The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Millions? And they all

Millions? And they all believe exactly like you without deviation?

That's the only way I canever see millions of "True Christians". That, or your cloning machine is working overtime.

"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: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You want sources? How about putting down your babble and picking up a biology textbook? Is Biology not a source?

Biology= A  sperm and egg make a baby. Not a naked assertion, but provable fact!

Bible= "Poof, my fictional being did it" Naked assertion with nothing but prior naked assertions to back it up.

Biology= The cells in a human body die after lack of bloodflow and oxygen. Provable fact!

Bible="Poof, my fictional being reanimated it's fictional son" Naked assertion through self serving circular writings.

Lets look at the scoreboard.

Biology=2

Myth=0

And that only adresses 2 of myth's absurd claims in human history.

 

yea, I know.  You're in love with the whole God impregnating a girl thing.  You mention it a lot. 

Let's take this one step at a time.  I won't even consider explaining that story to you until we can get past the initial stage of whether there is a spiritual world or not.  One step at a time.  Tunnel vision will prevent us from doing it any other way. 

What source do you have for that topic first. 

BTW, biology does support the Bible or vise versa, but we're a long way away from that conversation.  There's no point in talking about that if you can't even grasp a spiritual world. 

Quote:
Tunnel vision will prevent us from doing it any other way.

I agree, but it is not I with tunnel vision. It is you mistaking your sense of awe as being a reality when it is your own brain fucking you because of nonsense ideas you bought from others.

The reality is that the brain is capable of believing things that are not true. The overlap that humanity has to make sense of reality is not religion, not even personal guesses(personal deities).

Reality is not yours or mine or utopian,  it is not based on ancient hocus pocus written down by goat herders anymore than it is written by  modern day pantheists. It is not Superman, or Kabbalah or Vishnu or Allah or tarrot cards or Jesus.

Reality is skewed by all of us, but best gauged by the overlap of scientific method which is quality control. I don't know of  of any  personal whim of a deity by any label in history or organized religion that has the same quality control scientific method can have.

Spirits have no proof for existence than if I claimed that I could fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass.

But, if you can get your "spirit" or "god" or "God" or "gods" to fart one out of my ass right now, I would be convinced. Somehow though I think holding my breath waiting for such would cause my needless death.

 

"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: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Millions? And

jcgadfly wrote:

Millions? And they all believe exactly like you without deviation?

That's the only way I canever see millions of "True Christians". That, or your cloning machine is working overtime.

as far as the beliefs I've expressed on here, yes.  I guess if you want to get technical and petty, then no.  I've had many arguements with "True Christians" about who is going to win the world series this year.  Some Christians support Bush, whereas I don't. 

What is clear is how we treat others and view others in the world.  Our actions will always speak louder than our words. 

With all pettyness aside, there is a clear understanding of our following and how we should be as people in this life.  It's confusing and extremely frustrating to see so many out there claiming to follow Christ and being hypocritical about His teachings. 

The many false understandings and teachings out there is why many of us followers have been working so hard to correct the now stereotypical understanding of a Christian.  http://www.ptm.org is a great example of that.   If you look through the Q and A section of the site, you'll notice that we dont' know everything and there are a lot of questions about the not-so-clear information, but you'll also notice that what is clear is the teachings of Jesus Christ and how to respond in any situation. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I agree, but

Brian37 wrote:

I agree, but it is not I with tunnel vision. It is you mistaking your sense of awe as being a reality when it is your own brain fucking you because of nonsense ideas you bought from others.

who did you buy yours from?

Brian37 wrote:

The reality is that the brain is capable of believing things that are not true. The overlap that humanity has to make sense of reality is not religion, not even personal guesses(personal deities).

Reality is not yours or mine or utopian,  it is not based on ancient hocus pocus written down by goat herders anymore than it is written by  modern day pantheists. It is not Superman, or Kabbalah or Vishnu or Allah or tarrot cards or Jesus.

ok, decent overview of reality. 

Brian37 wrote:

Reality is skewed by all of us, but best gauged by the overlap of scientific method which is quality control. I don't know of  of any  personal whim of a deity by any label in history or organized religion that has the same quality control scientific method can have.

I guess seeing as scientific method has been discussed already in this forum I should ask; what are you considering the quality control that is scientific method?  Just to clarify.  Basically, yes, I'm looking for your personal definition of the scientific method so we can move on.  It seems this is a road block right now. 

Brian37 wrote:

Spirits have no proof for existence than if I claimed that I could fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass.

But, if you can get your "spirit" or "god" or "God" or "gods" to fart one out of my ass right now, I would be convinced. Somehow though I think holding my breath waiting for such would cause my needless death.

ah ok, forget scientific method, this dude wants to fart out a car!  Careful when you get to the spoiler, that might hurt a little. 

i guess I should ask;  is it true that you'd really need to fart a car out your butt in order to believe in God or even a spiritual world?  If so, then I think we're done here.  Many people in the Bible saw miracles from Jesus and yet still did not believe.  What makes you different from them?  and don't say it's because you're a real person 'cause I might have to fart a church out my butt if you do. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I agree, but it is not I with tunnel vision. It is you mistaking your sense of awe as being a reality when it is your own brain fucking you because of nonsense ideas you bought from others.

who did you buy yours from?

Brian37 wrote:

The reality is that the brain is capable of believing things that are not true. The overlap that humanity has to make sense of reality is not religion, not even personal guesses(personal deities).

Reality is not yours or mine or utopian,  it is not based on ancient hocus pocus written down by goat herders anymore than it is written by  modern day pantheists. It is not Superman, or Kabbalah or Vishnu or Allah or tarrot cards or Jesus.

ok, decent overview of reality. 

Brian37 wrote:

Reality is skewed by all of us, but best gauged by the overlap of scientific method which is quality control. I don't know of  of any  personal whim of a deity by any label in history or organized religion that has the same quality control scientific method can have.

I guess seeing as scientific method has been discussed already in this forum I should ask; what are you considering the quality control that is scientific method?  Just to clarify.  Basically, yes, I'm looking for your personal definition of the scientific method so we can move on.  It seems this is a road block right now. 

Brian37 wrote:

Spirits have no proof for existence than if I claimed that I could fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass.

But, if you can get your "spirit" or "god" or "God" or "gods" to fart one out of my ass right now, I would be convinced. Somehow though I think holding my breath waiting for such would cause my needless death.

ah ok, forget scientific method, this dude wants to fart out a car!  Careful when you get to the spoiler, that might hurt a little. 

i guess I should ask;  is it true that you'd really need to fart a car out your butt in order to believe in God or even a spiritual world?  If so, then I think we're done here.  Many people in the Bible saw miracles from Jesus and yet still did not believe.  What makes you different from them?  and don't say it's because you're a real person 'cause I might have to fart a church out my butt if you do. 

Scientific method is not a roadblock, YOU are making it a roadblock by trying to make absurdity fit it.

If your deity is all powerfull, it could turn you into a goat right now, or make Richard Simmons strieght. So yea, farting a full sized lamborgini out of my ass would be quite convincing. But, since your fictional god doesnt exist, Richard Simmons will remain happly gay.

Quote:
Many people in the Bible saw miracles from Jesus and yet still did not believe.

If I wrote a book right now, and mentioned Washington DC, a real place, and also claimed that I had 100 billion dollars, and that 500 people saw my bank statement, but had no outside proof other than what I wrote in my book, would you buy it?

"Miracles" is an old motif, older than Christianity and the Hebrews, the people that wrote the bible believed in superstitious crap so they exagerated the events to appeal to the emotions of the readers. It is a common literary tactic, inside and outside religious literature.

If people before even the Hebrews are capable of making up stories and believing them as fact, how then, did your claim magically become immune to mundane human behavior?

So if you are going to pull the same tired crap of, "God cant do what is outside his nature" we have seen that garbage before. If he can but wont, then I am an atheist for a reason and you are futily trying to alter the course of god's plan.

Putting a limit on an all powerfull being negates using the word "all". So if you are going to say your god is all powerfull, then tell the jackass to pull a Lamborginni out of my ass. Put up or shut up. I am not a toy, or property or an experiment. And if one were to go by your claim, which I don't. But for the sake of arugement, it would not be worthy of my phrase, much less worship.

HERE ARE THE FACTS YOU DONT WANT TO FACE!

It is all in  your head, just like it is all in the head of a Muslim who truely thinks Allah is real, and just like the ancient Egyptians truely believed that a giant ball of gas cared about them.

It is absurd to claim that a disimbodied entity by any name exists and even more absurd to claim that it can, even if it choses not too, control every atom in the univers and direct it's corse to it's whim.

Your fantacy is merely another in human history.

 

 

 

"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:

Millions? And they all believe exactly like you without deviation?

That's the only way I canever see millions of "True Christians". That, or your cloning machine is working overtime.

as far as the beliefs I've expressed on here, yes.  I guess if you want to get technical and petty, then no.  I've had many arguements with "True Christians" about who is going to win the world series this year.  Some Christians support Bush, whereas I don't. 

What is clear is how we treat others and view others in the world.  Our actions will always speak louder than our words. 

With all pettyness aside, there is a clear understanding of our following and how we should be as people in this life.  It's confusing and extremely frustrating to see so many out there claiming to follow Christ and being hypocritical about His teachings. 

The many false understandings and teachings out there is why many of us followers have been working so hard to correct the now stereotypical understanding of a Christian.  http://www.ptm.org is a great example of that.   If you look through the Q and A section of the site, you'll notice that we dont' know everything and there are a lot of questions about the not-so-clear information, but you'll also notice that what is clear is the teachings of Jesus Christ and how to respond in any situation. 

So it's a church where you can pretty much worship whatever you want to as long as you don't offend. I mean if you don't use "humanly imposed rules, rituals and regulations", how can you use any part of the Bible? If you don't use the Bible, how can you claim to be "Christ-centered, based on God's amazing grace"?

After all, religion by its nature is legalistic.

 

"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: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Millions? And they all believe exactly like you without deviation?

That's the only way I canever see millions of "True Christians". That, or your cloning machine is working overtime.

as far as the beliefs I've expressed on here, yes.  I guess if you want to get technical and petty, then no.  I've had many arguements with "True Christians" about who is going to win the world series this year.  Some Christians support Bush, whereas I don't. 

What is clear is how we treat others and view others in the world.  Our actions will always speak louder than our words. 

With all pettyness aside, there is a clear understanding of our following and how we should be as people in this life.  It's confusing and extremely frustrating to see so many out there claiming to follow Christ and being hypocritical about His teachings. 

The many false understandings and teachings out there is why many of us followers have been working so hard to correct the now stereotypical understanding of a Christian.  http://www.ptm.org is a great example of that.   If you look through the Q and A section of the site, you'll notice that we dont' know everything and there are a lot of questions about the not-so-clear information, but you'll also notice that what is clear is the teachings of Jesus Christ and how to respond in any situation. 

So it's a church where you can pretty much worship whatever you want to as long as you don't offend. I mean if you don't use "humanly imposed rules, rituals and regulations", how can you use any part of the Bible? If you don't use the Bible, how can you claim to be "Christ-centered, based on God's amazing grace"?

After all, religion by its nature is legalistic.

 

What cappy wont admit is that laws and morality are not a result of a disimbodied being, but of the evolution of the species. It frightens the theist that the super natural explination is not required to explain human behavior and that is merely a matter of their own ego refusing to let go of absurdity.

"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: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
reply to Kevin R. Brown

I have not forgotten about you.  I have taken the time to check out some of your videos, however, I've for some reason been having trouble playing them.  That's why I haven't watched them all yet. 

From the bits and few that I have watched, I do wonder if much of the topics haven't been covered in the science vs. religion forum. 

One video in particular that I just got finished watching was the "intelligent design vs. evolution debate".  I absolutely remember going over the idea that there is lack of evidence for a darwinistic evolution to take place be it a transformation from one species to another.  I'm not sure who was suppose to be defending the intelligent design side, but I think the guy who brought out the elephant chart made a better arguement for the evolution I believe in than I've heard yet. 

Just the sheer mathematics are mind boggling as to the odds of such transitions to have taken place let alone the numerous amount of steps involved for such elaborate transitions to have happened.  I'm sure you'll see the discussions in the forum science vs. religion.  (I'd put a link, but I don't know how on here yet)

Check out that other forum.  If something was not covered or clarified, specify to which video you presented that would be relevent and I will focus on that. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Basically, yes, I'm

Quote:
Basically, yes, I'm looking for your personal definition of the scientific method so we can move on.

I am not as gullible as you. I have a personal definition of sceintific method as much as I have a personal definition of miosis or gravity. You are just as capable of looking up the medical definition of rigor mortis as I am. You refuse to admit that you have nothing but a gap argument. I  can't help you out of that delusion unless you want help.

If both you and I look under a microscope at human sperm, the difference between you and I is that you falsely assume a grand design when the reality is evolution which is uncognitive and uncaring to either your whims or mine.

 

The watchmaker argument is old hat and bullshit.

"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: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: HERE ARE THE

Brian37 wrote:

 

HERE ARE THE FACTS YOU DONT WANT TO FACE!

It is all in  your head, just like it is all in the head of a Muslim who truely thinks Allah is real, and just like the ancient Egyptians truely believed that a giant ball of gas cared about them.

It is absurd to claim that a disimbodied entity by any name exists and even more absurd to claim that it can, even if it choses not too, control every atom in the univers and direct it's corse to it's whim.

Your fantacy is merely another in human history.

 

such confidence.  Again, what source have you?  or please define for me the scientific method be it that the previous conversation on it in this forum didn't clarify.  This way we might actually make progress in this forum.

Let's put some "logic" into perspective for a moment btw.  Yea, i know, it's a stretch but let's try it.

If my God is real and therefore is almighty and all powerful.  He is our father who created us and is even aware when the most insignificant organism dies, why would he take the time to make you fart a car so that you can be convinced he's real?  He didn't waste his time proving himself to all those who made similar requests in the Bible, He wouldnt' treat you any different?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So it's a

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's a church where you can pretty much worship whatever you want to as long as you don't offend. I mean if you don't use "humanly imposed rules, rituals and regulations", how can you use any part of the Bible? If you don't use the Bible, how can you claim to be "Christ-centered, based on God's amazing grace"?

After all, religion by its nature is legalistic.

 

did I say all that? 

First of all, what is a church to you?

BTW, The Gosple is grace, not Law. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What cappy

Brian37 wrote:

What cappy wont admit is that laws and morality are not a result of a disimbodied being, but of the evolution of the species. It frightens the theist that the super natural explination is not required to explain human behavior and that is merely a matter of their own ego refusing to let go of absurdity.

you should review this forum and see how repetitive you get.   Are you trying to convince people of this?  I think they understood the first few times.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I am not as

Brian37 wrote:

 

I am not as gullible as you. I have a personal definition of sceintific method as much as I have a personal definition of miosis or gravity.

...and yet you continuously avoid the question just like you've avoided presenting a  reliable source for your claims. 

I'm asking you for your personal definition (which I cannot look up) because I've met many people who have definitions of popular understandings that tend to skew off the main definition according to their preference.  I just want to make sure you and I are on the same page.  I think we can agree I've been making a viable effort in doing so.  Balls in your court.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

HERE ARE THE FACTS YOU DONT WANT TO FACE!

It is all in  your head, just like it is all in the head of a Muslim who truely thinks Allah is real, and just like the ancient Egyptians truely believed that a giant ball of gas cared about them.

It is absurd to claim that a disimbodied entity by any name exists and even more absurd to claim that it can, even if it choses not too, control every atom in the univers and direct it's corse to it's whim.

Your fantacy is merely another in human history.

 

such confidence.  Again, what source have you?  or please define for me the scientific method be it that the previous conversation on it in this forum didn't clarify.  This way we might actually make progress in this forum.

Let's put some "logic" into perspective for a moment btw.  Yea, i know, it's a stretch but let's try it.

If my God is real and therefore is almighty and all powerful.  He is our father who created us and is even aware when the most insignificant organism dies, why would he take the time to make you fart a car so that you can be convinced he's real?  He didn't waste his time proving himself to all those who made similar requests in the Bible, He wouldnt' treat you any different?

 

You keep asking me what sources I have.

But what your dense cheerleading scull cant seem to fathom is science.

If you use a yardstick to mesure the area in your room, YOU ARE USING SCINECE. You don't need to make up stories about a yardstick. You can use the same yardstick anywhere and it will give you the same results without prayer or incantations or meditation. Much like a themometer in a dead body can be used to calculate how long a body has been dead.

It is not confidence anymore than saying I will take a shit tommorow is. I am confident that Santa and Thor and Allah are fiction, but not out of arrogence, but because the claims the people make DONT match up to reality.

You merely like what you  believe and because of your ego you cant get it into your head that it is just that, all in your head.

If you chose to use an unscientific mythological book written by goat hearders, that is up to you. But don't ask me to substitute a telliscope for superstition to determine the moon's orbits or ocean tides because you like the idea of a being with no body magically manipulating such things.

I am special to myself and to the people who know me, but to the trillions apon googles of atoms in the universe, I am not even a blip. My life is not a result of magic  anymore than Thor was a thinking being wanting to strike me down with lightning for not kissing his ass.

You suffer from the delusion that non-human items have human qualities because the fear of your own mortality wont allow you to accept that you are. If you have a hero to pull you off the train tracks you can foil the mustach villian(mortality). Your problem is that mortality is not a villian, but an uncongnative reality of all biological life from the amoeba to the human.

 

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Does everyone feel

Does everyone feel intellectually soiled yet?


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's a church where you can pretty much worship whatever you want to as long as you don't offend. I mean if you don't use "humanly imposed rules, rituals and regulations", how can you use any part of the Bible? If you don't use the Bible, how can you claim to be "Christ-centered, based on God's amazing grace"?

After all, religion by its nature is legalistic.

 

did I say all that? 

First of all, what is a church to you?

BTW, The Gosple is grace, not Law. 

You didn't say all that - The questions I asked were based on looking at that site. I assumed you belonged. My apologies.

Now to the rest...

1. A church is a body of people bound together by their common belief in a deity or deities.

2. Ah, you're a Pauline Christian. That figures. You don't need to do any of that messy following the commandments or "going about doing good" nonsense. all you need to do is believe in Paul's thought experiment that he called Christ.

Not only do you not need the Bible but Jesus is an annoyance as well.

"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: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

I am not as gullible as you. I have a personal definition of sceintific method as much as I have a personal definition of miosis or gravity.

...and yet you continuously avoid the question just like you've avoided presenting a  reliable source for your claims. 

I'm asking you for your personal definition (which I cannot look up) because I've met many people who have definitions of popular understandings that tend to skew off the main definition according to their preference.  I just want to make sure you and I are on the same page.  I think we can agree I've been making a viable effort in doing so.  Balls in your court.

 

 

Stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burdon. Any science textbook will give you a defintion. You are not a baby and can do your own homework.

"God did it"is not a method, it is a claim. Dont get angrey at me that your fiction cant compete with reality.

 

The ball is in the theist court. If they want to prove it, then they have to come up with a testable repeatable and falsifiable model of their claim. You know you cant so instead of being intelectually honest you try to shift the burdon.

I am not repeating myself for no reason. I am not letting you get away with distractive meandering tactics.

NOW it is quite simple.

Come up with a workable model of your claim and demonstrate your work with control groups that are  testable, repeatable and falsifiable. You cant, you know you cant. Dont bitch at me because you believe in a fictional being and then falsely get upset at me when your fictional daddy wont give you the answers to convince me. I didn't write the bible or any holy book for that matter. Don't get upset at me for your lack of answers.

 

 

"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


Mavar
Mavar's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-14
User is offlineOffline
TL(DR

TL(DR


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
All religion is a form of

All religion is a form of idol worship separatism .... I reject ALL idols , I am GOD ... WTF isn't gawed ??? Please some one , show me the other idol ... what a joke , all religion god shit is.

Religion idol worship SUCKS .... You fucking god religious god inventers, fuck you. I am god , and if you are not god too, Fuck you .... and even story jesus said so, no that it changes the science of what we are ..... star dust ....    


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You didn't

jcgadfly wrote:

You didn't say all that - The questions I asked were based on looking at that site. I assumed you belonged. My apologies.

OH, you'd have to reference for me anything that is taken off that site, though I do agree with most of what is said on there, there are a few things I still wouldn't side with.  However, its' usually petty stuff.  Ya can't agree on everything.

jcgadfly wrote:

Now to the rest...

1. A church is a body of people bound together by their common belief in a deity or deities.

I'm happy to see you don't reference church to being a particular religion or a specific location that people have to get together at.  I'm not sure if I'd use the word "bound" together either, but I get what you mean

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Ah, you're a Pauline Christian. That figures. You don't need to do any of that messy following the commandments or "going about doing good" nonsense. all you need to do is believe in Paul's thought experiment that he called Christ.

Not only do you not need the Bible but Jesus is an annoyance as well.

eh, I wouldn't say that.  I take it one step at a time.  As far as we're concerned right now, what is needed is acceptance of the gift of Jesus Christ.  From there, the other details can fall into play.    It's choices, (grace), not demands (law)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop your

Brian37 wrote:

Stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burdon. Any science textbook will give you a defintion. You are not a baby and can do your own homework.

"God did it"is not a method, it is a claim. Dont get angrey at me that your fiction cant compete with reality.

I'm sorry you saw my response as anger.  That's not the way it was intended. 

so... alright, which science textbook did you write so I can get your personal definiton?  I'll look it up if it exists.

Brian37 wrote:

The ball is in the theist court. If they want to prove it, then they have to come up with a testable repeatable and falsifiable model of their claim. You know you cant so instead of being intelectually honest you try to shift the burdon.

I started this forum with a basic suggested reading, anything beyond that is not in my court.  You avert the questions because you have no basis for your claims.  I'm asking for a personal definition, not a generic one.  I'm asking for a legitimate source, you can't provide it.  In order to continue with any of this, we both need to be on the same page.  If we're not, then it's pointless to continue. 

Brian37 wrote:

I am not repeating myself for no reason. I am not letting you get away with distractive meandering tactics.

whatever helps you sleep at night

Brian37 wrote:

NOW it is quite simple.

Come up with a workable model of your claim and demonstrate your work with control groups that are  testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Ok, will do... but you need to give me a source that you will accept and that will effectively study the spiritual world or the possibility of. 

If you can't accept the source, why should I waste my time coming up with workable models?  It's been fun playing tennis with you, but the game's getting old. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:All

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

All religion is a form of idol worship separatism .... I reject ALL idols , I am GOD ... WTF isn't gawed ??? Please some one , show me the other idol ... what a joke , all religion god shit is.

Religion idol worship SUCKS .... You fucking god religious god inventers, fuck you. I am god , and if you are not god too, Fuck you .... and even story jesus said so, no that it changes the science of what we are ..... star dust ....    

yea, dispensationalism can do that to ya.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burdon. Any science textbook will give you a defintion. You are not a baby and can do your own homework.

"God did it"is not a method, it is a claim. Dont get angrey at me that your fiction cant compete with reality.

I'm sorry you saw my response as anger.  That's not the way it was intended. 

so... alright, which science textbook did you write so I can get your personal definiton?  I'll look it up if it exists.

Brian37 wrote:

The ball is in the theist court. If they want to prove it, then they have to come up with a testable repeatable and falsifiable model of their claim. You know you cant so instead of being intelectually honest you try to shift the burdon.

I started this forum with a basic suggested reading, anything beyond that is not in my court.  You avert the questions because you have no basis for your claims.  I'm asking for a personal definition, not a generic one.  I'm asking for a legitimate source, you can't provide it.  In order to continue with any of this, we both need to be on the same page.  If we're not, then it's pointless to continue. 

Brian37 wrote:

I am not repeating myself for no reason. I am not letting you get away with distractive meandering tactics.

whatever helps you sleep at night

Brian37 wrote:

NOW it is quite simple.

Come up with a workable model of your claim and demonstrate your work with control groups that are  testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Ok, will do... but you need to give me a source that you will accept and that will effectively study the spiritual world or the possibility of. 

If you can't accept the source, why should I waste my time coming up with workable models?  It's been fun playing tennis with you, but the game's getting old. 

I told you what I would accept. You are simply trying to shift the burdon because you know damned well you have nothing. The "game" is getting old because you have nothing but a naked assertion to start with.

Why should I accept your naked assertion as a source? Maybe you and your fictional daddy's fans do, but I like my evidence to have more meat on it than a naked assertion.

Get back to me when you can produce some ghost sperm and a medically peer reviewed model of how dead human flesh survives rigor mortis.

But don't expect me or anyone else here to be lead by the nose down your fictional yellow brick road simply because you cant prove the magic of your fictional claims.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
LOL caposkia.I get asked,

LOL caposkia.

I get asked, 'why I get so hot headed over religion stuff' ... Well for one, traditional religion is destructive idol worship. Also, to be loud in print I cuss, which is seldom necessary in speech. Also like my late mom, I get a lot of my onryness from the atheistic "my way or the highway, all is One", bad ass buddha jesus story superman character. Me, jesus and gawed, are ONE, just a different earth day. The bible jesus biographers, inventors are mostly wacky idol worship designers.

I'm atheist and not even a bit agnostic. All is one, No Religion, No Master (depending on what one defines as religion, belief, faith. Gawed = One = Atheism, call it whatever)

  a few SOURCES

"Condemned To Be Free" -  Sartre ( I say in agreement, condemned to be gawed ) Google "zenwatt on Sartre" .... I couldn't acess his xlint essay ???

http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistthemes/a/abandonment.htm

http://www.nimbinaustralia.com/zenwatt/condemnedtobefree.html

http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/travis_denneson/antichrist.html
Nietzsche's The Antichrist, by
Travis J. Denneson - Part IV - The Buddhistic Jesus?

Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities?
http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=36

http://members.aol.com/rhrrr/philmodn.htm

                 Etc etc .....


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If my God is

caposkia wrote:

If my God is real and therefore is almighty and all powerful.  He is our father who created us and is even aware when the most insignificant organism dies, why would he take the time to make you fart a car so that you can be convinced he's real?  He didn't waste his time proving himself to all those who made similar requests in the Bible, He wouldnt' treat you any different?

 

If pigs flew....

 

If, indeed.

 

Do you realize your premises don't follow?  For example, if God was Omniscient and omnipotent, it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to prove himself every second to every person on Earth.  It wouldn't even be a passing thought, or difficulty to an omnipotent being. He could do anything at any time without so much as a hair out of place.  It would be easier than breathing is for us.  Easier than catching a cold.  You are an utter moron if you think that an omnipotent God couldn't prove himself every second to every person and even notice that he is doing it.  The question you should ask yourself is "why isn't he don't just that"?

 

Cap, please get yourself checked for chronic idiocy.

 

 

(BTW, if I prayed to fart a car, and I farted a car - I would believe in God and sing his praises every day.

I would worship him and bow to him.  I would prostrate myself and honor him... if that meant I'd never have to fart another car out my ass.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I told you

Brian37 wrote:

I told you what I would accept. You are simply trying to shift the burdon because you know damned well you have nothing. The "game" is getting old because you have nothing but a naked assertion to start with.

Oh that's right.  Sorry, it's scientific method that you'll accept.  All I've been waiting for on that is your personal definition of it.  That way we can both start on the same page. 

wait.  Ya know what.  I'll make it really really easy for ya.  I'll give you the generic definition and then you can tell me whether you agree with it completely or not.  Then if you do, we can move on.  If you don't, then I will need a speck of effort on your part to clarify the discrepancies. 

scientific method:  a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Does the above coenside with your personal definition of 'scientific method'? What are the discrepancies? 

Brian37 wrote:

Why should I accept your naked assertion as a source? Maybe you and your fictional daddy's fans do, but I like my evidence to have more meat on it than a naked assertion.

you've shown that in your detailed responses to the 2 main questions consuming this forum. (sarcasm intended)

Brian37 wrote:

Get back to me when you can produce some ghost sperm and a medically peer reviewed model of how dead human flesh survives rigor mortis.

tell me your source for ghost sperm... I'll order some, do some tests and get back to you.  As far as dead human flesh surviving rigor mortis, please find for me a living being who has died, then has been risen from the dead after rigor mortis.  I again will study the subject and get back to you with the results. 

I know, you're going to claim it's my job to find them, then go off on a tangent on how I have nothing and you're right because you can make more sentences than I can that bring no progression to the conversation.  I'll admit, I can't do that as well as you can. 

I am curious how ghost sperm and humans surviving rigor mortis have anything to do with the current subject on whether there is a spiritual world or not.  I understand these are happenings in the Bible... er... at least the resurrection thing is, but we're just worried about a spiritual world right now, not whether my belief in Jesus is right or not. 

One step at a time, first we have to establish whether there is a spiritual world or not, then we can tackle the religion thing as far as who has the right point of view. 

Brian37 wrote:

But don't expect me or anyone else here to be lead by the nose down your fictional yellow brick road simply because you cant prove the magic of your fictional claims.

I guess ignoring relevant questions is better proof that God does not exist 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  a

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  a few SOURCES


http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

I understand your anger.  Honestly.  I have to say though, the link I kept above.  I skimmed through most of it because it was long, but most of what I saw I absolutely agreed with.  Churchianity.  yea, that hits the nail right on the head.  Maybe that's the approach I should have been using all this time. 

I think the very first paragraph on that page sums it up very nicely.  It shows that there is a difference in the following of Jesus Christ and what the churches teach (which by the way is the stereotype of what Christianity is today). 

Like I said, I skimmed through it and didn't read it carefully, so don't hold me to everything that was said, but I suggest everyone check this link out.  That first paragraph explains better than I could obviously what I've been trying to say. 


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

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  a few SOURCES

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

I understand your anger.  Honestly.  I have to say though, the link I kept above.  I skimmed through most of it because it was long, but most of what I saw I absolutely agreed with.  Churchianity.  yea, that hits the nail right on the head.  Maybe that's the approach I should have been using all this time. 

I think the very first paragraph on that page sums it up very nicely.  It shows that there is a difference in the following of Jesus Christ and what the churches teach (which by the way is the stereotype of what Christianity is today). 

Like I said, I skimmed through it and didn't read it carefully, so don't hold me to everything that was said, but I suggest everyone check this link out.  That first paragraph explains better than I could obviously what I've been trying to say. 

Why do you assume IAGAY is angry?

It does show the difference between the teaching of Christ and those of Paul. How can both be Christianity and why do people alternate between the two as it is convenient for them?

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:If pigs

daedalus wrote:

If pigs flew....

 

If, indeed.

 

Do you realize your premises don't follow?  For example, if God was Omniscient and omnipotent, it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to prove himself every second to every person on Earth.  It wouldn't even be a passing thought, or difficulty to an omnipotent being. He could do anything at any time without so much as a hair out of place.  It would be easier than breathing is for us.  Easier than catching a cold.  You are an utter moron if you think that an omnipotent God couldn't prove himself every second to every person and even notice that he is doing it.  The question you should ask yourself is "why isn't he don't just that"?

woah, hold up.  I never said he 'couldn't' do any of that.  Of course he can.  He can do anything and everything.  What I was saying is he also has a choice.  The question being why would such an omniscient being waste his time with one person by doing something like making him fart a car?  God's work is seen every day by millions, most ignore it.  God never works in ways that are invasive.  If he did, he'd be a lie. 

I know why he isn't doing that.  You should read the Bible some time.  I assume you haven't because if you have, you wouldn't be asking me to ask myself such a question. 

daedalus wrote:

(BTW, if I prayed to fart a car, and I farted a car - I would believe in God and sing his praises every day.

I would worship him and bow to him.  I would prostrate myself and honor him... if that meant I'd never have to fart another car out my ass.

Understood.  I would indeed be a miracle.  You'd have quite a dedication to God if after you farted a car you still could bow let alone prostrate yourself.  Why would it have to be that way though?  Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)

Is there possibly anything else that might help you see him?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why do you

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you assume IAGAY is angry?

I think he said so in one of his responses.  I guess it's also just how he comes across, trying to be loud through cussing etc.  Sorry if that's the wrong idea. 

jcgadfly wrote:

It does show the difference between the teaching of Christ and those of Paul. How can both be Christianity and why do people alternate between the two as it is convenient for them?

Those are very good questions.  I know there is really only one kind of Christianity and I don't understand why people would alternate between the two except for the fact that it is convenient for them and nothing more. 

I'll have to try to read the Paul thing more thoroughly, but I understand that the Paul of the Bible does not contradict any of Jesus' teachings.  Therefore it is not a different Christianity being taught by him. 


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

caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

If pigs flew....

 

If, indeed.

 

Do you realize your premises don't follow?  For example, if God was Omniscient and omnipotent, it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to prove himself every second to every person on Earth.  It wouldn't even be a passing thought, or difficulty to an omnipotent being. He could do anything at any time without so much as a hair out of place.  It would be easier than breathing is for us.  Easier than catching a cold.  You are an utter moron if you think that an omnipotent God couldn't prove himself every second to every person and even notice that he is doing it.  The question you should ask yourself is "why isn't he don't just that"?

woah, hold up.  I never said he 'couldn't' do any of that.  Of course he can.  He can do anything and everything.  What I was saying is he also has a choice.  The question being why would such an omniscient being waste his time with one person by doing something like making him fart a car?  God's work is seen every day by millions, most ignore it.  God never works in ways that are invasive.  If he did, he'd be a lie. 

I know why he isn't doing that.  You should read the Bible some time.  I assume you haven't because if you have, you wouldn't be asking me to ask myself such a question. 

daedalus wrote:

(BTW, if I prayed to fart a car, and I farted a car - I would believe in God and sing his praises every day.

I would worship him and bow to him.  I would prostrate myself and honor him... if that meant I'd never have to fart another car out my ass.

Understood.  I would indeed be a miracle.  You'd have quite a dedication to God if after you farted a car you still could bow let alone prostrate yourself.  Why would it have to be that way though?  Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)

Is there possibly anything else that might help you see him?

"Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)"

You mean we should be better than God and not operate the way he does?

(Give me your total obedience and you'll see heaven in the next life. I might even give you some stuff in this life to keep you tied to me.)

"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


Mavar
Mavar's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-14
User is offlineOffline
now what's with this unholy

now what's with this unholy grail business?


Mavar
Mavar's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"unholy" is another hollow word that Christians use to demonize anything that does not promote their fictional sky daddy. So they use words like "unholy" to paint us as devil worshiping blood drinking kitten BBQers.

Unholy from Christians literally means "not of God".  There is no implication or intention of demonizing non-believers.  Their "unholy grail" just means they're a group seeking out a following that does not believe in God. 

Most of my closest friends are non-believers, some atheists.  Other friends of mine are part of a following that would be labeled by most as demonic.  I think they'd be offended to hear what you had claimed above.  They're my friends because they know I don't see them that way.  They also understand what kind of Christian I am and understand the definition of "unholy"

Our country is infested with religion.  It is why it's understood by many people that Unholy is as written above. 

yes, the author views the New Atheists as wrong, but that's because she's a believer.  I don't believe it has anything to do with her use of "unholy". 

Brian37 wrote:

Get back to us when you can replicate and falsify godsperm and have AMA peer reviewed studies that prove human flesh can rise after 3 days of death. The moral stories that one may like is found in all cultures throughout history, and don't need a book of magic to claim to be the inventor of morality. That "holy book", being anyone of any religion in human history. Morality was not invented by Christians nor do they have a monopoly on it any more than Muslims or atheists.

I know it wasn't you, but who was talking to me about people on here NOT trying to disprove God??????  This statement leads me to believe otherwise. 

Whoever said anything about morality?  If you want to start another topic, please start a new thread. 

 

 

oh, i see what unholy means. nvm.

"a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Dawkins


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"Think about

jcgadfly wrote:

"Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)"

You mean we should be better than God and not operate the way he does?

(Give me your total obedience and you'll see heaven in the next life. I might even give you some stuff in this life to keep you tied to me.)

total obedience?!  Guess I"m screwed.  Last I checked God only said; "accept the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ my son"  Accepting a gift doesn't sound like total obedience to me.  Sounds like he's offering me a relationship without strings. 

Looking  at the Paul claim in that link again, I'd have to ask what is being referenced as far as the docterns etc.  before I can claim anything.  Most docterns adopted by the church have been corrupted and are not true to the Biblical teachings. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
It appears obvious that

It appears obvious that generally the "religious" are most closed minded and guilty of not exploring other religions, eastern philosophies, science and ATHEISM .....  Funny word, "spirituality", which I just call "emotional awareness.". As for the broken concept of "supernatural or immaterial" I suggest QM science, and the science studies of "consciousness." .... Everything is something natural.

Lots in this large site, which I'm new too. RRS wild Luminon mentioned this interesting site.

Why this Atheist Bible site is needed now.
http://atheistbible.net/book.html

Nietzsche - German philosopher, advocated overcoming the slave mentality and nihilism that he thought were exemplified in historical Christianity. [ Sartre too, etc ]

Spiritualism among Atheists, Part 1
http://atheistbible.net/indepth_spirituality.html

Spiritualism among Atheists, Part 2
http://atheistbible.net/indepth_spirituality2.html

Part 3
http://atheistbible.net/index_alt2.html

       We must work and strive at honesty. We must distinguish between what we want to believe and our honest truest intuitions. Let's not allow our imagination, fear and wishes to be our inner demon enemy. Let's make often the practice of clearing our minds of all assumptions and restarting at zero, that place where all our knowledge of ourselves and things is the eternal law of 'SUM ONE' ~ i god as you

 - Understanding Anger? An xlint important subject ..... My expressed anger is better said to be an expression of the sadness I feel when I look out at the world of so much needless suffering, and so I most always project a friendly open smile to all, when I leave my happy personal space.

Caring angry Jesus, whispered, scorned, and wept, and heck, even got so hungry doing his "40 days" alone, like buddha, he became delussional and cursed a fig tree. Staving rescued Buddha said shit, don't go that far, and warned, "always keep of a hold of the "middle.""  2 Cool mentors indeed, if you can wade thru the religiously attached, silly, deceitful and dangerous, folklore. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I told you what I would accept. You are simply trying to shift the burdon because you know damned well you have nothing. The "game" is getting old because you have nothing but a naked assertion to start with.

Oh that's right.  Sorry, it's scientific method that you'll accept.  All I've been waiting for on that is your personal definition of it.  That way we can both start on the same page. 

wait.  Ya know what.  I'll make it really really easy for ya.  I'll give you the generic definition and then you can tell me whether you agree with it completely or not.  Then if you do, we can move on.  If you don't, then I will need a speck of effort on your part to clarify the discrepancies. 

scientific method:  a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Does the above coenside with your personal definition of 'scientific method'? What are the discrepancies? 

Brian37 wrote:

Why should I accept your naked assertion as a source? Maybe you and your fictional daddy's fans do, but I like my evidence to have more meat on it than a naked assertion.

you've shown that in your detailed responses to the 2 main questions consuming this forum. (sarcasm intended)

Brian37 wrote:

Get back to me when you can produce some ghost sperm and a medically peer reviewed model of how dead human flesh survives rigor mortis.

tell me your source for ghost sperm... I'll order some, do some tests and get back to you.  As far as dead human flesh surviving rigor mortis, please find for me a living being who has died, then has been risen from the dead after rigor mortis.  I again will study the subject and get back to you with the results. 

I know, you're going to claim it's my job to find them, then go off on a tangent on how I have nothing and you're right because you can make more sentences than I can that bring no progression to the conversation.  I'll admit, I can't do that as well as you can. 

I am curious how ghost sperm and humans surviving rigor mortis have anything to do with the current subject on whether there is a spiritual world or not.  I understand these are happenings in the Bible... er... at least the resurrection thing is, but we're just worried about a spiritual world right now, not whether my belief in Jesus is right or not. 

One step at a time, first we have to establish whether there is a spiritual world or not, then we can tackle the religion thing as far as who has the right point of view. 

Brian37 wrote:

But don't expect me or anyone else here to be lead by the nose down your fictional yellow brick road simply because you cant prove the magic of your fictional claims.

I guess ignoring relevant questions is better proof that God does not exist 

What relevent questions?

You: "The Christian God exists(incert my personal interpretation here)"

Me, "Prove it"

You:"Why won't you buy my naked assertions||?"

Your Christian spirits are as real as the spirits of the Ancient Egyptians and any b-movie horror film, and has as much evedence.

"Spirits" have the same weight as Leprechans and Unicorns and I am sure that you have a "spirit" atom or DNA sample. Don't worry, Hindus have no more proof for their "spirits" than you do.

But, if I am so wrong, why do you keep responding to me? It is because you KNOW you are wrong, but just dont want to admit it. You are merely in the stranglehold of emotional appeal and slick marketing.

"Paul this, Jesus that" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

"Allah this, Muhammed that"blah blah blah blah blah

You merely think you are different, but fall for the same emotional crap the others do.

"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:

"Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)"

You mean we should be better than God and not operate the way he does?

(Give me your total obedience and you'll see heaven in the next life. I might even give you some stuff in this life to keep you tied to me.)

total obedience?!  Guess I"m screwed.  Last I checked God only said; "accept the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ my son"  Accepting a gift doesn't sound like total obedience to me.  Sounds like he's offering me a relationship without strings. 

Looking  at the Paul claim in that link again, I'd have to ask what is being referenced as far as the docterns etc.  before I can claim anything.  Most docterns adopted by the church have been corrupted and are not true to the Biblical teachings. 

Yep - you're a Paulist. All you have to do is accept the gift of Jesus Christ and you can do whatever you want. All that stuff about Jesus going about doing good doesn't mean crap to you because you BELIEVE".

Most of what Paul teaches contradicts the words of Jesus but they're easier to follow so most Christians do.

"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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have not forgotten

Quote:
I have not forgotten about you.  I have taken the time to check out some of your videos, however, I've for some reason been having trouble playing them.  That's why I haven't watched them all yet.

Yeah, I think this is my fault. I'm sure I messed-up the embedding.

Quote:
One video in particular that I just got finished watching was the "intelligent design vs. evolution debate".  I absolutely remember going over the idea that there is lack of evidence for a darwinistic evolution to take place be it a transformation from one species to another.  I'm not sure who was suppose to be defending the intelligent design side, but I think the guy who brought out the elephant chart made a better arguement for the evolution I believe in than I've heard yet.

That fellow is Dr. Ken Miller, a cellular biologist and also a Catholic and a wonderful public speaker. I must say, if every Christian were like Dr. Miller, I'd probably by happy to just 'live and let live', as that old saying goes.

Quote:
Just the sheer mathematics are mind boggling as to the odds of such transitions to have taken place

There are no 'mathematics' or 'odds' that evolution must contend with. A change occurs (randomly or otherwise) in an organism during reproduction, and if this change is beneficial to the species in that it causes them to reproduce more, the change is adopted by greater numbers of future generations.

 

 

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

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Watch this one video for

Watch this one video for starters, Cap:

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:It

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

It appears obvious that generally the "religious" are most closed minded and guilty of not exploring other religions, eastern philosophies, science and ATHEISM .....  Funny word, "spirituality", which I just call "emotional awareness.". As for the broken concept of "supernatural or immaterial" I suggest QM science, and the science studies of "consciousness." .... Everything is something natural.

yes, I couldn't agree more with your above statement about the "religious".

Quanum Mechanics Science is a great place to start.  I know the general statement that "everything is something natural".  Though did anyone ever say God wasn't natural?  What is natural?  Something to consider if we're to tackle this topic through QM. 

Calm down all, I know many of you are dying on the opportunity to be the first to say he's not.  I get it. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:


Lots in this large site, which I'm new too. RRS wild Luminon mentioned this interesting site.

Why this Atheist Bible site is needed now.
http://atheistbible.net/book.html

Nietzsche - German philosopher, advocated overcoming the slave mentality and nihilism that he thought were exemplified in historical Christianity. [ Sartre too, etc ]

Spiritualism among Atheists, Part 1
http://atheistbible.net/indepth_spirituality.html

Spiritualism among Atheists, Part 2
http://atheistbible.net/indepth_spirituality2.html

Part 3
http://atheistbible.net/index_alt2.html

I'll have to check out these sites at some point.  I don't have the time today.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

       We must work and strive at honesty. We must distinguish between what we want to believe and our honest truest intuitions. Let's not allow our imagination, fear and wishes to be our inner demon enemy. Let's make often the practice of clearing our minds of all assumptions and restarting at zero, that place where all our knowledge of ourselves and things is the eternal law of 'SUM ONE' ~ i god as you

owwwwwwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

all kidding aside though, I agree.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 - Understanding Anger? An xlint important subject ..... My expressed anger is better said to be an expression of the sadness I feel when I look out at the world of so much needless suffering, and so I most always project a friendly open smile to all, when I leave my happy personal space.

Sounds like you feel our pain

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Caring angry Jesus, whispered, scorned, and wept, and heck, even got so hungry doing his "40 days" alone, like buddha, he became delussional and cursed a fig tree. Staving rescued Buddha said shit, don't go that far, and warned, "always keep of a hold of the "middle.""  2 Cool mentors indeed, if you can wade thru the religiously attached, silly, deceitful and dangerous, folklore. 

did you read the links you gave me?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What relevent

Brian37 wrote:

What relevent questions?

er...something something, relevent source and something something personal definiton.  eh, who can remember.

Brian37 wrote:

You: "The Christian God exists(incert my personal interpretation here)"

Me, "Prove it"

You:"Why won't you buy my naked assertions||?"

Your Christian spirits are as real as the spirits of the Ancient Egyptians and any b-movie horror film, and has as much evedence.

"Spirits" have the same weight as Leprechans and Unicorns and I am sure that you have a "spirit" atom or DNA sample. Don't worry, Hindus have no more proof for their "spirits" than you do.

But, if I am so wrong, why do you keep responding to me? It is because you KNOW you are wrong, but just dont want to admit it. You are merely in the stranglehold of emotional appeal and slick marketing.

"Paul this, Jesus that" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

"Allah this, Muhammed that"blah blah blah blah blah

You merely think you are different, but fall for the same emotional crap the others do.

wow, I even GAVE you a definition and asked if you could agree!!! You still ignored it?!  c'mon, who are you trying to fool? 

Seriously though, you should read through some of the stuff IAGAY is saying, it might be useful to you.  Check out some of his links too. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yep - you're

jcgadfly wrote:

Yep - you're a Paulist. All you have to do is accept the gift of Jesus Christ and you can do whatever you want. All that stuff about Jesus going about doing good doesn't mean crap to you because you BELIEVE".

I... I can do whatever I WANT!!!! WOOHOOOOO!!!! HAHAHA.

brhem... pardon my excitement. 

I think before I comment on whether I'm a "Paulist" or not, I would like someone to reference for me the inconsistencies.  I know I didn't say it was ok to do whatever I wanted. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:There

Kevin R Brown wrote:

There are no 'mathematics' or 'odds' that evolution must contend with. A change occurs (randomly or otherwise) in an organism during reproduction, and if this change is beneficial to the species in that it causes them to reproduce more, the change is adopted by greater numbers of future generations.

Most of the non-believing evolutionist/darwinists I've talked to would disagree with you about "random" changes.  Many would also disagree with you about the odds.. Just from my own experience talking to others. 

Math is everywhere.  Probablility is brought up constantly to try to disprove my God. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yep - you're a Paulist. All you have to do is accept the gift of Jesus Christ and you can do whatever you want. All that stuff about Jesus going about doing good doesn't mean crap to you because you BELIEVE".

I... I can do whatever I WANT!!!! WOOHOOOOO!!!! HAHAHA.

brhem... pardon my excitement. 

I think before I comment on whether I'm a "Paulist" or not, I would like someone to reference for me the inconsistencies.  I know I didn't say it was ok to do whatever I wanted. 

You're under grace and not under law, right? And where there is no law there is no transgression, right?

Since Paul isn't specific on the "law" he means, I am left to guess that he means the whole of Mosaic law (that 10 Commandments stuff, etc.).

By that, the only thing you need fear is the justice of men. God will let you slide no matter what you do because you believe in the Christ that Paul constructed.

You want an inconsistency? Here:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17 - Jesus)

"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14 - Paul)

"And where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15 - Paul)

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah caposkia, I do of

Yeah caposkia, I do of course read from the sites I post. Many of the sites are large  so I try to indicate what I thought was helpful there. Some sites I've spent a lot of time, and revisit, others not so much.

LOL, "your enemy is my enemy" .... think about it.   


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

caposkia wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

There are no 'mathematics' or 'odds' that evolution must contend with. A change occurs (randomly or otherwise) in an organism during reproduction, and if this change is beneficial to the species in that it causes them to reproduce more, the change is adopted by greater numbers of future generations.

Most of the non-believing evolutionist/darwinists I've talked to would disagree with you about "random" changes.  Many would also disagree with you about the odds.. Just from my own experience talking to others. 

Math is everywhere.  Probablility is brought up constantly to try to disprove my God. 

I wonder how many you've talked to. Names we'd know?

Personally, I think it's less than one but I'd love to be wrong.

As for probability, it does damage your God but you guys ignore it so it really doesn't matter anyway.

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

There are no 'mathematics' or 'odds' that evolution must contend with. A change occurs (randomly or otherwise) in an organism during reproduction, and if this change is beneficial to the species in that it causes them to reproduce more, the change is adopted by greater numbers of future generations.

Most of the non-believing evolutionist/Darwinists I've talked to would disagree with you about "random" changes.  Many would also disagree with you about the odds.. Just from my own experience talking to others. 

Math is everywhere.  Probability is brought up constantly to try to disprove my God. 

I wonder how many you've talked to. Names we'd know?

Personally, I think it's less than one but I'd love to be wrong.

As for probability, it does damage your God but you guys ignore it so it really doesn't matter anyway.

I am going to call  BULLSHIT on this one. Sorry evolutionists/Darwinists that say that evolution does not have any random changes at all.  Since random changes in the genes (genetic drift I believe this is refered to) is one of the major drives in evolution, (OK basic terms here I am not a biologist) the other being natural selection. There is no way to reliably predict changes in genes. since Mutations can occur due to enviormental changes, genetic mutation during genetic recombination there are a host of reasons for random changes. But to say they never occur, well that's really not understanding evolution at all, that's not even opening the most basic book on evolution.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:woah, hold

caposkia wrote:
woah, hold up.  I never said he 'couldn't' do any of that.  Of course he can.  He can do anything and everything.  What I was saying is he also has a choice.  The question being why would such an omniscient being waste his time with one person by doing something like making him fart a car?  God's work is seen every day by millions, most ignore it.  God never works in ways that are invasive.  If he did, he'd be a lie. 

 

See, this is what I just don't get.  "Waste his time"?  What time?  Why is it a waste?  I thought your god WANTED people to know him.  He certainly (allegedly) makes his presence known to you everyday? Why? Why not others?  Also, how dare you suggest an omniscient, omnipotent being is doing things that are ignored by people - as if he wouldn't know this?

 

And whats the point anyhow?  Belief in God isn't necessarily required for salvation - only your religion claims it.

 

You really have a funny god: omnisicent and omnipotent but won't waste his time on people, or does things even though he knows they are useless.

 

Apparently your god is stupid.

 

Quote:
I know why he isn't doing that.  You should read the Bible some time.  I assume you haven't because if you have, you wouldn't be asking me to ask myself such a question.
I, as most people on this forum, have read the bible.  Don't try to get out of it that easy.

 

The difference is that we actually THOUGHT about what we read. 

Quote:
Understood.  I would indeed be a miracle.  You'd have quite a dedication to God if after you farted a car you still could bow let alone prostrate yourself.  Why would it have to be that way though?  Think about what you're asking God.  (I'll be your friend if you give me what I want)

Is there possibly anything else that might help you see him?

You do realize your god doesn't exist, right?  You are trying to convince me of believing in a figment of your imagination?  Do you see your problem?  You are asking me to come up with my own method of making myself believe in a fantasy.

 

Just because you have convinced yourself of something utterly asinine doesn't mean you ask others to come up with their own method of delusion.

 

Imagine: I believe pixies paint my hair brown every night.  Don't believe me?  Well, instead of giving you silly reasons (like, you can't see them but you have to believe in them first), why don't I ask you: "What will it take for you to believe in pixies?"

 

Would you care to think of an answer for that?  Would you waste your time?  i know you're not omnisicent, but come on, you can't be that stupid - like your God.

 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

What relevent questions?

er...something something, relevent source and something something personal definiton.  eh, who can remember.

Brian37 wrote:

You: "The Christian God exists(incert my personal interpretation here)"

Me, "Prove it"

You:"Why won't you buy my naked assertions||?"

Your Christian spirits are as real as the spirits of the Ancient Egyptians and any b-movie horror film, and has as much evedence.

"Spirits" have the same weight as Leprechans and Unicorns and I am sure that you have a "spirit" atom or DNA sample. Don't worry, Hindus have no more proof for their "spirits" than you do.

But, if I am so wrong, why do you keep responding to me? It is because you KNOW you are wrong, but just dont want to admit it. You are merely in the stranglehold of emotional appeal and slick marketing.

"Paul this, Jesus that" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

"Allah this, Muhammed that"blah blah blah blah blah

You merely think you are different, but fall for the same emotional crap the others do.

wow, I even GAVE you a definition and asked if you could agree!!! You still ignored it?!  c'mon, who are you trying to fool? 

Seriously though, you should read through some of the stuff IAGAY is saying, it might be useful to you.  Check out some of his links too. 

I don't know if he hasn't responded due to lack of time or due to sheer frustration, but the fact of the matter is that you went and defined the scientific method well enough, but then you don't apply it at all to the topic as he has repeatedly requested you do. As is perfectly evidenced in his response, and perfectly ignored by yourself who goes off on a tangent which has nothing to do with anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

What relevent questions?

er...something something, relevent source and something something personal definiton.  eh, who can remember.

Brian37 wrote:

You: "The Christian God exists(incert my personal interpretation here)"

Me, "Prove it"

You:"Why won't you buy my naked assertions||?"

Your Christian spirits are as real as the spirits of the Ancient Egyptians and any b-movie horror film, and has as much evedence.

"Spirits" have the same weight as Leprechans and Unicorns and I am sure that you have a "spirit" atom or DNA sample. Don't worry, Hindus have no more proof for their "spirits" than you do.

But, if I am so wrong, why do you keep responding to me? It is because you KNOW you are wrong, but just dont want to admit it. You are merely in the stranglehold of emotional appeal and slick marketing.

"Paul this, Jesus that" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

"Allah this, Muhammed that"blah blah blah blah blah

You merely think you are different, but fall for the same emotional crap the others do.

wow, I even GAVE you a definition and asked if you could agree!!! You still ignored it?!  c'mon, who are you trying to fool? 

Seriously though, you should read through some of the stuff IAGAY is saying, it might be useful to you.  Check out some of his links too. 

I don't know if he hasn't responded due to lack of time or due to sheer frustration, but the fact of the matter is that you went and defined the scientific method well enough, but then you don't apply it at all to the topic as he has repeatedly requested you do. As is perfectly evidenced in his response, and perfectly ignored by yourself who goes off on a tangent which has nothing to do with anything.

I have defined it. AND, I also said in prior posts, mind you this thread is 8 pages long. But I also said that if you put bad data in(naked assertion) you are not going to get good data out, so there is no point in ME trying to apply a universal method to HIS CLAIM because he has nothing to put into it in the first place.

"Spirits and deities, just like vampires and snarfwidgets cannot be plugged into scientific method and that is because they are baseless whims of imagination. Why should I waste my time trying to do his work for him?

How can you ride a bike when you have no wheels, no frame, no handle bars or seat?

This is why I don't waste my time with meandering tactics. It is not up to me to prove his claims. How can I apply method to something that starts as a naked assertion?

 

 

"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