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. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:To

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

To talk about the immaterial, supernatural, spiritual world, omni gods, etc is talk of imagination and emotion. Most we humans innately and wrongly think we are special. We are only special due to our innate ignorance of our place and time on this "atomic speck of dust" we call earth.

All is one, and eternal, while nothing is actually special. Science is humbling, while reality is truly more awesome than we could have ever simply imagined. LOL

Interesting, because my belief seems to follow the scientific humbling.  Knowing God is humbling because it puts into perspective how insignificant you really are.


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

butterbattle wrote:

 

Uuuuhh, no, you still don't get it. The entire micro/macro argument is based on ignorance, in that Creationists believe that a small dog can change into a big dog, but it can't change any more because it would be "changing too much." This video was simply an analogy to help people understand how evolution actually works, it doesn't morph animals by utilizing rare abominations, but through small changes. It didn't provide any actual evidence for evolution, but just to explain what the theory of evolution actually states. If you understood that, then why did you say,

Uh, yea, my point simply was it was a good start, but too vague to critique any details.  Thanks for the reiteration though.

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
In fact, I really don't see the relevence.

And

and... dogs like peanut butter. 

butterbattle wrote:

lol, where is the forum science vs. religion? Is it on this site? I'm lost. 

yea, it's on this site, I haven't figured out how to link to other forums.  Sorry

butterbattle wrote:

There's probably a treasure trove of links on RRS, but I'll waste my time anyways. I don't want to count up to 50,000, can u kount fo mei pweese? Have fun!

just do a search for "science vs. Religion", it should come up.  Sapient and his crew have done well setting that up. 

butterbattle wrote:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

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

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=7

Fish>amphibian. Definitely possible. http://www.bountyfishing.com/blog/images/mudskipper.jpg

Is a dog always a dog? Well, they used to be wolves. So, are wolves and chihuahuas part of the same species? Want to see a grey wolf mate with a chihuahua? http://jon-atkinson.com/Large%20Images/La_Grey_Wolf2.jpg

Scientific Creation, haha. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/overview/overview4.html

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0006-3568&volume=051&issue=12&page=1037&ct=1 http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/afri.html

We have the fossils. We win.  If you want to see more, just ask. If you want to see the actual fossils, go to a nearby museum.

You don't even know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You're one of the least informed people on this site, even about your own Bible. I don't know what questions I'm supposed to ask you. 

Sure I do, Microevolution is how humanity changed when we finally invented the microwave, and macroevolution came a bit before when mac and cheese came into the picture. 

What questions to ask?  read the forum topic.  There are many reasons why I've been so vague, that's one of them. 

butterbattle wrote:

Oh, scary assertion. What's the point of this forum? Enlighten me.

it's apparent you can read.  If you think reeeeeealy hard, I think you can figure it out.

butterbattle wrote:

That's what the Bible says.

reference please

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, just for poops and giggles, let's look at something specific.

Leviticus 12:2-5 wrote:
Say to the Israelites: "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be cermonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding."

Okay.... what about this?

butterbattle wrote:

If they Bible was written by people and contains many mistakes, why do you believe in it? Furthermore, how do you know which parts are accurate. Also, you don't think Leviticus 12:2-5 has any effect on Christianity?

well, the mistakes I was referring to are insignificant to the bigger picture.  There may be a few dates that aren't exactly right or names may have been misspelled.  Accounts may have different wording, but come to the same conclusion.  etc. 

You also have to take into consideration that the oldest scripts we have are translations of the original, which archeologists still have not found.  Then to translate the OT and NT into English leaves room for many more errors due to the fact that many words and phrases from Hebrew and Coyne Greek cannot be translated into English.  Though I'm sure, you being so much smarter than me knew that already. 

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Who said it cannot be researched by man??

You.

Please quote me, i forgot where I said that.  Sorry that i did. 

butterbattle wrote:

I accept history, science, logic, etc. What unacceptable methods are you referring to?

Well, let's see then.  There are a few different credible and relevent sources that can be used to study the spiritual world (or lack thereof) however you want to look at it.  I can't seem to pry it out of another, but maybe you can let me know what relevent source you would accept that would study the spiritual world, then we can go from there. 

butterbattle wrote:

You think we can use prayer with the scientific method??? You're a fucking idiot. If scientists actually prayed to find evidence for God (and they don't because it's bullshit), God would be disproven overnight.  

Oh... huh... hmmm.... ok.  Then why hasn't he been? 

You like to put words into my mouth too.  Prayer would just be one small aspect of a larger source which could be personal experience.  Yes, that can apply to the scientific method

butterbattle wrote:

I prayed for several YEARS trying to find God. Do you know what I discovered? I discovered that I wasted several years of my life! I'm not going to waste any more of it asking for guidance from an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, imaginary, white male that lives outside of our universe and encouraged the Israelites to go into cities and "kill everything that breathes," but to take all the virgins as loot so they can take them home and rape them while yelling "in the name of the Lord, praise Jesus. Help me take this infidel."

wow, years huh... Man you have patience.  May I ask what gave you such endurance to pray for years to nothing?

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
It's clear that you don't care about the following of Jesus Christ

No shit, genius.

Thanks for noticing.  heh, uh why are you wasting your time with me then???  I ask because the only way we're going to make progress in a conversation is if you are willing to grasp the concept that your presupposition of what Christianity is may be wrong.  If it's right, then tell me what you don't like about it. 

butterbattle wrote:

Again, you assume that everyone who "actually follows Jesus" will believe the same things you do. Want to curse some fig trees? This is more than just a rift among denominations, but individuals.  

well, I have yet to find someone who "actually follows Jesus" that doesn't believe in Him or His teachings, therefore, yea, I do believe that everyone who "actually follows Jesus" will believe the same things I do. 

You can go curse some fig trees if you'd like, but I'm a fan of figs. 

butterbattle wrote:

I will certainly not waste any more of my time worshipping imaginary deities, but I will never cease fighting those who dare to impose their lies upon me.

dare to impose their lies upon you huh.  You came onto my forum ranting about something that was completely off topic of the forum.  who's imposing on who? 

also, my imposition is, if you know you're right, please show me how.  Not, follow Jesus and I'll give you a cupcake, don't follow and you're gonna burn.  I know you're hoping I'd say the latter, but sorry to disappoint you.

butterbattle wrote:

Prayer 101. 

WOOT

{fixed aiia}


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
vastet wrote:Excess step not

vastet wrote:

Excess step not required. In my experience, it is a theist who will alter definitions halfway through an argument in order to survive his destruction. Not the atheist. And as for it being written out, look in a dictionary. You have wasted at least 10 posts on this stupidity, when none of it was even remotely necessary.

In my experience on this site, it's actually the contrary.  All I asked was for him to confirm with a simple yes or no.  This whole forum has basically been a waste due to the fact that only a select few on here actually want to be serious.  Even less actually want to talk about the topic. 

vastet wrote:

No. He knows that the definition is the definition, and that you are consistantly wasting time and effort on a question that is answered by a dictionary. You ignore this reality, and continue to waste time requesting a definition which is unalterable. I expect your next post to assert the same bullshit that all  of your posts have asserted. Accept reality, for ONCE, and move on already.

yes, let's move on already

vastet wrote:

What is it with you theists resorting to lies when your arguments have collapsed into obscurity? 

what is it with you non-believers and your redundancies and enthusiasm about stale mate conversations? 

p.s. show me where I have lied to you.

vastet wrote:

Yes, it is.

oh.. my bad

vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
  I was looking for his "personal" definition. 

And you are too brainless to figure out that his definition doesn't exist.

no, i figured it out, I just wanted him to admit it.

vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 No one knows his personal definition except him.

Everyone knows it except you, apparently.

I just need to hear it from him now.  Basically, I already know he has no interest in going further with the conversation anyway.  I knew that from page 1.  I'm just waiting for him to admit it. 

vastet wrote:

Your inability to recognize reality is not helping.

...and you've helped in bringing no progress to the forum.  Thank you. 

Quote:

Quit speaking to yourself.

wow, and how old are we? 


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

daedalus wrote:

 

Cap, you don't know anything about the topic of this forum or any other.  You appear to be an idiot, and ignorant as well.

...and how would you know this?  More blind assumptions I'm guessing be it that you have made no attempt to talk about the topic with me. 

daedalus wrote:

 

Perhaps if you knew even the slightest fact about the world, or even a moderate amount of facts about your own religion or beliefs we could have a conversation.

 

try me.  keep in mind it is my understanding that my "religion" and what you think I follow are 2 completely different things. 

daedalus wrote:

Would you care to crack open a book?  Seriously, how about reading the Bible at least once?

why don't you try having an inteligent conversation.  I'll make it easy:

step 1.  read the forum topic

step 2.  If you're at all interrested, read the suggested reading

step 3.  get back to me on this forum with questions, comments, or critizisms from what you read.

then we can go from there. 

If in step 1 you realized you're not at all interested, you can bypass steps 2 and 3 and maybe we'll meet again on another forum someday. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Come on guys,

Brian37 wrote:

Come on guys, don't be so hard on Cap. It isn't his fault he thinks disimbodied brains exist and magically knock up girls and that human flesh magically survives rigor mortis.

You all don't understand how hard it is to give up a fictitious security blanket.

(NOTE TO CAP: Still waiting for that Godsperm)

ok, I'm not going to even look for an intelligent answer here.  Just tell me, scientific method as is.  yes or no?  I'm good with using it if you can agree that we're on the same page with the definition. 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cap, language is hard for

Cap, language is hard for me, and we all deal with linguistic problems of communication. Apart from the obvious problem of fantasy idol worship we find in most all religions, I reject and think it is a mistake to claim any such personal label. Atheism is different because it simply rejects religious god theistic dogmatic theology concepts.

  To say I'm a christian etc, but a 'certain kind' , is poor use of language communication.  As you know there are smart and silly people claiming all religious labels. The east "seems" a little different by their use of such labels which more often means my favorite mentor. (so I've read).

I've been trying to remember to use adjectives as I say I'm a fan of atheistic buddha jesus. Atheist Dawkins wears an "Atheist for Jesus" t-shirt, which is also a web site.

In general I don't think the world can learn anything of value from theology, as to defining god, as meaning existence or nature. Science is the only way.

I hope you are reading the many other religious related threads here at RRS. I haven't seen you in them. ???  

Anyhow, keep caring and good luck and please don't terrorize the kids with god of abe separatism bunk, and the brutal murder of story jesus, nor end times fantasy. That is truly bad.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Maybe you will get something out of this essay.

I recommend pasting it into a folder and tweak for easier reading.

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation   http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/INTLVIEW/intlvi02.htm

practical  wisdom

Chinese   mind,  since   different   religions   have

        different  strengths  and  weaknesses, they  may play

        respective roles in the same persons's life.

Confucianism,  Taoism, and  Buddhism..  are  not

            incompatible with one another in Chinese culture

By  Zhao  Shen's

        model, a person  can  have  the  peace  of mind  of a

        Buddhist, take good care  of his body like  a Taoist,

        and be a good citizen as a Confucian. 

 ETC etc

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:my point

caposkia wrote:
my point simply was it was a good start, but too vague to critique any details.

A good start? That video perfectly explained the "you can't change from a cat to a dog" fallacy. It wasn't trying to be specific. Furthermore, this was not what you said earlier. (but, I'm a Creationist, I can change what I say to fit the argument!)

caposkia wrote:
Sure I do, Microevolution is how humanity changed when we finally invented the microwave, and macroevolution came a bit before when mac and cheese came into the picture.

Ha...ha...ha. You're so funny. 

caposkia wrote:
it's apparent you can read. If you think reeeeeealy hard, I think you can figure it out.

Oh, IMA gonna twy wheel hart. Um, Da ew evil damon worhippers and they going to kill Jesus. OMG, two ad hominems in one sentences. Okay, so that's what we're discussing? Oh, you got me. I confess, I've been searching for the unholy grail for as long as I can remember. When the atheist army finds it, we will prove the existence of the atheistic truth and rule the world!!!!

me wrote:
Or, maybe they're afraid that if they don't worship this all-powerful and all-loving Heavenly Father, they will be tortured in the fiery pit of hell for all eternity.

you wrote:
That's what the dispensationalists want you to believe.

me wrote:
That's what the Bible says.

you wrote:
reference please

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41-42 

"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where they will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50

caposkia wrote:
Please quote me, i forgot where I said that. Sorry that i did.

caposkia wrote:
We've also established that physical sources are not logically useful when talking about the spiritual. Therefore, due to the fact that I"ve been waiting for even one person to level with me on a relevent source also puts the ball out of my court.

You CANNOT research the supernatural. That is why it is called it is called supernatural! There is no relevant source for it. If you want to argue that there is, then you are the one that has the obligation to prove it! So far, you have supplied absolutely zero evidence, only empty assertions. 

caposkia wrote:
Prayer would just be one small aspect of a larger source which could be personal experience. Yes, that can apply to the scientific method

caposkia wrote:
wow, years huh... Man you have patience. May I ask what gave you such endurance to pray for years to nothing?

 Why do muslims do it? Why do Jews do it? Why do Christians do it? Mormons? Scientologists? Buddhists? Sickhists? Taoists? Wicken? You hypocrite, retarded, asshole, you must feel so great ridiculing my trials with religion when you're 10 miles farther down in the same well of bullshit.    

Hmmm, now I understand why Brian37 doesn't usually engage in long debates like this. Brian, you've been on this forum for so long; I guess you've debated with hundreds of theists like this one. It's a complete waste of time. Trying to make this guy see the logic in my arguments is about as productive as prayer. I've learned my lesson.

Yet, part of me still wants to debate with him because it's more than just fighting against fundamentalism. I've done so much community service in my life; I just enjoy helping people, regardless of the existence of God. Why do I want to educate this person? Why, because of God? That doesn't make any sense. That means God would be giving me the desire to turn away one of his followers. Am I being controlled by the devil? Well, that doesn't make any sense either. When I do community service, I actually want to help people in any way possible, not just "convert" them to a rational way of thinking. But, atheists have no morals. So, why do I want to help people? Am I being influenced by God even though I'm an agnostic atheist? Well, if that were true, we could all be perfectly moral without actually believing in God. So, does God pick and choose? Well, Christians divorce at the same rate as atheists and Catholic priests molest little kids. How do I know that atheists are immoral? Does God pick and choose among Christians too? Well, if he picks and chooses among both sides, then how do you gain a moral advantage from believing in God? But, we know I can't just want to help people for no absolute reason. Is it another God? Well, the same problems applies for those Gods too. Is God doing this because he wants me to become a Christian? But, that would mean that he's failing at something that he wants to do. Of course, in the Bible, he always fails at things that he wants to do, but...hmmm.

My Spanish teacher once said that people who have no religion are lost, because they have no set of morals to follow.

But, I do have a set of morals that I follow. I came up with them though, morals that I felt were right. I didn't pick them out of a book. Is this because God granted me the inherent knowledge of morals? Then, if I already know the rules, why do I have to believe in God? Because, otherwise, I'll break the rules? But, some of my chosen morals disagree with those of the Bible. That doesn't make sense. I agree with most of the morals in the Bible, but disagree with a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament. Is this because I've strayed from God? No, that doesn't make sense either. Most Christians also don't follow the rules that I disagree with. Does this mean that they also strayed from God? 

caposkia wrote:
I ask because the only way we're going to make progress in a conversation is if you are willing to grasp the concept that your presupposition of what Christianity is may be wrong.

I might be wrong. I might be wrong about everything. But, until I discover that I am wrong, I'm going to do what I've concluded is right based on logic and evidence. I might be wrong.

caposkia wrote:
You can go curse some fig trees if you'd like, but I'm a fan of figs.

What Would Jesus Do? If you'd studied the Bible half as much as most of the atheists on this forum, you would have known what passage I was referring. You just failed to follow Jesus. Somewhere in the world, there is a fundamentalist Creationists who believes that if you don't support Jesus cursing the fig tree, you will go to hell. According to him/her, you are NOT a real Christian. Following Jesus might not be as simple as you think.

Sigh...I quit this argument caposkia. You win by default. You can concoct baseless assumptions from this if you want. 

 

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I think this religious cat

I think religious cat Cap has been completely skinned, but just doesn't know it yet. So is this thread of atheist caring love, dedicated to healing you Cap, and all you idol worshipers ....( more than one way to skin a cat )

  Thanks RRS posters ... sincerely, me god.  


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Come on guys, don't be so hard on Cap. It isn't his fault he thinks disimbodied brains exist and magically knock up girls and that human flesh magically survives rigor mortis.

You all don't understand how hard it is to give up a fictitious security blanket.

(NOTE TO CAP: Still waiting for that Godsperm)

ok, I'm not going to even look for an intelligent answer here.  Just tell me, scientific method as is.  yes or no?  I'm good with using it if you can agree that we're on the same page with the definition. 

 

You wouldn't know an intelligent answer if it bit you in the ass. And once again, I am not going to do your homework for you.

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


zothique
Posts: 9
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
What's going on here is a

What's going on here is a debate between people who have physical evidence-- overwhelming amounts of it-- and people who have not a single SHRED of evidence, yet continue to advance the most preposterous, ridiculous claims possible.

I have not seen a single theist advance ANY argument, ever, which struck me as remotely persuasive.  Most of their talking points are on a level of schoolyard discussions about who would win between ninjas and pirates.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ninjas, of course!

Ninjas, of course!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:vastet

caposkia wrote:

vastet wrote:

Excess step not required. In my experience, it is a theist who will alter definitions halfway through an argument in order to survive his destruction. Not the atheist. And as for it being written out, look in a dictionary. You have wasted at least 10 posts on this stupidity, when none of it was even remotely necessary.

In my experience on this site, it's actually the contrary.  All I asked was for him to confirm with a simple yes or no.  This whole forum has basically been a waste due to the fact that only a select few on here actually want to be serious.  Even less actually want to talk about the topic. 

Because you are not serious about the topic, why should anyone else be? You STILL are continuing this pointless diatribe, proving that you don't really care. If you really cared, you'd have let it go. Instead, you doggedly pursue it like a pitbull which has latched onto a tasty piece of meat(not realizing that it's actually a vegetable).

caposkia wrote:
vastet wrote:

No. He knows that the definition is the definition, and that you are consistantly wasting time and effort on a question that is answered by a dictionary. You ignore this reality, and continue to waste time requesting a definition which is unalterable. I expect your next post to assert the same bullshit that all  of your posts have asserted. Accept reality, for ONCE, and move on already.

yes, let's move on already

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

caposkia wrote:

vastet wrote:

What is it with you theists resorting to lies when your arguments have collapsed into obscurity? 

what is it with you non-believers and your redundancies and enthusiasm about stale mate conversations? 

p.s. show me where I have lied to you.

I was actually hoping you'd bring this up. 

Quote:
What is it with you non-believers ignoring the obvious?

In your comment you implied, but did not implicitly state, that I was ignoring the obvious. I returned the favour to yourself, by implying, but not implicitly stating, that you were lying. I didn't call you a liar, I just implied that you might be. It was a low blow, I agree. But it was in response to a low blow, so there's nothing wrong with it. I used it tactically.

caposkia wrote:
no, i figured it out, I just wanted him to admit it.

I just need to hear it from him now.  Basically, I already know he has no interest in going further with the conversation anyway.  I knew that from page 1.  I'm just waiting for him to admit it. 

I can't really comment on what someone else will or will not do. It is likely that if it hasn't happened yet, it isn't going to happen.

caposkia wrote:

wow, and how old are we? 

I don't know how old you are. And I don't see a relevance to how old I am. I return low blows with low blows. I care nothing at all about any possible cost to my reputation. Partially because in this day and age it seems that crude people who make low blows get more attention. Such people who have truth in their statements not only get attention, but manage to change peoples opinions and ideas. If a logical and rational format were the default, I'd use it and love it. It is not, so I don't bother trying to go that way unless it is clear at the outset that all participants will comply.

I am who I am, and I will not change for anyone. Except me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 What? That's not

 What? That's not debatable. Ninjas would win.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: What?

butterbattle wrote:

 What? That's not debatable. Ninjas would win.

 

 

Hell, no! Pirates!  Guns, canons, boats, and swords. They're undisciplined but scrappy and they fight dirty.

 

Of course, they're drunk most of the time....

 

But they've got the numbers.  Sure, it'll be a blood bath, but Pirates win in the end since they can get away by ship.  And we all know ninjas get seasick and can't stand sailing.

 

I'm just saying....

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


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

caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 

Cap, you don't know anything about the topic of this forum or any other.  You appear to be an idiot, and ignorant as well.

...and how would you know this?  More blind assumptions I'm guessing be it that you have made no attempt to talk about the topic with me. 

daedalus wrote:

 

Perhaps if you knew even the slightest fact about the world, or even a moderate amount of facts about your own religion or beliefs we could have a conversation.

 

try me.  keep in mind it is my understanding that my "religion" and what you think I follow are 2 completely different things. 

daedalus wrote:

Would you care to crack open a book?  Seriously, how about reading the Bible at least once?

why don't you try having an inteligent conversation.  I'll make it easy:

step 1.  read the forum topic

step 2.  If you're at all interrested, read the suggested reading

step 3.  get back to me on this forum with questions, comments, or critizisms from what you read.

then we can go from there. 

If in step 1 you realized you're not at all interested, you can bypass steps 2 and 3 and maybe we'll meet again on another forum someday. 

 

 

I'll tell you what.  You read the Bible and a book of my choosing and then we can talk.  Then maybe I will listen to you r personal woo woo spirituality you think is so vastly important.

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: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Errrr.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Errrr. Churchanity is Christianity,

Nope, sorry.  That is definitely wrong. 

Let's put it this way, if it was, I wouldn't follow it.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

where as in going for perfection as knowledge, is to simply abandon all church superstition separatism dogma idol worship.

I agree with you here

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

The dirt simple "saving" message of revelation is no superstition, and went against common thinking and authority in it's ancient times and still to this day. Xainity still reeks of superstition and idol worship. Xainity is often call Paulinism. I call it the devil of wrong thinking gospel. Xainity is wrong and unrepairable. I say this as an atheist buddhist Jesus fan, and xainty is the enemy of wrong thinking to heal, and the jesus of the likes of paul and the church today. My buddha jesus would call all you christian idol worshiping praying dogmist, Satans, as he did peter.

...and as was clarified... I don't remember if you said it or not, but someone gave me a small peice of what they understood Xainity to be and with that information I could easily say it's not what I follow.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

That fucking bible is a damn nightmare of darkness and ignorance, disguised with bits of simple elementary truths.

the truth hurts

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

How do we awaken the world from this dreaded nightmare of superstition and idol worship.. Well, by any peaceful means we can devise .....

That's exactly where we as followers are at.  It's ironic, I couldn't have worded it better myself.

 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  To

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  To say I'm a christian etc, but a 'certain kind' , is poor use of language communication. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

well, I don't actually claim to be a "certain kind" of Christian.  Or at least that's not what I'm intending if that's what it sounds like.  What has happened is there are 5000+ denominations out there, all having their "right understanding" and all somehow still claiming to be "Christians".  The question is how can they all be following this one Christ if they all have their own way of being "right"???  It can't be done.

My point is I'm trying express that I follow what Christianity is and should be.  This of course to the best of my knowledge and understanding.  I'm willing to change a view if I find that I was misunderstanding a point or had it wrong all together.  It's why I always challenge what i know.  It's why I get on here.  For people to challenge me.  Unfortunately, I've been challenged more by the believer sites than this one, but eh, there's been a few here and there that actually give me something worth talking about. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

In general I don't think the world can learn anything of value from theology, as to defining god, as meaning existence or nature. Science is the only way.

Now we're getting somewhere... I think. 

So you don't see any value from theology as to defining God.  You also believe science is the only way. 

questions.  Why is it so important to define God?  Also, what are you intending by saying "science is the only way?"  I ask because I was curious if you were saying that just for the point of saying there's nothing beyond the physical or if you just think the method is the only way, which I would ultimately agree with. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I hope you are reading the many other religious related threads here at RRS. I haven't seen you in them. ???  

I have been involved in others.  I barely have time to keep up with this one, so I try to give the attention to the people who are expecting it from me.  Are you referencing to others I was talking on?  I haven't checked them in a while, i probably should because I know one was responding more recently to things I have said. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Anyhow, keep caring and good luck and please don't terrorize the kids with god of abe separatism bunk, and the brutal murder of story jesus, nor end times fantasy. That is truly bad. 

Thanks, no worries, that's not how I work.


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:A good

butterbattle wrote:

A good start? That video perfectly explained the "you can't change from a cat to a dog" fallacy. It wasn't trying to be specific. Furthermore, this was not what you said earlier. (but, I'm a Creationist, I can change what I say to fit the argument!)

Everyone loves to pull out the "change what i say" card whenever they don't have the answers.  I'm honestly trying hard to stay on the straight path here.  If anything I said was changed, it was unintentional and I would like you to reference my contradictions so I can clarify them.  If you really want to have a serious conversation with me, you're going to have to work with me.  Everyone has their own topic and views and I'm trying to respond to everyone individually in the way they'd understand. 

I stick by my statement that the video was a good start.  Last time in another forum I said something was too vague and no one argued that point.  It was along the same lines/topic.  In fact, the response was "of course it was vague", if you want the details you'd be watching a (rediculously large hourly number) long video!!!  That to me makes a bit more sense than your response.

butterbattle wrote:

 Oh, you got me. I confess, I've been searching for the unholy grail for as long as I can remember. When the atheist army finds it, we will prove the existence of the atheistic truth and rule the world!!!!

I've been waiting.

butterbattle wrote:

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41-42 

"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where they will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50

You fail to point out the part that explains that this will happen AFTER everyone is aware of the existence of God and has the opportunity to accept him.  Each person that "gets thrown into the fiery pit"  would have chosen that on their own by not accepting God.  This is my understanding of that anyway.  I don't believe you'll find a denomination that will teach you that.

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
We've also established that physical sources are not logically useful when talking about the spiritual. Therefore, due to the fact that I"ve been waiting for even one person to level with me on a relevent source also puts the ball out of my court.

You CANNOT research the supernatural. That is why it is called it is called supernatural!

well, i was talking specifically about the spiritual.  There are ways using the scientific method of researching it.  it won't be any part of the physical sciences, but we're talking about scientific method.  Would you accept trying everything other followers have tried?  That would be scientific method, trying something and coming to the same conclusion through the same process.  Most can't commit to that and therefore claim it's not true.  Would you be willing to commit to different but consistent methods of research? 

butterbattle wrote:

 Why do muslims do it? Why do Jews do it? Why do Christians do it? Mormons? Scientologists? Buddhists? Sickhists? Taoists? Wicken? You hypocrite, retarded, asshole, you must feel so great ridiculing my trials with religion when you're 10 miles farther down in the same well of bullshit.

you're funny.  

They do it because they believe in it.  Now that we have that out of the way, what makes me think that my belief is right and everyone elses is wrong?  What make you believe that?

butterbattle wrote:
 

Hmmm, now I understand why Brian37 doesn't usually engage in long debates like this. Brian, you've been on this forum for so long; I guess you've debated with hundreds of theists like this one. It's a complete waste of time. Trying to make this guy see the logic in my arguments is about as productive as prayer. I've learned my lesson.

Prayer has been more productive for me than this forum.  I have been waiting for someone to get serious and actually either talk about the topic of this forum, or actually have a conversation about something specific.  A few have tried in this mess.  No one has been willing to start a new forum as requested if they were truly serious enough.   My conclusion, no one on here is serious enough.  Why should I bother actually making a point if no one wants to be serious?

butterbattle wrote:

Yet, part of me still wants to debate with him because it's more than just fighting against fundamentalism. I've done so much community service in my life; I just enjoy helping people, regardless of the existence of God. Why do I want to educate this person? Why, because of God? That doesn't make any sense. That means God would be giving me the desire to turn away one of his followers. Am I being controlled by the devil? Well, that doesn't make any sense either. When I do community service, I actually want to help people in any way possible, not just "convert" them to a rational way of thinking. But, atheists have no morals. So, why do I want to help people? Am I being influenced by God even though I'm an agnostic atheist? Well, if that were true, we could all be perfectly moral without actually believing in God. So, does God pick and choose? Well, Christians divorce at the same rate as atheists and Catholic priests molest little kids. How do I know that atheists are immoral? Does God pick and choose among Christians too? Well, if he picks and chooses among both sides, then how do you gain a moral advantage from believing in God? But, we know I can't just want to help people for no absolute reason. Is it another God? Well, the same problems applies for those Gods too. Is God doing this because he wants me to become a Christian? But, that would mean that he's failing at something that he wants to do. Of course, in the Bible, he always fails at things that he wants to do, but...hmmm.

Satan is not against moral actions, he's against Jesus Christ.  If your case is "God can't exist because I'm still good", then Satan is happy with that.

butterbattle wrote:

My Spanish teacher once said that people who have no religion are lost, because they have no set of morals to follow.

But, I do have a set of morals that I follow. I came up with them though, morals that I felt were right. I didn't pick them out of a book. Is this because God granted me the inherent knowledge of morals? Then, if I already know the rules, why do I have to believe in God? Because, otherwise, I'll break the rules? But, some of my chosen morals disagree with those of the Bible. That doesn't make sense. I agree with most of the morals in the Bible, but disagree with a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament. Is this because I've strayed from God? No, that doesn't make sense either. Most Christians also don't follow the rules that I disagree with. Does this mean that they also strayed from God? 

Yes, we've all strayed from God.  That's why we need Jesus.  Just becasue I'm a "good person" doesn't mean I haven't done something that I myself feel is wrong or immoral.  I don't think any of us can look back on our lives and say, "yup, I've never done anything "wrong"" even in accordance with their own understanding of right and wrong. 

butterbattle wrote:

I might be wrong. I might be wrong about everything. But, until I discover that I am wrong, I'm going to do what I've concluded is right based on logic and evidence. I might be wrong.

Same here.  We are on the same page then.

butterbattle wrote:

What Would Jesus Do? If you'd studied the Bible half as much as most of the atheists on this forum, you would have known what passage I was referring. You just failed to follow Jesus. Somewhere in the world, there is a fundamentalist Creationists who believes that if you don't support Jesus cursing the fig tree, you will go to hell. According to him/her, you are NOT a real Christian. Following Jesus might not be as simple as you think.

I don't support fundamentalism.  I know the passage from which you reference.  As I've repeatedly said on this forum, none of this is about the topic and no one seems to want to be serious because I've offered opening up new forums about I think every, or almost every topic brought up that deviates from the subject.  I have purposely not given details to my beliefs because nobody wants to level with me.... except maybe you??????? 

BTW, others on here who have already, I know, it's just a general statement.  Just for the record, there are others who have worked with me in the past on other forums and have leveled with me.

butterbattle wrote:

Sigh...I quit this argument caposkia. You win by default. You can concoct baseless assumptions from this if you want. 

It's funny you say that I will concoct baseless assumptions because you give up.  You giving up on this is not a victory to me.  It means I screwed up.  I've been trying to get people to stick to the topic on this forum and start a new forum if they wanted to talk about something else.  I'm not sure how I could have worded it differently or encouraged people differently.

It's really disappointing to me because this "last post" from you asked many questions and made many statements that I think are more than worth going further with.  I do wonder whether they were out of sarcasm or frustration, but nontheless, I actually thought progress could come from this.  Again a new forum would be in line, but it'd be worth it if you'd actually be willing based on the statments and questions above. 

Again, I'm not on here to "win".  I'm on here for Jesus Christ.  I've told others in the past that it's not going to change my life any if someone accepts Jesus on here.  I don't get to go to my church and add another tally to some sort of list or scoreboard.  I don't get a bonus check or "get out of tithe for a week card".  It would not be a problem if someone on here accepted my understanding and followed Jesus Christ and never told me about it.  It's not for me, it's for you in the name of Jesus Christ. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Please spare us from your,

Please spare us from your, "I'm trying to save you" crap.

It just burns you that some people don't buy your superstition. Too bad.

We are not going to blindly "accept" your understanding, especially when you have absouluty no evidence for the fictional being you claim to be real.

Your belief is no different than belief in Allah, or Thor or Isis and just as factually baseless. It is merely what you like believing because the idea of a super hero in the sky protecting you has a strong emotional appeal. I used to believe that Santa was real because I liked getting presents, but then I realized it was merely something my parents sold me to get me to behaive.  The mind trap you are stuck in with your mythological being is no different.

"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
Cap, you messed up the 2nd

Cap, you messed up the 2nd quote in your 417 post, that's you not me. If your edit button is available you can fix it.

Anyway I am here to win for my atheistic story buddha Jesus "mentor", to the defeat of the Xain jesus. My jesus does not approve of xainity's idol deity jesus. Did you read and watch these yet?

The far east doesn't so much "argue" about a favorite mentor nor god which more generally just means existence. But God of Abe religions of the mideast and west ridiculously argue with a 'black and white', foolish and dangerous mindset. My atheist jesus would still be indignant of all separatist idol worshipers this day.

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation  

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/INTLVIEW/intlvi02.htm

 

Neale Donald Walsch - Who is God - 5 min

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Cap,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Cap, you messed up the 2nd quote in your 417 post, that's you not me. If your edit button is available you can fix it.

Anyway I am here to win for my atheistic story buddha Jesus "mentor", to the defeat of the Xain jesus. My jesus does not approve of xainity's idol deity jesus. Did you read and watch these yet?

The far east doesn't so much "argue" about a favorite mentor nor god which more generally just means existence. But God of Abe religions of the mideast and west ridiculously argue with a 'black and white', foolish and dangerous mindset. My atheist jesus would still be indignant of all separatist idol worshipers this day.

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation  

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/INTLVIEW/intlvi02.htm

 

Neale Donald Walsch - Who is God - 5 min

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

So you have chosen "Delusion Lite" with "Half the absurdity and none of the violence".

There is one species and no need for a god or pet whim to discribe life, not yours or Caps. When one gets to an "I don't know" it is ok to say, "I dont know". I am glad you don't buy into the club mentality, but how is your pet whim any more different or demonstrable than Caps? BOTH of you like what you believe and that is the only justification you have for it.

I find it funny when theists go after each other. It is sometimes more entertaining than watching an atheist and theist go after each other. Its kinda like watching Star Trec fans argue that Klingons are real and Luke Skywaker is fake.

"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
You are clever and funny

You are clever and funny Brian37, whom I admire and can't remember ever disagreeing with in principal, but I think you and many often miss my points, and reason why I post as I do, mainly to the theists who may be reading.  Basically like, "I am god, all is one, as is the science law of thermodynamics." .... WE are simply what is eternally, energy. "I am one with the ....  [insert word] .... "" .... father mother cosmos thingy or  ....

   Yeah, I work with the religion delusions as I try to understand delusion. I have taken a less traveled road of communication to defeating separatism idol worship hocus pocus bunk delusion. You more traditional atheists are doing a fine job, and thanks.  I am not agnostic, and I am not a pantheist on scientific grounds. I am 100% a "materialist".

Thanks always for your help to the atheist cause of rationalism,  and helpful critisim of my communication style. I am working on my liguistic method , me god! Fucking tower of babel. Thanks RRS, destroy that tower!  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:You

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

You are clever and funny Brian37, whom I admire and can't remember ever disagreeing with in principal, but I think you and many often miss my points, and reason why I post as I do, mainly to the theists who may be reading.  Basically like, "I am god, all is one, as is the science law of thermodynamics." .... WE are simply what is eternally, energy. "I am one with the ....  [insert word] .... "" .... father mother cosmos thingy or  ....

   Yeah, I work with the religion delusions as I try to understand delusion. I have taken a less traveled road of communication to defeating separatism idol worship hocus pocus bunk delusion. You more traditional atheists are doing a fine job, and thanks.  I am not agnostic, and I am not a pantheist on scientific grounds. I am 100% a "materialist".

Thanks always for your help to the atheist cause of rationalism,  and helpful critisim of my communication style. I am working on my liguistic method , me god! Fucking tower of babel. Thanks RRS, destroy that tower!  

The words god or God are words that imply cognition, a brainy mastermind. Establishing the discovery of thermodynamics by science does not make "energy" congative, in and of itself.

You simply let your sense of awe, just like Cap, incert a cealing when one cant seem to get past the bounds of knowledge.

Don't make up stories for your sense of awe. I have them too. I am in awe of everything to the power of volcanos, to the rub on my leg my cat gives me when he wants attention. But, I dont incert personal whims or tales of magic in as an explination.

This is a case of focusing on the hits and ignoring the misses. Along with all that "awe" is a shitload of distruction. If the "awe" is cognatively caused, then the distruction is as well.

Thermodynamics is an observation humans put into words as to assess  reality. Thermodynamics IS not a god or God anymore than you or I are.

If anything is true about life it is what Ocham's Razor would say, "Shit happens" both good and bad. What we as humans can do, having evolutionary cognition, insted of incerting pet whims, or ancient myth, is to observe that around us and test it to see how to avoid the things we dont want happining while seeking to study for things we do want to help all of humanity.

In all the posts I have read from you, your motif, theme seems to be one of non-violence and one of peace. That can be had without sucuming to pet whims or ancient mythology.

Wanting peace is not a motif exclusive to you, or Cap or Muslims or Jews or atheists. It is merely a human disire we all have to maximize benifit and reduce the harm.

I pick on you as well, not because I hate you, but because I think you fail to see that you fall into the same trap as Cap, and I don't hate him either. I merely think you both got it wrong.

"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
But Brian37, I am dealing

But Brian37, I am dealing with the reality and the human mind set that innately invented  mythology, as it still exists... I didn't invent it and it is deeply embedded in my world of my connected humanity earth race and the current world views. I am quit certain you miss the reason I post as I do.

Like I said to wise Hamby and DG, about my using the word "Oneness". Yes I said, it's no message to you rational non superstitious folks.

Maybe if you realized my posts are mostly directed at the irrational idol worshiper separatists, as I try to understand them and talk in their language, my posts would make more sense to you.

Thanks again Brian37, as I feel your frustration and enjoy your posts and xlint help. There is more than one one to skin that bunk religion cat. I"m fighting for the atheist goal from a not so common battle plan. Do fix words ....

 I just got asked "how are you". I answered, "I'm fucking lost in space and time, yeah, I am on earth, circling the sun, in the milky way, in the big bang, but where the fuck is that, in the eternal infinite oneness?" Then a sense of peace came over me, I am not lost, I am one with the sum of one. 

As far as a definition of god , the dictionary is mostly useless .... My name is not listed in there, and the word thermodynamics is part of no common gawed definition I've yet seen, but mine.      Go go communication.

 


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

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

To talk about the immaterial, supernatural, spiritual world, omni gods, etc is talk of imagination and emotion. Most we humans innately and wrongly think we are special. We are only special due to our innate ignorance of our place and time on this "atomic speck of dust" we call earth.

All is one, and eternal, while nothing is actually special. Science is humbling, while reality is truly more awesome than we could have ever simply imagined. LOL

Interesting, because my belief seems to follow the scientific humbling.  Knowing God is humbling because it puts into perspective how insignificant you really are.

You are an idiot. Here is something we DO agree on in that WE are insignificant we are.

THE DIFFERNECE between you and I is that I see nature as just what it is, and in it's scope we are a blip. You see your insignificance as magical. I see it as reality.

WE ARE INSIGNIFICANT. I will die and you will die and 1,000,000 years from now the universe will have no record of either of us. How the hell you can come to the conclusion that there is a magical daddy in the sky needed to explain the obvious, is beyond me.

WE assign importance to ourselves. WE give oursleves meaning. But to ask a fictional being to care about us is like asking a sinlgle atom to care about my death, much less to ask it to care about weither I take a crap or not.

YOU: "Babies are cute, therefore a magical being did it"

ME:, "Babies are born in every species and Jesus and Allah and Thor" are not needed to exlpain the obvious."

"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:Please spare

Brian37 wrote:

Please spare us from your, "I'm trying to save you" crap.

It just burns you that some people don't buy your superstition. Too bad.

We are not going to blindly "accept" your understanding, especially when you have absouluty no evidence for the fictional being you claim to be real.

Your belief is no different than belief in Allah, or Thor or Isis and just as factually baseless. It is merely what you like believing because the idea of a super hero in the sky protecting you has a strong emotional appeal. I used to believe that Santa was real because I liked getting presents, but then I realized it was merely something my parents sold me to get me to behaive.  The mind trap you are stuck in with your mythological being is no different.

uh.. yea... Please read post #418, last paragraph. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Cap,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Cap, you messed up the 2nd quote in your 417 post, that's you not me. If your edit button is available you can fix it.

yea, I see it now, it's too late, the edit button is gone after myself or someone else replies.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Anyway I am here to win for my atheistic story buddha Jesus "mentor", to the defeat of the Xain jesus. My jesus does not approve of xainity's idol deity jesus. Did you read and watch these yet?

The far east doesn't so much "argue" about a favorite mentor nor god which more generally just means existence. But God of Abe religions of the mideast and west ridiculously argue with a 'black and white', foolish and dangerous mindset. My atheist jesus would still be indignant of all separatist idol worshipers this day.

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation  

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/INTLVIEW/intlvi02.htm

 

Neale Donald Walsch - Who is God - 5 min

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

I don't argue with people about my favorite mentor etc.  I'm sure it might seem like I argue on here, but mostly, I"m just seeing where you'll go with it.  I'm not here to argue my faith to you. Why would I expect anyone to listen to me if I did? 

I did watch that video and I skimmed the reading.  It seems like the general idea is separatism.  That would be Churchianity.  Christianity is accepting of ALL, but follow one God.  No one is told (or should I say, no one should be told) that they have to follow God.  God didn't say that, Jesus didn't say that, it is a choice given to each person. 

Here's the real kicker and most especially religious people even miss this.  All the Bible is saying is that God is letting us know that He created us and that He loves us.  He is asking for us to be with him becasue he loves us so.  The thing everyone seems to be missing, (even the religous people) is that if you say, "no" to God, God, just says, "ok" and leaves you be.  Most people would say, well God didn't do anything, therefore, he doesn't exist.  Well, God isn't with you because you chose not have Him with you therefore, why would he do anything for you?  He's not with you.  It'd be like running away from home, but then getting into a bind and then expecting your parents to be right behind you to get you out.  They won't be because they aren't there. 

Unlike many people who claim to follow God, God doesn't force Himself upon people.  In fact, God teaches to be accepting of All people everywhere.  He does expect you to follow Him, but he never says, don't hang out with a muslim or a Buddhist. 

If you want to go further on this topic, please start a new forum.


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

Brian37 wrote:

You are an idiot. Here is something we DO agree on in that WE are insignificant we are.

THE DIFFERNECE between you and I is that I see nature as just what it is, and in it's scope we are a blip. You see your insignificance as magical. I see it as reality.

WE ARE INSIGNIFICANT. I will die and you will die and 1,000,000 years from now the universe will have no record of either of us. How the hell you can come to the conclusion that there is a magical daddy in the sky needed to explain the obvious, is beyond me.

WE assign importance to ourselves. WE give oursleves meaning. But to ask a fictional being to care about us is like asking a sinlgle atom to care about my death, much less to ask it to care about weither I take a crap or not.

YOU: "Babies are cute, therefore a magical being did it"

ME:, "Babies are born in every species and Jesus and Allah and Thor" are not needed to exlpain the obvious."

There are a couple reasons why our conversations have not gone anywhere.

1.  You don't want to focus.  You want to be right and there's no one that can tell you otherwise.  why should I burst your Bubble.

2.  You are ignoring the topic of this forum. 

If you want to get serious and actually cover some ground in a conversation, please start a new forum, or read the suggested reading. 

Just in case you misunderstood, I purposely have not progressed our conversation due to the above reasons.  I also do not progress the conversation due to the fact that it is my impression, no matter what I say, you're not going to take any of it seriously and will not work with me to come to a logical conclusion on either side.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Too xlint, not to cross

Too xlint, not to cross post.

Problems that apply to all who identify themselves as Christian.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15595

15 -  BobSpence1 wrote -  I don't think our criticisms "are narrowly tailored to extremist groups". We criticize the fundamentals of religion itself. Of course "extremist groups" attract extra criticism, for obvious reasons.

'Faith' and "Revelation" are purely subjective and add no actual knowledge - any real knowledge 'inspired' by thoughts stemming from such beliefs and experiences is only gained by testing them against reality, IOW something close to science, just like any other hypothetical speculation.

The moderate and liberal believers still seem to share a confidence in the value of faith and revelation with the extremists, which ironically demonstrates the fallacy of treating then as a sources of some actual knowledge, since they can lead to such different attitudes and moral interpretation. For both ends of the spectrum they reinforce the attitudes of the particular individual or group, so helping the extremists to further convince themselves of the 'righteousness' of their position.

The harm even in the case of the moderates is demonstrated in their still holding to Bible as still deserving of respect as a good source of moral guidance, rather than the outdated encapsulation of many primitive ideas. There are many despicable ideas to be found there, such as the attitude to homosexuals and even the inferior status of women, the justification of disproportionate punishment for 'sins' which cause little or no real harm to anyone, the punishment of the descendants for the 'sins' of some individuals, the 'virtue' of blind obedience to authority, that 'might makes right', pushing the extremely primitive and atavistic idea of blood sacrifice to jealous deities to buy some sort of favour (the core idea, at list the original idea, behind the crucifiction). Not to mention the implicit endorsement of slavery, and the failure to condemn rape and torture, indeed the presentation of such things as perfectly okay when applied to your enemies, whoever the 'enemy' is perceived to be.

There have been many superior guides to morals, ethics, and the nature of the Universe published since. This is one of the things we wish to point out, that encouraging people to base their moral outlook on the Bible is inhibiting us from moving past many bad or simplistic ideas such as those I listed above, and fully incorporating all the advancements in knowledge and ethical ideas that have taken place since biblical times, whether it be the rights of women or the turn-around in attitudes to slavery.

I submit that these problems apply to all who identify themselves as Christian. ~ BobSpence1
 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Too

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Too xlint, not to cross post.

Problems that apply to all who identify themselves as Christian.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15595

15 -  BobSpence1 wrote -  I don't think our criticisms "are narrowly tailored to extremist groups". We criticize the fundamentals of religion itself. Of course "extremist groups" attract extra criticism, for obvious reasons.

'Faith' and "Revelation" are purely subjective and add no actual knowledge - any real knowledge 'inspired' by thoughts stemming from such beliefs and experiences is only gained by testing them against reality, IOW something close to science, just like any other hypothetical speculation.

The moderate and liberal believers still seem to share a confidence in the value of faith and revelation with the extremists, which ironically demonstrates the fallacy of treating then as a sources of some actual knowledge, since they can lead to such different attitudes and moral interpretation. For both ends of the spectrum they reinforce the attitudes of the particular individual or group, so helping the extremists to further convince themselves of the 'righteousness' of their position.

The harm even in the case of the moderates is demonstrated in their still holding to Bible as still deserving of respect as a good source of moral guidance, rather than the outdated encapsulation of many primitive ideas. There are many despicable ideas to be found there, such as the attitude to homosexuals and even the inferior status of women, the justification of disproportionate punishment for 'sins' which cause little or no real harm to anyone, the punishment of the descendants for the 'sins' of some individuals, the 'virtue' of blind obedience to authority, that 'might makes right', pushing the extremely primitive and atavistic idea of blood sacrifice to jealous deities to buy some sort of favour (the core idea, at list the original idea, behind the crucifiction). Not to mention the implicit endorsement of slavery, and the failure to condemn rape and torture, indeed the presentation of such things as perfectly okay when applied to your enemies, whoever the 'enemy' is perceived to be.

There have been many superior guides to morals, ethics, and the nature of the Universe published since. This is one of the things we wish to point out, that encouraging people to base their moral outlook on the Bible is inhibiting us from moving past many bad or simplistic ideas such as those I listed above, and fully incorporating all the advancements in knowledge and ethical ideas that have taken place since biblical times, whether it be the rights of women or the turn-around in attitudes to slavery.

I submit that these problems apply to all who identify themselves as Christian. ~ BobSpence1
 

Those are good issues you bring up.  Many people read the Bible and see that.  I would of course understand their sinicism toward Christianity if those views were true, however they are flawed.  No, I'm not changing any views.  Dispensationalists and Fundamentalists may disagree, but it's not their doctern that's in question, it's the Bible. There are many books written about I'm pretty sure all of the above, if not most.  Esp. the woman issue. 
If you want to further talk about something specific from the above, I'd be willing to start a new forum with you on it. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I havent ignored the topic

I havent ignored the topic of the post, I am simply NOT FOOLED BY IT'S DISTRACTIVE INTENT.

"Pay no attention to the magic behind the curtain"

That's all it is, no different a tactic than any other Christian, Muslim, Jew or scientologist.

Pony up with some AMA peer reviewed "godsperm" evidence, and an AMA peer reviewed demonstration of how human flesh survives rigor mortis, then we can talk. I am just letting you know that I am not distracted by your tactic.

Humans magically come from dirt? Snakes talk, bushes talking, ghosts knocking up girls and you cop out to  metaphore or language as an excuse when called on it.

Even without all that myth crap the "omni-max" god concept by itself is flawed, both scientifically and morally. You have nothing and are merely trying to sell your myth by committing mental gymnastics in your head to sell your myth.

You are merely in a stage of backpeddling, keep backpeddling and maybe someday you can see what we see.

"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
Caring Cap, I recommend

Caring Cap, I recommend "tracking" BobSpence1, and reading his well written posts and any others here at RRS that get your attention. Lot's of helpful "buddhas" here at RRS. 

  I am an "Atheist for Jesus" such as atheist Dawkins jests, and so I reject unrepairable Christianity with it's attached churchanity, vulgar history, ignorance and idol worship of g-o-d separatism, even as the "atheistic" founding fathers did. What's there to debate?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY &  RELIGION
Compiled by Jim Walker

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

   Thomas Paine: "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true." ~  "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - a mentor of the founding fathers

  Also see Home page etc here,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qnoframe.htm

   Yea , Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e1.htm#RWEMERSON

"As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect."-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia, I don't expect a

Caposkia, I don't expect a detailed discussion on this thread, but could you be just a little more specific, as to any particular issue you see as particularly flawed, and in what sense, so we can decide whether another thread is likely to any more productive than this monster?

Oh BTW, I presume by 'sinicism' you meant cynicism. I'm not normally a spelling nazi, but that struck as more egregious an error than most.

 

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

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

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Caring

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Caring Cap, I recommend "tracking" BobSpence1, and reading his well written posts and any others here at RRS that get your attention. Lot's of helpful "buddhas" here at RRS. 

  I am an "Atheist for Jesus" such as atheist Dawkins jests, and so I reject unrepairable Christianity with it's attached churchanity, vulgar history, ignorance and idol worship of g-o-d separatism, even as the "atheistic" founding fathers did. What's there to debate?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY &  RELIGION
Compiled by Jim Walker

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

   Thomas Paine: "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true." ~  "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - a mentor of the founding fathers

  Also see Home page etc here,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qnoframe.htm

   Yea , Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e1.htm#RWEMERSON

"As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect."-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

 

I think your ideas are just as nutty and baseless as Caps.

BUT, having said that I think you get me, even though we are on opposite sides.

You quoted Jefferson, as I often do, not because I agree with Jefferson on the existence of a deity, he did, but he did NOT believe in what he would consider the hocus pokus of the bible. At best, he thought a god started everything and then stepped aside.

My point is, that even if I were to debate him (and I wish there were a time machine so I could). But, even if I were to debate him with the same level and blasphemy as I do here with theists, he would NOT take it personally. His issue would not be the words I use, but the line of logic I use to come to the conclusions I do.

You despite how full of it I think you are with your "ambigous Kumbia we are all the same attitude", get me.

I just want Cap to understand that the "battle" between us is NOT personal, just like it is not between you and I.

If Cap could see our past exchanges on this board and you have been around a lot longer, there is no way Cap should take me personally.

Make no bones about it, I have seen the same amount of evidence for your claims as I have seen from Cap, or any other theist of any label. But you get me at least in the sense that you know this is not personal.

 

"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
I get ya Brian37, or at

I get ya Brian37, or at least I think I do. Your rants are direct, clear, and I enjoy them all. Awaiting "The book of Brian37", I once praised .... I don't take poor chat room communication, comprehension, ignorance, nor insults as to harm me, but I am sensitive.

By using the familiar often angry story  jesus, I try to scold the church folks in jesus style. It has certainly been effective with the personal religious friends I have. I might say, Buddha was atheistic, and so was the gnosis jesus, not sauls jesus of xainity.

To my fellow atheists, my words are just sharing my atheist preaching style, designed with the religious first in mind.

In Jeffersons day many words meant quite different things than today, such as "atheist", which was an insult then, as Jefferson called religious leaders atheists. To be a deist, was basically to be a pantheist, a sexed up atheist, as Dawkins jests, IMHO.

Man I dig that Thomas Jefferson, even naming my old band such.

My rants are often a babel game of satire oxymoronic humor and anger to shock, to make laugh, to inspire, to make the non sense of idol worship religion apparent to the religious.

  Trying to effectively communicate to the religious as to heal them, is not easy and needs various methods. I purposely post from far left field, using religious language to turn religion on it's ear. Yeah, I need some major improvement, so I am here at RRS learning what and how people think and communicate.

   I explained this here, in post 17,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15664

    Thanks always Brian37. This may not jive with you Brian37, but I consider atheists to be "saved" in present religious jargon, and the rational reason behind the creation of RRS that "saves" .... yeah, believe in "god" we can fix that !!! I don't believe, I AM indeed GOD. Thermodynamics is what I AM. Re-define g-o-d , where you are free to do so with out getting punished and even murdered.

   Think of the kids realistically this day. The word g-o-d isn't going away so fix it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I get

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I get ya Brian37, or at least I think I do. Your rants are direct, clear, and I enjoy them all. Awaiting "The book of Brian37", I once praised .... I don't take poor chat room communication, comprehension, ignorance, nor insults as to harm me, but I am sensitive.

By using the familiar often angry story  jesus, I try to scold the church folks in jesus style. It has certainly been effective with the personal religious friends I have. I might say, Buddha was atheistic, and so was the gnosis jesus, not sauls jesus of xainity.

To my fellow atheists, my words are just sharing my atheist preaching style, designed with the religious first in mind.

In Jeffersons day many words meant quite different things than today, such as "atheist", which was an insult then, as Jefferson called religious leaders atheists. To be a deist, was basically to be a pantheist, a sexed up atheist, as Dawkins jests, IMHO.

Man I dig that Thomas Jefferson, even naming my old band such.

My rants are often a babel game of satire oxymoronic humor and anger to shock, to make laugh, to inspire, to make the non sense of idol worship religion apparent to the religious.

  Trying to effectively communicate to the religious as to heal them, is not easy and needs various methods. I purposely post from far left field, using religious language to turn religion on it's ear. Yeah, I need some major improvement, so I am here at RRS learning what and how people think and communicate.

   I explained this here, in post 17,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15664

    Thanks always Brian37. This may not jive with you Brian37, but I consider atheists to be "saved" in present religious jargon, and the rational reason behind the creation of RRS that "saves" .... yeah, believe in "god" we can fix that !!! I don't believe, I AM indeed GOD. Thermodynamics is what I AM. Re-define g-o-d , where you are free to do so with out getting punished and even murdered.

   Think of the kids realistically this day. The word g-o-d isn't going away so fix it.

We are not a god or gods. Thermodynamics certainly is a reality, but attaching a word rooted in myth and lies and trying to update it to match reality is merely retrofiting to cling to the past.

We are, and that is all that we can say untill we uncover more of science. We are not magic, we are not all powerfull, and we are not a giant conciousness, we are a collection of atoms in what can be best discribed in laymen's metaphore, at best, an ongoing uncaused and unconcious fractle of atoms.

Your hokie jargon is merely an attempt to salvage a debunked and unssassary word "god". Unclutter your claptrap and merely accept that the concept of "god" is merely an utterance of ignorance and an argument from a gap.

Do not bastardize science and thermodynamics by attaching it to such a childish word. You might as well call yourself "I AM SANTA AS YOU". Same damn thing to me.

Cap and you are in the same boat. "god" is a debunked word no matter how you repackage it.

 

"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


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: We are, and

Brian37 wrote:

 

We are, and that is all that we can say untill we uncover more of science. We are not magic, we are not all powerfull, and we are not a giant conciousness, we are a collection of atoms in what can be best discribed in laymen's metaphore, at best, an ongoing uncaused and unconcious fractle of atoms.

 

Cap and you are in the same boat. "god" is a debunked word no matter how you repackage it.

 

I usually don't have discussions with uncaused fractals but I was unaware god was a  debunked word.  Not really even sure how one would go about debunking a word.  Or more to the point if uncaused fractal atoms could debunk something.  Perhaps you can help me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Brian, but experience

Sorry Brian, but experience tells me that my strategy of calling myself a god is far superior to your strategy of ignoring the significance of the word. I agree that it is a generally meaningless word, but theists see meaning in it. It is highly conductive to discussion to open an argument with terms they are familiar with and have an accepted definition for(regardless of its credibility as such). If you start off with "god is incoherant", you aren't going to get very far in a discussion. You have to save that for when you're breaking through.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:I was

WillieBop wrote:

I was unaware god was a debunked word

Technically, it is true that 'god' has not been debunked. It is because things cannot be debunked if they have not been proven to exist; however to paraphrase Brian37, I think he means just what I said; that the thing referred to as 'god' has not been proved to exist. There is no evidence for 'god'.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


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

Brian37 wrote:

I havent ignored the topic of the post, I am simply NOT FOOLED BY IT'S DISTRACTIVE INTENT.

"Pay no attention to the magic behind the curtain"

Oh alright, ya got me Brian.  I've been trying to distract the whole time.

Alright everyone.   I guess I have to come clean.  The book is really about "The new view some atheists are taking and their quest to disprove God." 

Sorry.  I guess I should have said that up front.  I promise i will try hard not to use distractive intent like this in the future. 

Seriously though Brian, who are you trying to fool here?  Who has been distracting from progression of the topic, you or me?  As far as I understand, the topic was and is very clear.  I think I'm starting to understand why you can't accept God.

 


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Caposkia, I don't expect a detailed discussion on this thread, but could you be just a little more specific, as to any particular issue you see as particularly flawed, and in what sense, so we can decide whether another thread is likely to any more productive than this monster?

Oh BTW, I presume by 'sinicism' you meant cynicism. I'm not normally a spelling nazi, but that struck as more egregious an error than most.

 

yea, I'll admit, I'm a horrible speller, so please forgive me when I do misspell the obvious. 

The point of this forum has been the topic originally posted by me.  This is the reason why I have not indulged into any tangent on this. 

Something specific started to surface somewhere in this forum.  I was trying to hold on to the idea of whether there is a spiritual world or not. 

Granted it all fell apart when I couldn't get a basis for research to agree upon. 

Scientific method was brought up breifly, I have accepted it as a good basis for understanding.   What is now needed is an acceptable process to conclude from. 

 


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

Brian37 wrote:

I think your ideas are just as nutty and baseless as Caps.

BUT, having said that I think you get me, even though we are on opposite sides.

You quoted Jefferson, as I often do, not because I agree with Jefferson on the existence of a deity, he did, but he did NOT believe in what he would consider the hocus pokus of the bible. At best, he thought a god started everything and then stepped aside.

My point is, that even if I were to debate him (and I wish there were a time machine so I could). But, even if I were to debate him with the same level and blasphemy as I do here with theists, he would NOT take it personally. His issue would not be the words I use, but the line of logic I use to come to the conclusions I do.

You despite how full of it I think you are with your "ambigous Kumbia we are all the same attitude", get me.

I just want Cap to understand that the "battle" between us is NOT personal, just like it is not between you and I.

If Cap could see our past exchanges on this board and you have been around a lot longer, there is no way Cap should take me personally.

Make no bones about it, I have seen the same amount of evidence for your claims as I have seen from Cap, or any other theist of any label. But you get me at least in the sense that you know this is not personal.

 

Just for clarification, I never took anything you've said personal.  I have gotten some pretty harsh responses on here that make yours look like cooing.  I just roll with it.  If I truly was taking you personally, I would no longer be talking to you. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I applaud you Brian37, as

I applaud you Brian37, as you are a fun, yet serious "debunk-er", showing how silly the mythical magical g-o-d theist definitions are. Thing is, the g-o-d word, as meaning "awe", and so I spell "gawed", isn't going away .... so I post the way I do, too re-define g-o-d, as has been done all thru human history. From Zeus, to Yahweh, to present Thermodynamics and all science of no magic.


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I think your ideas are just as nutty and baseless as Caps.

BUT, having said that I think you get me, even though we are on opposite sides.

You quoted Jefferson, as I often do, not because I agree with Jefferson on the existence of a deity, he did, but he did NOT believe in what he would consider the hocus pokus of the bible. At best, he thought a god started everything and then stepped aside.

My point is, that even if I were to debate him (and I wish there were a time machine so I could). But, even if I were to debate him with the same level and blasphemy as I do here with theists, he would NOT take it personally. His issue would not be the words I use, but the line of logic I use to come to the conclusions I do.

You despite how full of it I think you are with your "ambigous Kumbia we are all the same attitude", get me.

I just want Cap to understand that the "battle" between us is NOT personal, just like it is not between you and I.

If Cap could see our past exchanges on this board and you have been around a lot longer, there is no way Cap should take me personally.

Make no bones about it, I have seen the same amount of evidence for your claims as I have seen from Cap, or any other theist of any label. But you get me at least in the sense that you know this is not personal.

 

Just for clarification, I never took anything you've said personal.  I have gotten some pretty harsh responses on here that make yours look like cooing.  I just roll with it.  If I truly was taking you personally, I would no longer be talking to you. 

Ok so the only dispute we have is that you claim that disimbodied beings knock up 9-14 year old girls and that human flesh can suvive rirgor mortis? I await your evidence to the contrary. If satisfactory, I will switch 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: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sorry Brian,

Vastet wrote:

Sorry Brian, but experience tells me that my strategy of calling myself a god is far superior to your strategy of ignoring the significance of the word. I agree that it is a generally meaningless word, but theists see meaning in it. It is highly conductive to discussion to open an argument with terms they are familiar with and have an accepted definition for(regardless of its credibility as such). If you start off with "god is incoherant", you aren't going to get very far in a discussion. You have to save that for when you're breaking through.

Yea, you have to let the alchololic  hit rock bottem most of the time.

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: The book is

caposkia wrote:
 The book is really about "The new view some atheists are taking and their quest to disprove God." 

What new view?

Things that haven't been proven, do not need to be disproven.

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"3 2 1, abracadabra,

"3-2-1, abracadabra, religion gods no more!" ... Ahhh shit, that didn't work. Umm, what to do?

The tools: Science, history, humor, satire, empathy, comparative religion and scripture interpretations as atheistic, pantheistic, theistic, gnostic .... got more???

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:What new

aiia wrote:

What new view?

Things that haven't been proven, do not need to be disproven.

 

If you really want to talk about it, read the book, then ask the questions. 

Also, I could take that same phrase and claim it to my point of view.  Seriously, if you really want to get into something with me, either read the book and we can talk, or start a new forum and let me know the specific topic. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

"3-2-1, abracadabra, religion gods no more!" ... Ahhh shit, that didn't work. Umm, what to do?

The tools: Science, history, humor, satire, empathy, comparative religion and scripture interpretations as atheistic, pantheistic, theistic, gnostic .... got more???

 

yea, many followers have tried that too.  Unfortunately there will always be religion gods, that's why it's important for us to weed them out and clarify who the true God is. 

Btw, please don't come back with; "I am god" or "what god, god doesn't exist" because we've already been there. 


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:

"3-2-1, abracadabra, religion gods no more!" ... Ahhh shit, that didn't work. Umm, what to do?

The tools: Science, history, humor, satire, empathy, comparative religion and scripture interpretations as atheistic, pantheistic, theistic, gnostic .... got more???

 

yea, many followers have tried that too.  Unfortunately there will always be religion gods, that's why it's important for us to weed them out and clarify who the true God is. 

Btw, please don't come back with; "I am god" or "what god, god doesn't exist" because we've already been there. 

As long as there are humans, there will be humans creating gods. Your "true God" is no different. He exists because the mind of man created him.

"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