it, taste it, see it and put it under a microscope all at once, then it's not real.

redneF wrote:

Glad that a priest had the balls to go up against Einstein and show us all that the Universe didn't happen the way the bible says it did.

Where are your balls, Caposkia?

my balls?  Oh they're safely tucked in my boxers at the moment.

It's interesting you say that a priest did that, now did he say that the Bible was wrong, or that Einstein was mistaken?  What does the Bible supposedly say happened?  

Don't give me the creation in 7 days crap either, we've gone through that already and if you've been following the discussion on the other thread, you'll see why that doesn't support what the Bible is likely saying.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
She gives reasons why she can laugh at the new atheist persuit.  

I don't see her having any better hope than you do of that...

You make so many challenges, but don't stick around when it gets going.  I hardly see any hope of you making much progress either to be honest.  What've you got to support youself besides a grudge?


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Is it a question of the manual being not functioning or the penchant that you and other Christians have for disregarding it when it becomes inconvenient to you?

When have I disregarded the Bible?   Specific example please


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, I didn't

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I didn't say anything about the Bible at all. You say Jesus conquered death. wouldn't that mean that you believers will never die (as opposed to being raised)? Or is this an "eventual" conquering like the interpretation of "you shall surely (immediately) die" in the garden of Eden becoming "you'll die after a few centuries"

conquering death didn't mean that Jesus never died...  How can you conquer something if you never experience it?  It'd be like me going to Nepal, looking at Mt. Everest and saying I conquered the mountain... doesn't work that way.  

The Bible states that we must die to sin so that we may live... This is getting a bit deeper, but in death, we die to the sin of the flesh and are resurrected into a new body that has not been tainted by sin.  This is written in the Bible that we must die for this reason.  Jesus died because he took the weight of all the sin of the world upon his own body and had to die to get rid of it, but resurrected to prove once and for all that he is in fact who He claimed to be and that it all was for us.  

A metaphor would be that sin is like a stain you can't get out of your clothing... the only way to get rid of it is to trash the piece of clothing and put on a new one.  


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

 ....and Brian and Rednef... take it outside.    There's really  no point to you two arguing.  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:but in death,

caposkia wrote:
but in death, we die to the sin of the flesh and are resurrected into a new body that has not been tainted by sin.  This is written in the Bible that we must die for this reason.  Jesus died because he took the weight of all the sin of the world upon his own body and had to die to get rid of it, but resurrected to prove once and for all that he is in fact who He claimed to be and that it all was for us.  

 

 

Catch 22.  Adam and Eve weren't "tainted" by any sin nature , the key to being able to sin is in simply having free will, which Christians believe they will retain in Heaven.   Even free will in Heaven is a loaded gun because look what the angel Lucifer did with his "Free Will" and we all know where he is supposedly headed.

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Catch 22.  Adam and Eve weren't "tainted" by any sin nature , the key to being able to sin is in simply having free will, which Christians believe they will retain in Heaven.   Even free will in Heaven is a loaded gun because look what the angel Lucifer did with his "Free Will" and we all know where he is supposedly headed.

The basis for sin is falling short.  Granted there will still be choice in heaven, but also there won't be Satan encouraging sin at the same time.  The "temptations" to sin will not be there.  How that may actually be I could only speculate.  No catch 22. 

It's about the understanding and faithfulness of God's people.  Sin in heaven would be from what I understand as clear cut as robbing a bank.  Everyone knows its wrong and most people very easily can reist due to the clear rammifications of making such a choice... the only difference here is God will catch you in the act, no doubt... anyone robbing a bank I think likely does it in the hopes of getting away with it. 


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

caposkia wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Catch 22.  Adam and Eve weren't "tainted" by any sin nature , the key to being able to sin is in simply having free will, which Christians believe they will retain in Heaven.   Even free will in Heaven is a loaded gun because look what the angel Lucifer did with his "Free Will" and we all know where he is supposedly headed.

The basis for sin is falling short.  Granted there will still be choice in heaven, but also there won't be Satan encouraging sin at the same time.  The "temptations" to sin will not be there.  How that may actually be I could only speculate.  No catch 22. 

It's about the understanding and faithfulness of God's people.  Sin in heaven would be from what I understand as clear cut as robbing a bank.  Everyone knows its wrong and most people very easily can reist due to the clear rammifications of making such a choice... the only difference here is God will catch you in the act, no doubt... anyone robbing a bank I think likely does it in the hopes of getting away with it. 

Falling short of an unhittable target? That makes God quite the dick.

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


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but in death, we die to the sin of the flesh and are resurrected into a new body that has not been tainted by sin.  This is written in the Bible that we must die for this reason.  Jesus died because he took the weight of all the sin of the world upon his own body and had to die to get rid of it, but resurrected to prove once and for all that he is in fact who He claimed to be and that it all was for us.  

 

 

Catch 22.  Adam and Eve weren't "tainted" by any sin nature , the key to being able to sin is in simply having free will, which Christians believe they will retain in Heaven.   Even free will in Heaven is a loaded gun because look what the angel Lucifer did with his "Free Will" and we all know where he is supposedly headed.

Not only that, but that entire story is a blueprint for entrapment. And even worse than entrapment because the accused had no knowledge of what the crime was before hand. IFirst, they had no clue before hand what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't set up the bait themselves nor did they know what the bait was.

God had a bet with Lucifer and the Adam and Eve were the poker chips in the rigged game.

It would be like if a parent said, "I bet I can get my kid to burn their hand on the stove they've never seen or used."

Then the other says, "So what if they do, I let you win. You and I both know the cards are marked"

It is a really sick story. One of many sick stories.

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Falling short of an unhittable target? That makes God quite the dick.

So, you're telling me given the choice to rob a bank or not, you wouldn't be able to choose not to rob the bank?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Not only that,

Brian37 wrote:

Not only that, but that entire story is a blueprint for entrapment.

therefore, laws are entrapment... got it.

Brian37 wrote:

And even worse than entrapment because the accused had no knowledge of what the crime was before hand.

Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.  But if the information that it is wrong is given to you, you then are responsible.  Most people have at least heard God's laws... this would make them responsible for their actions against them. 

Brian37 wrote:

IFirst, they had no clue before hand what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't set up the bait themselves nor did they know what the bait was.

If you didn't know it was bait, you wouldn't go for it because it wouldn't be baiting you.  If they truly had no clue that what they were doing is wrong, then how are they held responsible?  I want your details please.  

Brian37 wrote:

God had a bet with Lucifer and the Adam and Eve were the poker chips in the rigged game.

Bible quote please.  btw, how is the game rigged if you still have a choice... it's like me saying in roulette that I am not going to spin it, instead I'm going to drop the ball on 5 and I will guarantee you 4X your winnings if you put it on 5... you choose not to and I as promised drop it on 5 and instead you lose all your money.  In other words, it's not a rigged game, all the information you need to win is laid out before you, whatever choice you make is the result you get.  Can't blame me if I told you a sure thing and you chose not to go for it.  

Brian37 wrote:

It would be like if a parent said, "I bet I can get my kid to burn their hand on the stove they've never seen or used."

so... you're saying that Adam and eve never saw the tree before and when they saw it, were never told that bad things would happen if they ate the fruit from it and then God sent Lucifer down to assure that they did in fact take from this unknown tree that they've never been introduced to before and never been given the rundown of consequences that might happen if they eat from it despite what the Bible might say about that scenario. ...

Interesting.. I'm curious on your source for information.  I know it can't be the bible in this case.  

Brian37 wrote:

Then the other says, "So what if they do, I let you win. You and I both know the cards are marked"

It is a really sick story. One of many sick stories.

Again, source please..... if you say the Bible then I think you need to reread it.  Your alleged marked cards were layed out on the table for all to see... nothing was hidden and the results were clearly explained.  

I love how your only defense is to change the stories.  Can you actually defend yourself logically?  I mean honestly.. how many years here and you have nothing... Redundancy is not a defense and neither is changing what is written in millions of books around the world... who are you trying to fool?  It certainly wouldn't be anyone who's read the Genesis story.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:therefore, laws are

Quote:
therefore, laws are entrapment... got it.

When they are not by consent in a rigged game, and the person who doesn't know better wouldn't do it if they did know better, then yea, that is entrapment. Just like calling hunting a sport when all it is is a fucking trick is entrapment.

Dress up in cammies, spray yourself with deer pee, stay quiet with your scope rifle covered by the local foliage and the deer will eventually be tempted by what they think is the smell of a female. You set up the game in hunting. If the deer had the same knowledge of the hunter and didn't want to die, it would, if it still wanted a shot at what it thought was the female deer, would want it's own weapons to defend itself.

Adam and Eve were pawns in a bet rigged by the god character.

Laws in reality in civil society are by consent, not based on a bet or a trick and most certainly can be changed if those who want to change them care to make the effort. What choice did Adam and Eve have in that game or the bet between God/Satan?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Again, source

Quote:
Again, source please..... if you say the Bible then I think you need to reread it.

You already have the source. The bible is your comic book, not mine.

I have read it, you have read it too. The only difference is that I accept it as the comic book it is and you don't.

The head character "God" is a non material thinking entity despite the scientific fact that we know that thinking only happens in the context of biological evolution.

STRIKE ONE

And that is even before you get to page one.

Genesis is the mother load of bullshit, by itself. Adult women popping out of a man's rib. The sun and moon being created more than once and on top of that being treated as separate sources of light.

STRIKE TWO

The only back peddle you have is metaphor "words don't mean what they mean", forgetting or willfully ignoring when that comic book was written by scientifically inept people.

STRIKE THREE,

Then you try to use the claptrap of "metaphysics" as if it can be taught along side entropy and mitosis when you know damned well it is no where close.

And then you ignore that if another claimant of another pet god used the same arguments you are trying to make here, you would RIGHTFULLY reject their pet god.

LIGHTS OUT! GAME OVER!

 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Falling short of an unhittable target? That makes God quite the dick.

So, you're telling me given the choice to rob a bank or not, you wouldn't be able to choose not to rob the bank?  

No, I'm telling you that the concept of sin as hammartia ("missing God's mark&quotEye-wink is unworkable as no one can hit God's mark. Now if you looked at sin as "willfully breaking the known laws of God", the answer is more obvious. I wouldn't rob the bank because I wouldn't break the known laws of man for a less than noble purpose.

If you are like most modern Pauline Christians and look at God's law as non-existent because of Christ's grace (you can't break laws that don't apply to you), you have to decide whether robbing the bank, asking forgiveness and getting God's absolution is worth breaking man's law and being punished for it.

 

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