The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
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. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cap replies: "Btw, please

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

 Want me to look for god do ya?!!! .... as you say weed out the right god ... I already have, it's best described in science. I have done my weeding, but the science of how we and material existence works will carry on.

 Here's some exlint g-o-d study for non scientists, explore this helpful site .... even anti-matter, relating to thermodynamics is here !!!   LOL to ya.

CERN Site Map -

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/site-map.html

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bearing in mind how many

Bearing in mind how many sincere followers of different interpretations of the Christian story there are, for anyone to make such a thing about referring to their particular way as that of the 'True Christian" is extremely arrogant and prideful.

They would all say that.

Only someone outside the 'faith' would be in a position to evaluate the historical roots of the traditions and assess how closely any one sect adhered to what seem to be the core doctrines which ditinguish Christianity from other religious traditions such as Islam and Judaism.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As long as

jcgadfly wrote:

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.

That is a matter of fact statement that I could easily claim is something that was created by you or your kind as well. 

this gets back to the core issue in this mega-tangent which was, your credible relevant source that my God is created by man. 

I know you're more open minded than Brian be it that you won't rut yourself into that state of mind. 

I'm willing to go along with the Scientific Method that he gave up on.  Just clarify you agree with the full generic definition of it and we can start a new forum.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Bearing in

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bearing in mind how many sincere followers of different interpretations of the Christian story there are, for anyone to make such a thing about referring to their particular way as that of the 'True Christian" is extremely arrogant and prideful.

They would all say that.

Only someone outside the 'faith' would be in a position to evaluate the historical roots of the traditions and assess how closely any one sect adhered to what seem to be the core doctrines which ditinguish Christianity from other religious traditions such as Islam and Judaism.

well, honestly many would probably place me "outside the faith" depending on what you mean by that.  I"m definitely not your stereotypical Christian of the times.  I disagree with many fellow followers on many topics though we all hold onto the same core beliefs and agree upon those. 

Many even on here have tried to categorize me only to find my belief isn't that following.  It seems many on here are too stubborn to realize that maybe it's because I don't fall into the tangents religions have tried to put on the faith.  (I said many, not all)


 


 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

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.

That is a matter of fact statement that I could easily claim is something that was created by you or your kind as well. 

this gets back to the core issue in this mega-tangent which was, your credible relevant source that my God is created by man. 

I know you're more open minded than Brian be it that you won't rut yourself into that state of mind. 

I'm willing to go along with the Scientific Method that he gave up on.  Just clarify you agree with the full generic definition of it and we can start a new forum.

 

1. Please refresh my memory on that definition again (by pm preferably so we don't open something we don't need to open again in this thread).

2. I have proof that man invented other gods (mythologies abound throughout the world. Why do you want human imagination evaluated by the scientific method? I'm not even sure it's possible.

3. Why do you sell your god short by saying he created something more imaginative than himself?

4. Why do you sell humans short by saying that they couldn't create such a being (despite a very imaginative book about your god to the contrary)?

"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


MeshaM
MeshaM's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-10-27
User is offlineOffline
 BobSpence1 wrote:Bearing

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bearing in mind how many sincere followers of different interpretations of the Christian story there are, for anyone to make such a thing about referring to their particular way as that of the 'True Christian" is extremely arrogant and prideful.

They would all say that.

Only someone outside the 'faith' would be in a position to evaluate the historical roots of the traditions and assess how closely any one sect adhered to what seem to be the core doctrines which ditinguish Christianity from other religious traditions such as Islam and Judaism.

 

Ehm, it might be just me, but what I'm seeing here is something that I cannot let go that easy. BobSpence is pointing out a serious flaw with anyone calling him or herself a true christian, and the response of caposkia is:

caposkia wrote:

well, honestly many would probably place me "outside the faith" depending on what you mean by that.  I"m definitely not your stereotypical Christian of the times.  I disagree with many fellow followers on many topics though we all hold onto the same core beliefs and agree upon those. 

Many even on here have tried to categorize me only to find my belief isn't that following.  It seems many on here are too stubborn to realize that maybe it's because I don't fall into the tangents religions have tried to put on the faith.  (I said many, not all)

 

So? you're special because you do not follow the herd? You do not fall into the tangents religions have tried to put on the faith?

Just because you're not a mainstream christian the claim of being a true christian does not become more valid and neither does the author referenced in the OP.

We as humans are supposedly flawed and we need God to complete us and deliver us from sin. How can we judge our fellow men of being a true follower or not? The Bible is full of texts that are subject to multiple interpretations, so claiming knowledge of it above another man is arrogance.

You now, holding on to beliefs is one thing. Claiming to be a true christian is a whole other cookie because it allows to commit crimes because of your special bond with your God. True also implies that your faith is without questioning... not a particularly smart choice.

In my opinion, claiming to be a True Christian is utter arrogance and stupidity.

 

I'm sorry for ranting a little bit off topic but I just could not help eating the cookie.

 

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."

- Galileo Galilei -


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:2. I have

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I have proof that man invented other gods (mythologies abound throughout the world. Why do you want human imagination evaluated by the scientific method? I'm not even sure it's possible.

So far, it's the only acceptable method that has been agreed upon that could test the validity of a spiritual world.  If you have another approach, I'm open to it.  It needs to be credible and relevant to the topic. 

The point is, we need to agree on a basis for study or we won't be on the same page and will make no progress

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Why do you sell your god short by saying he created something more imaginative than himself?

I don't believe I ever said that.  Are you saying that I said humans are more imaginative than God?  It's a rather impossible statement if God is real.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you sell humans short by saying that they couldn't create such a being (despite a very imaginative book about your god to the contrary)?

I guess it's possible, but if that was the case, then I personally believe that the Bible would easily be falsifiable.  (for all of you who believe it already is, if it was, then there would be no debate, it'd be as clear as leaves growing on trees)


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I have proof that man invented other gods (mythologies abound throughout the world. Why do you want human imagination evaluated by the scientific method? I'm not even sure it's possible.

So far, it's the only acceptable method that has been agreed upon that could test the validity of a spiritual world.  If you have another approach, I'm open to it.  It needs to be credible and relevant to the topic. 

The point is, we need to agree on a basis for study or we won't be on the same page and will make no progress

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Why do you sell your god short by saying he created something more imaginative than himself?

I don't believe I ever said that.  Are you saying that I said humans are more imaginative than God?  It's a rather impossible statement if God is real.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you sell humans short by saying that they couldn't create such a being (despite a very imaginative book about your god to the contrary)?

I guess it's possible, but if that was the case, then I personally believe that the Bible would easily be falsifiable.  (for all of you who believe it already is, if it was, then there would be no debate, it'd be as clear as leaves growing on trees)

First off, thanks for the pm.

Now, I want to take on point 2 again. I'm not sure anything that is faith or imagination based can be tested scientifically because both require no evidence to exist. If there were evidence that all could see and have no dispute about its origins, then it would be knowledge and there would no longer be a need for faith. For religions that are driven by faith in a deity, wouldn't that mean death?

I'll try to get to the other poits as life permits.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Bible, if conceived as a

The Bible, if conceived as a unitary infallible document, is virtually self-falsifying due to all the inconsistencies and self-contradictions and failed prophecies.

There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.

If you propose the hypothesis of a actual sentient being of vast and virtually unlimited powers, then such a being could manipulate what we perceive and experience and think in every conceivable or inconceivable way, which means we could not trust anything. So the idea of applying any investigation techniques to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything whatever about such a being is a fantasy. All possibility of certain knowledge about anything goes out the window if we entertain such an idea.

Since we do not have any remotely indisputable, positive evidence pointing to the existence of even lesser concepts of such magical beings, and science has made massive progress in gaining insight into our perceived reality, and even the workings of of our own minds and thought processes, it really does seem pointless to speculate on the God concept, except for our amusement.

For any phenomena to hint at the influence of a mind, they would have to have no apparent consistent precursor conditions or 'causes', ie be unpredictable, yet not be consistent with the purely random influences of quantum effects, or that other source of unpredictability, namely non-linear feedback in complex systems, AKA 'Chaos'.

EDIT: So far we seen have nothing that cannot be at least plausibly explained by some combination of deterministic, random, or chaotic processes, so no warrant for making the enormous epistemological leap to  a God hypothesis.

 

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


MeshaM
MeshaM's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-10-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I have proof that man invented other gods (mythologies abound throughout the world. Why do you want human imagination evaluated by the scientific method? I'm not even sure it's possible.

So far, it's the only acceptable method that has been agreed upon that could test the validity of a spiritual world.  If you have another approach, I'm open to it.  It needs to be credible and relevant to the topic. 

What can really test the validity of a spiritual world, the spiritual world is not the material/natural world. Since only observable phenomena can be tested, only the observable world can be described by science. The "spiritual" world is by definition outside of the realm of science.

As Bobspence has showed better then I can, the spiritual world is not science.

 

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."

- Galileo Galilei -


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
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. 

Please do keep "weeding them out" but in the process aim that same logic you use to reject all those other claims to your own claims as well.

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:First off,

jcgadfly wrote:

First off, thanks for the pm.

Now, I want to take on point 2 again. I'm not sure anything that is faith or imagination based can be tested scientifically because both require no evidence to exist. If there were evidence that all could see and have no dispute about its origins, then it would be knowledge and there would no longer be a need for faith. For religions that are driven by faith in a deity, wouldn't that mean death?

I'll try to get to the other poits as life permits.

You're taking it a few steps further than where we're at.  Also, you're taking it from an impossible perspective.  Of course anything imagination based is unable to be tested using the Scientific Method. 

In order to move on from here, you cannot conclude that the spiritual world is imagination based just as much as I can't conclude that the absense of a spiritual world is imagination based.  To say that, we'd making a conclusion without any credibility. 

Is it possible from here to walk into this without a preconceived conclusion, but only a hypothesis? 

 

Also, faith comes in when you accept a particular following.  That's having faith that the god you follow is the true way.  Not just a general understanding.  Let me remind you at this point in this conversation, I'm not trying to prove to you anything about my faith.  We're just trying to conclude on whether there's even a spiritual world or a non-physical world at all. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The Bible,

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Bible, if conceived as a unitary infallible document, is virtually self-falsifying due to all the inconsistencies and self-contradictions and failed prophecies.

Please reference "failed prophesies" 

As far as inconsistencies and self-contradictions, in the many forums I have been involved in including this one, it has been clearly understood that there has been little support for such claims. 

It has also been concluded in "What is True Christianity" that in order to severely critique the Bible as many like to do on here, we'd need a team of experts to analize the inconsistencies in English and compare to the original languages as well as the history of each book.  This statement btw is not my own but a fellow non-believer's. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.

Right, which is why I am more than willing to talk with people about "specifics" on why I believe what I believe and not any other.  It's also why I want to talk to people on here.  Mainly to debunk all the false religions formed on here or believed on here. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If you propose the hypothesis of a actual sentient being of vast and virtually unlimited powers, then such a being could manipulate what we perceive and experience and think in every conceivable or inconceivable way, which means we could not trust anything. So the idea of applying any investigation techniques to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything whatever about such a being is a fantasy. All possibility of certain knowledge about anything goes out the window if we entertain such an idea.

right, except for the fact that the being I believe in admits to that AND declairs that He will not control our free will. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Since we do not have any remotely indisputable, positive evidence pointing to the existence of even lesser concepts of such magical beings, and science has made massive progress in gaining insight into our perceived reality, and even the workings of of our own minds and thought processes, it really does seem pointless to speculate on the God concept, except for our amusement.

yet there are highly credible scientists out there that admit to not only finding God through their study, but also seeing science as further pointing to God.  If you're going to ask who, I believe it was the guy who discovered DNA that might be a good start.  I don't remember his name, I apologize. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

For any phenomena to hint at the influence of a mind, they would have to have no apparent consistent precursor conditions or 'causes', ie be unpredictable, yet not be consistent with the purely random influences of quantum effects, or that other source of unpredictability, namely non-linear feedback in complex systems, AKA 'Chaos'.

We only call something Chaos when we don't understand it's purpose or what it's doing.  It doesn't necessarily mean it's random and chaotic. 

Are you also saying God has a precurser condition??? I'm not sure if I fully understand what you are trying to get at here.

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: So far we seen have nothing that cannot be at least plausibly explained by some combination of deterministic, random, or chaotic processes, so no warrant for making the enormous epistemological leap to  a God hypothesis.

Just because something can be explained or understood doesn't mean it's not of God.  So many people have a state of mind that if God truly influences, then it must be an unexplainable phenomenon that defies all logic and law. However, if God created all this logic and law, why would He not use it himself? 

To counter that before anyone else gets the chance, if that's true, then we could say any happening could be blamed on or caused by God and no one could really know. 

To vaguely answer that for now, there are other factors to take into consideration than just how it happened. 

...and just what would those be? 

phew, had a feeling that was coming.  any scientific minded person here want to fill in the blanks? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
MeshaM wrote:What can really

MeshaM wrote:

What can really test the validity of a spiritual world, the spiritual world is not the material/natural world. Since only observable phenomena can be tested, only the observable world can be described by science. The "spiritual" world is by definition outside of the realm of science.

As Bobspence has showed better then I can, the spiritual world is not science.

Physical science you mean of course.  Scientifc Method is a good start.

New forum???


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Please do keep

Brian37 wrote:

Please do keep "weeding them out" but in the process aim that same logic you use to reject all those other claims to your own claims as well.

Are you saying you're willing to do the same for your own claims?  ya know, it might bring progress to the conversation between you and I. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

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.

As long as humans are born there will be pleanty willing to fill in the gap with absurdity. Which is why no label should seek a fantacy utopia of being the alpha male and that the best we can do as humans is work to maximize benifit and minimize harm. We are all in this together.

"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: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Please do keep "weeding them out" but in the process aim that same logic you use to reject all those other claims to your own claims as well.

Are you saying you're willing to do the same for your own claims?  ya know, it might bring progress to the conversation between you and I. 

What claims? That rigor mortis IS abservable and cannot be survived? I didn't come up with that claim, SCIENTISTS have been obverving it for quite a while. If you are asking me to trust a naked assertion blindly, I can't do that.

I'll use a yardstick and teliscope before I would blindly accept a naked assertion. It has nothing to do with aiming logic at myself. IT has everything to do with what has been established BY SCIENCE.

Why is it Sunnis and Shiites cant agree on how to interpret Allah. Why is it a Baptist and Catholic cant agree on what Jesus would want? BUT, seat a Catholic, Jew, Muslim and atheist in a science class we can all agree on what an atom is? How is it we can all agree what DNA is?

While it is natural for humans to make up things they want to be real it will never be the same as actually DEMONSTRATING IT. So do not expect me to take ancient claims of myth seriously or current claims of absurdity seriously.  Your Jesus is as provable as tarot cards and Scientology and Thor.

Again, I use the same logic in rejecting your Jesus as I do in rejecting claims of the universe being a giant brain, as I do in rejecting claims of vampires. It is so easy to understand too, it is not what I wish or want, or what you wish or want. It is merely what can be demonstrated and falsified.

So once again, pony up with your peer reviewed material demonstrating how a "spirit" "poof" knocked up a girl beyond the naked assertion of "God did it". When you can do that then you will have something. I like breathing so I won't hold my breath. Good luck in any case.

 

"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


MeshaM
MeshaM's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-10-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:MeshaM

caposkia wrote:

MeshaM wrote:

What can really test the validity of a spiritual world, the spiritual world is not the material/natural world. Since only observable phenomena can be tested, only the observable world can be described by science. The "spiritual" world is by definition outside of the realm of science.

As Bobspence has showed better then I can, the spiritual world is not science.

Physical science you mean of course.  Scientifc Method is a good start.

New forum???

 

I don't mean Physical Science because, and correct me if I'm wrong, science is always limited to the physical (observable, testable evidence) world. The problem with the spiritual world is that even the best hypothesis cannot be tested since we cannot observe the spiritual world, nor can we test it.

If you really want to debate according to the scientific method, you should also know that everything should be falsifiable as well. If you come up with a hypothesis that cannot be tested, cannot be observed and isn't falsifiable... well then it isn't science.

If you want to discuss wether we can or cannot observe and test the spiritual world with the scientific method, I would very much like to hear what this "spiritual" world is, since non-physical is not really a good description and that's basically all that I've heard.

 

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."

- Galileo Galilei -


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BMcD

caposkia wrote:

BMcD wrote:

That guy came to with a new Law that changes some of the old laws?

So you're saying Jesus lied?

Testament literally means LAW.  No Jesus didn't lie. 

When an amendment to the constitution is made, it is said to be a new Law though the old law still applies.  It was just amended.  This is the same idea.  You're getting caught up on technicalities. 

In Jesus' case, the old laws still apply, but because he came and died for our sins, the penalties for the laws were amended.  The New Law or Testament states that you don't do what you used to because these laws were broken.  They are still laws and it's still wrong to break them, but the way of handling it has completely changed.  E.G.  hitting children in school becasue they broke the rules.  We don't do that anymore.  Doesn't mean those rules no longer apply, the way we handle them are different.  There is a new Law stating the discipline of children in schools has changed voiding the old Law of discipline. 

Also, I never used the words, " Jesus came to wipe away the old law"  (singluar), I said he came with 'changes' (or amendments)  to 'Some' of the laws.

You love bears on tricycles don't you because it is obvious you love circular reasoning. "I will use my book to prove my claims"

Take a number Cap, Jews and Muslims do the same thing. You are in good company. Meanwhile magic doesn't exist. There is no such thing as godsperm and human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis.

If I write a book and make 1,000,000 copies of it, and 1,000 years from now people read MY CLAIM that I have a billion dollars and 500 people saw my bank statement, not because they actually saw it, but I merely claimed they saw it, does that mean I have a billion dollars? Or is the reality that humans are capable of making up stories and passing them off as fact?

You are merely phycologically desperate for a super hero in the sky, which is why you buy this myth. It is merely a mental hiccup to placate the realty of your own mortality. It is more comforting to think that you will live on than it is to face the reality that you wont.

|You are not going to convince anyone here with your circular reasoning. We are not amatures. You may be able to pick off a newbie atheist, but most of us have seen your dead horse argument ad nausium. But keep trying to dress your skunk up in a new tux, we do find it amusing.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:



BobSpence1 wrote:



The Bible, if conceived as a unitary infallible document, is virtually self-falsifying due to all the inconsistencies and self-contradictions and failed prophecies.





Please reference "failed prophesies"





I am not aware of any 'prophecies' which are reached the level of being particularly remarkable, even including the ones that were obviously inserted after the fact.



The most glaring one that sticks in my mind is the one that is supposed to have foretold the coming of Jesus, which doesn't even get his name right.



Then there was the repeated claim that Jesus would return 'within the lifetime' of many people alive at the time. The writers obviously believed this, it made sense in terms of their beliefs.



Others amount to little more than the pronouncement that 'something bad will happen to someone sometime in the future'. Wow, such insight'



Please reference any 'prophecy' that made specific claims with some sort of time limit, that can be proven to not have been retro-fitted.



I should add 'Bibical prophecy' to my list of oxymorons...



Quote:



As far as inconsistencies and self-contradictions, in the many forums I have been involved in including this one, it has been clearly understood that there has been little support for such claims.





You have to be kidding...



Genesis. If you aren't able to see or admit to any problems there, you are truly so sunk in apologetics that you are beyond hope. There are many web-sites that list Biblical contradictions.



The onus is on you to show how the more obvious ones are 'explained'.



Quote:



It has also been concluded in "What is True Christianity" that in order to severely critique the Bible as many like to do on here, we'd need a team of experts to analize the inconsistencies in English and compare to the original languages as well as the history of each book.  This statement btw is not my own but a fellow non-believer's.





The more you have to dig into the text and work out the 'correct' translation/interpretation, the less warrant you have to treat it as a reliable source of information, since for every non-obvious, literal reading there are an indefinite number of other possible readings that would have to be considered in all honesty. So this amounts to a concession that it this collection of documents is grossly inadequate as a source of information about such important and significant claims.



Quote:



BobSpence1 wrote:



There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.





Right, which is why I am more than willing to talk with people about "specifics" on why I believe what I believe and not any other.  It's also why I want to talk to people on here.  Mainly to debunk all the false religions formed on here or believed on here.



BobSpence1 wrote:



If you propose the hypothesis of a actual sentient being of vast and virtually unlimited powers, then such a being could manipulate what we perceive and experience and think in every conceivable or inconceivable way, which means we could not trust anything. So the idea of applying any investigation techniques to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything whatever about such a being is a fantasy. All possibility of certain knowledge about anything goes out the window if we entertain such an idea.





right, except for the fact that the being I believe in admits to that AND declairs that He will not control our free will.



BobSpence1 wrote:



Since we do not have any remotely indisputable, positive evidence pointing to the existence of even lesser concepts of such magical beings, and science has made massive progress in gaining insight into our perceived reality, and even the workings of of our own minds and thought processes, it really does seem pointless to speculate on the God concept, except for our amusement.





yet there are highly credible scientists out there that admit to not only finding God through their study, but also seeing science as further pointing to God.  If you're going to ask who, I believe it was the guy who discovered DNA that might be a good start.  I don't remember his name, I apologize.





I have heard several of these believing scientists, including Frances Collins, the DNA guy you are thinking of. His belief is just plainly so vague and emotional as to be no endorsement whatever.  He presents no actual logical arguments.



Nothing about studying science stops people being overwhelmed by strong emotions, or being captured by powerful memes, so inevitably there will be some believing scientists, but they are in the minority, more so at the higher levels of scientific achievement.



Quote:



BobSpence1 wrote:



For any phenomena to hint at the influence of a mind, they would have to have no apparent consistent precursor conditions or 'causes', ie be unpredictable, yet not be consistent with the purely random influences of quantum effects, or that other source of unpredictability, namely non-linear feedback in complex systems, AKA 'Chaos'.





We only call something Chaos when we don't understand it's purpose or what it's doing.  It doesn't necessarily mean it's random and chaotic.



Are you also saying God has a precurser condition??? I'm not sure if I fully understand what you are trying to get at here.





I am using the term 'Chaos' in the technically defined sense referring to the behaviour of non-linear feedback systems where they display infinite sensitivity to initial conditions, becoming essentially unpredictable. This provides a source of practically 'random' behaviour even in strictly deterministic systems, without the quantum effects, which are the modern way of understanding what happens in such systems. Nothing to with purpose or lack of understanding. Chaotic behaviour can be approximated to any desried degree of accuracy in a computer simulation.



I am saying that to be evidence pointing to a 'God', a phenomena would have to have no discernable set of enviromental conditions and/or events which could be seen to determine the phenomena, AND for the phenomena itself to display some pattern of behaviour that was statistically non-random. Absence of such characteristics would not 'prove' it was not due to the intervention of a complex consciousness, but until we positively establish such properties, it certainly is not evidence FOR such a hypothesis.



Continued on my next post...

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: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Is it not funny that the

Is it not funny that the abrahamic holy books all say they "predict" the future, but the best they can do is quote stories about donkeys and charrots. I cant find the word "entropy" or "cell phone" or "Brian37 will make this post, at this time, on this date" in any of those books.

It is obvious that those writtings were written for the people of that time and do not predict a darn thing with the acception that humans will continue to make up crap and sell it as fact.

If L. Ron Hubbard can spawn a fiction book into a religion, what makes any Muslim, Jew or Christian think that the humans back then were magically different than humans today?

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Continuation of previous reply

capioskia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: So far we seen have nothing that cannot be at least plausibly explained by some combination of deterministic, random, or chaotic processes, so no warrant for making the enormous epistemological leap to  a God hypothesis.

Just because something can be explained or understood doesn't mean it's not of God.  So many people have a state of mind that if God truly influences, then it must be an unexplainable phenomenon that defies all logic and law. However, if God created all this logic and law, why would He not use it himself?

If the natural world can be reasonable and plausibly explained without reference to a God, then introducing the idea is gratuitous.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that you actually assume that 'God' could 'create' logic. This just shows how utterly destructive of any attempt to make logical sense of the Universe would be if there truly were some virtually infinite, omnipotent, etc being behind everything, which would be intrinsically beyond our ability to fathom 'His' motives. Once you assume this you are into pure speculation about the nature of virtually everything, since such an entity could cause us to see and believe literally anything. We would have no warrant to 'trust' Him, and would be essentially conceding that 'might makes right', thus replacing any true morality with simple obedience to authority.

Once you question 'logic', you have not only lost the argument, you have lost the context to conduct any argument whatsoever.

Quote:

To counter that before anyone else gets the chance, if that's true, then we could say any happening could be blamed on or caused by God and no one could really know.

To vaguely answer that for now, there are other factors to take into consideration than just how it happened.

...and just what would those be?

phew, had a feeling that was coming.  any scientific minded person here want to fill in the blanks?

So I stand by my claim that you have no justification for your 'God Delusion', and the confused mess that is the Bible obnly supports my position, an observation that many people, includin many who started off studying it seriously from a position of belief, have come to conclude.

The more you dig into it with with the scales of 'faith' removed from your eyes, the more it is revealed for the confused ramblings of people who didn't know any better, and/or were without the benefit of hindsight and the enormously better understanding of the nature of reality we now possess, that it undoubtedly is.

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: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:capioskia

BobSpence1 wrote:

capioskia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: So far we seen have nothing that cannot be at least plausibly explained by some combination of deterministic, random, or chaotic processes, so no warrant for making the enormous epistemological leap to  a God hypothesis.

Just because something can be explained or understood doesn't mean it's not of God.  So many people have a state of mind that if God truly influences, then it must be an unexplainable phenomenon that defies all logic and law. However, if God created all this logic and law, why would He not use it himself?

If the natural world can be reasonable and plausibly explained without reference to a God, then introducing the idea is gratuitous.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that you actually assume that 'God' could 'create' logic. This just shows how utterly destructive of any attempt to make logical sense of the Universe would be if there truly were some virtually infinite, omnipotent, etc being behind everything, which would be intrinsically beyond our ability to fathom 'His' motives. Once you assume this you are into pure speculation about the nature of virtually everything, since such an entity could cause us to see and believe literally anything. We would have no warrant to 'trust' Him, and would be essentially conceding that 'might makes right', thus replacing any true morality with simple obedience to authority.

Once you question 'logic', you have not only lost the argument, you have lost the context to conduct any argument whatsoever.

Quote:

To counter that before anyone else gets the chance, if that's true, then we could say any happening could be blamed on or caused by God and no one could really know.

To vaguely answer that for now, there are other factors to take into consideration than just how it happened.

...and just what would those be?

phew, had a feeling that was coming.  any scientific minded person here want to fill in the blanks?

So I stand by my claim that you have no justification for your 'God Delusion', and the confused mess that is the Bible obnly supports my position, an observation that many people, includin many who started off studying it seriously from a position of belief, have come to conclude.

The more you dig into it with with the scales of 'faith' removed from your eyes, the more it is revealed for the confused ramblings of people who didn't know any better, and/or were without the benefit of hindsight and the enormously better understanding of the nature of reality we now possess, that it undoubtedly is.

Bob, you are being a little hard on him. I have hope(cough cough) that Cap can come up with a logical, demonstrable example of godsperm. I am confident that his claim "God invented logic" will evetually be taught in replacement of all physics textbooks and biology classrooms.

Do you understand that the graduation rate in our country would flip a complete 180 if we all went by his logic?

Physics 101, final

1. Explain thermodynamics.

Answer: "God did it"

Man, I wish I could have made up answers on my college exams, I would have graduated magna cum laudi.

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


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

First off, thanks for the pm.

Now, I want to take on point 2 again. I'm not sure anything that is faith or imagination based can be tested scientifically because both require no evidence to exist. If there were evidence that all could see and have no dispute about its origins, then it would be knowledge and there would no longer be a need for faith. For religions that are driven by faith in a deity, wouldn't that mean death?

I'll try to get to the other poits as life permits.

You're taking it a few steps further than where we're at.  Also, you're taking it from an impossible perspective.  Of course anything imagination based is unable to be tested using the Scientific Method. 

In order to move on from here, you cannot conclude that the spiritual world is imagination based just as much as I can't conclude that the absense of a spiritual world is imagination based.  To say that, we'd making a conclusion without any credibility. 

Is it possible from here to walk into this without a preconceived conclusion, but only a hypothesis? 

 

Also, faith comes in when you accept a particular following.  That's having faith that the god you follow is the true way.  Not just a general understanding.  Let me remind you at this point in this conversation, I'm not trying to prove to you anything about my faith.  We're just trying to conclude on whether there's even a spiritual world or a non-physical world at all. 

Well, the spiritual world seems to be populated by things that can only be defined in terms of what they aren't. The head spirits (God and Satan for the Christians) are only found to exist in a book written by the imagination of men.

Seems like the supernatural, spiritual world is safe from scrutiny by the scientific method because the SM only deals with the natural.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: I am not

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

I am not aware of any 'prophecies' which are reached the level of being particularly remarkable, even including the ones that were obviously inserted after the fact.

mmhmmm

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

The most glaring one that sticks in my mind is the one that is supposed to have foretold the coming of Jesus, which doesn't even get his name right.

I'm assuming you mean Emmanuel vs. Jesus.

If you take into consideration the languages and what each name means, they're identical.  It's what happens

Emmanuel = God with us (Hebrew)

Jesus = Jehovah among us (Greek) 

Granted there's general differences in the wording, but the meaning and/or intention behind the name is the same. 

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

Then there was the repeated claim that Jesus would return 'within the lifetime' of many people alive at the time. The writers obviously believed this, it made sense in terms of their beliefs.

The word generation was misunderstood not only by the Biblical people, but by many others through human generations.  The fact that the Bible admits to the fact that the people IN THE STORY misunderstood it and acknowlege that should be a dead giveaway. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Others amount to little more than the pronouncement that 'something bad will happen to someone sometime in the future'. Wow, such insight'

That doesn't show a lot of research

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

Please reference any 'prophecy' that made specific claims with some sort of time limit, that can be proven to not have been retro-fitted.

400 years and the enslavement of the israelites

Last supper

betrayal of Judas

etc.

Though of course I guess any of it could be "retro-fitted" if you take the point of view that they are only stories.  If that's the case, then I guess I've got nothing.  Your choice.

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

I should add 'Bibical prophecy' to my list of oxymorons...



 

mmmmmmmm... maybe

BobSpence1 wrote:

Genesis. If you aren't able to see or admit to any problems there, you are truly so sunk in apologetics that you are beyond hope. There are many web-sites that list Biblical contradictions.

yea, been there.  I've never studied apologetics. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. 

There are also many websites that contradict those websites that supposedly list Biblical contradictions.  Simply put, they didn't do their homework. 

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

The onus is on you to show how the more obvious ones are 'explained'.



 

Be it that this has nothing to do with the topic of this forum which is about a book, it's really not on me to explain anything beyond that.

If you want to start a new forum, I'm up for it

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

The more you have to dig into the text and work out the 'correct' translation/interpretation, the less warrant you have to treat it as a reliable source of information, since for every non-obvious, literal reading there are an indefinite number of other possible readings that would have to be considered in all honesty. So this amounts to a concession that it this collection of documents is grossly inadequate as a source of information about such important and significant claims.
 

I'm talking about the little critiques of non-relevent information.  I'll say Jesus is about Love, someone will bring up all the "wrong" things that the Bible talks about.  It has nothing to do with the conversation and usually its' a misunderstanding simply because they didn't read the whole story and take it into context.
 

If you want to critique the Bible, become a Biblical scholar.  If you want to become a Christ follower just learn about the love of Christ.  It's written as clear as day.  Everything else will fall into place as you learn about God.

If you are in the choice 3 category of neither, then I guess I'd have to ask why you're talking to me. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.

If so, then I guess we're done here
 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 


 

I have heard several of these believing scientists, including Frances Collins, the DNA guy you are thinking of. His belief is just plainly so vague and emotional as to be no endorsement whatever.  He presents no actual logical arguments.

have you read his book?  I guess it's generally personal perception if you have then.  I thought he brought up some logic in his understanding. 

Simply the fact that such a credible scientist can still hold onto what most on here consider a fantasy such as Christianity doesn't seem to make any logical sense at all unless of course there is some basis in their research. 

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

Nothing about studying science stops people being overwhelmed by strong emotions, or being captured by powerful memes, so inevitably there will be some believing scientists, but they are in the minority, more so at the higher levels of scientific achievement.
 

Christians will always be a minority, scientist or not



 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If the

BobSpence1 wrote:

If the natural world can be reasonable and plausibly explained without reference to a God, then introducing the idea is gratuitous.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that you actually assume that 'God' could 'create' logic. This just shows how utterly destructive of any attempt to make logical sense of the Universe would be if there truly were some virtually infinite, omnipotent, etc being behind everything, which would be intrinsically beyond our ability to fathom 'His' motives. Once you assume this you are into pure speculation about the nature of virtually everything, since such an entity could cause us to see and believe literally anything. We would have no warrant to 'trust' Him, and would be essentially conceding that 'might makes right', thus replacing any true morality with simple obedience to authority.

Once you question 'logic', you have not only lost the argument, you have lost the context to conduct any argument whatsoever.

huh? you're questioning logic?  If you do that we're never going to get anywhere.  Please don't go there.

here's 2 reasons why I see our conversations making no progress:

1.  If God in fact created everything, then of course everything we know to be real and any process thereof to understand the real would have to be from him.  E.g. a computer doesn't know anything more than the programmer or operator puts into it, therefore, why should we? (logic)

2. You along with many others on here seem to think that it's just the tangeble researchable facts that hold me to my belief.  There's a lot more to it and no it's not just emotion or other people supporting what I know. 

Until you can accept both of the above, we will never make any progress to any conversation we might have. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

So I stand by my claim that you have no justification for your 'God Delusion', and the confused mess that is the Bible obnly supports my position, an observation that many people, includin many who started off studying it seriously from a position of belief, have come to conclude.

The more you dig into it with with the scales of 'faith' removed from your eyes, the more it is revealed for the confused ramblings of people who didn't know any better, and/or were without the benefit of hindsight and the enormously better understanding of the nature of reality we now possess, that it undoubtedly is.

So you're telling me that you're NOT a scientific minded person and therefore cannot fill in the obvious blanks.  

hey, if it makes you happy.  When you want to talk about the book suggested, I"m here.  If you want to talk about another SPECIFIC topic, I'm open to it on a new forum.  Thanks for your time.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bob, you are

Brian37 wrote:

Bob, you are being a little hard on him. I have hope(cough cough) that Cap can come up with a logical, demonstrable example of godsperm. I am confident that his claim "God invented logic" will evetually be taught in replacement of all physics textbooks and biology classrooms.

Do you understand that the graduation rate in our country would flip a complete 180 if we all went by his logic?

Physics 101, final

1. Explain thermodynamics.

Answer: "God did it"

Man, I wish I could have made up answers on my college exams, I would have graduated magna cum laudi.

Oh Brian,  how nieve do you think the people on here are.  You failed to mention that I haven't mentioned much of anything on this forum due to the fact that it hasn't been consistent with the topic. 

just a question, no anger or frustration intended behind it.

How is it that you can talk so much about how you're so sure that God is not real and yet cannot bring it together enough to actually discuss the logic behind it? 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Seems like

jcgadfly wrote:

Seems like the supernatural, spiritual world is safe from scrutiny by the scientific method because the SM only deals with the natural.

not true.  The scientific method deals with logic.  It is usually applied to the natural.  By natural I'm assuming you mean physical. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cap, for me the belief in a

Cap, for me the belief in a creator, indicating a beginning, is totally silly. I am a fan of the gnosis story buddha jesus of no doubt and zero "faith", who conveyed, all is One with everything, and the laws of the Eternal Oneness have never, and will never change, as thermodynamics says this day.

Emmanuel = God with us (Hebrew)

Jesus = Jehovah among us (Greek)

Me/You/All existence = G-O-D

All things are natural and of substance .... physical, material, just as our thoughts are.


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Seems like the supernatural, spiritual world is safe from scrutiny by the scientific method because the SM only deals with the natural.

not true.  The scientific method deals with logic.  It is usually applied to the natural.  By natural I'm assuming you mean physical. 

Logical laws were conceived by man based on observing the operations of the natural world. I chose natural intentionally as it is the opposite of supernatural.

What can be observed of the spiritual world that can have the scientific method applied to it?

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 The most glaring one that sticks in my mind is the one that is supposed to have foretold the coming of Jesus, which doesn't even get his name right.

I'm assuming you mean Emmanuel vs. Jesus.

If you take into consideration the languages and what each name means, they're identical.  It's what happens

Emmanuel = God with us (Hebrew)

Jesus = Jehovah among us (Greek) 

Granted there's general differences in the wording, but the meaning and/or intention behind the name is the same. 

Actually, when you put it like that, it's even weaker, because that is precisely the sort of name they would use for such a 'prophecy', so that chances of someone showing up to fit that are hardly all that improbable, even if there was an actual 'Jesus' person, which is not even solidly established.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then there was the repeated claim that Jesus would return 'within the lifetime' of many people alive at the time. The writers obviously believed this, it made sense in terms of their beliefs.

The word generation was misunderstood not only by the Biblical people, but by many others through human generations.  The fact that the Bible admits to the fact that the people IN THE STORY misunderstood it and acknowlege that should be a dead giveaway.

That appears to very much a matter of dispute. The most straightforward interpretation does seem to assume that it would be within the lifetime of everyone in the current 'generation'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Others amount to little more than the pronouncement that 'something bad will happen to someone sometime in the future'. Wow, such insight'

That doesn't show a lot of research.

I don't think this whole topic is worth more research than I have done. But you may have a point.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Please reference any 'prophecy' that made specific claims with some sort of time limit, that can be proven to not have been retro-fitted.

400 years and the enslavement of the israelites

The whole 'enslavement of the israelites' in Egypt is seriously questionable.

Quote:

Last supper

betrayal of Judas

etc.

Though of course I guess any of it could be "retro-fitted" if you take the point of view that they are only stories.  If that's the case, then I guess I've got nothing.  Your choice.

Would have to be something well-documented outside the Bible to count for anything.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I should add 'Bibical prophecy' to my list of oxymorons...

mmmmmmmm... maybe

BobSpence1 wrote:

Genesis. If you aren't able to see or admit to any problems there, you are truly so sunk in apologetics that you are beyond hope. There are many web-sites that list Biblical contradictions.

yea, been there.  I've never studied apologetics. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. 

There are also many websites that contradict those websites that supposedly list Biblical contradictions.  Simply put, they didn't do their homework. 

When I check the 'contradictions' web-sites I normally refer to a Bible site to look at the actual text they are referring to, and sometimes they are stretching a bit, but there I have seen more than enough cases where they do seem to have a case for seriously confused text, that the idea of taking this text as a reliable source of information is not worth taking seriously, whether the problem is translation or transcription errors or limitations in the original writings, doesn't really matter.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The onus is on you to show how the more obvious ones are 'explained'.

Be it that this has nothing to do with the topic of this forum which is about a book, it's really not on me to explain anything beyond that.

If you want to start a new forum, I'm up for it

BobSpence1 wrote:

The more you have to dig into the text and work out the 'correct' translation/interpretation, the less warrant you have to treat it as a reliable source of information, since for every non-obvious, literal reading there are an indefinite number of other possible readings that would have to be considered in all honesty. So this amounts to a concession that it this collection of documents is grossly inadequate as a source of information about such important and significant claims.

I'm talking about the little critiques of non-relevent information.  I'll say Jesus is about Love, someone will bring up all the "wrong" things that the Bible talks about.  It has nothing to do with the conversation and usually its' a misunderstanding simply because they didn't read the whole story and take it into context.

If you want to critique the Bible, become a Biblical scholar.  If you want to become a Christ follower just learn about the love of Christ.  It's written as clear as day.  Everything else will fall into place as you learn about God.

If you are in the choice 3 category of neither, then I guess I'd have to ask why you're talking to me. 

Just makes my point - at that level, it's all highly subjective.

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: BobSpence1

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.

If so, then I guess we're done here

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have heard several of these believing scientists, including Frances Collins, the DNA guy you are thinking of. His belief is just plainly so vague and emotional as to be no endorsement whatever.  He presents no actual logical arguments.

have you read his book?  I guess it's generally personal perception if you have then.  I thought he brought up some logic in his understanding. 

Simply the fact that such a credible scientist can still hold onto what most on here consider a fantasy such as Christianity doesn't seem to make any logical sense at all unless of course there is some basis in their research.

I have listened to interviews, so I got a feel for where he was coming frpm. I'm sure he employed some logic in his argument, but it is more important to examine the assumptions the logic was applied to. From what we know of human psychology,'logical sense' is irrelevant to under standing that people entertain incompatible ideas all the time.

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If the natural world can be reasonable and plausibly explained without reference to a God, then introducing the idea is gratuitous.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that you actually assume that 'God' could 'create' logic. This just shows how utterly destructive of any attempt to make logical sense of the Universe would be if there truly were some virtually infinite, omnipotent, etc being behind everything, which would be intrinsically beyond our ability to fathom 'His' motives. Once you assume this you are into pure speculation about the nature of virtually everything, since such an entity could cause us to see and believe literally anything. We would have no warrant to 'trust' Him, and would be essentially conceding that 'might makes right', thus replacing any true morality with simple obedience to authority.

Once you question 'logic', you have not only lost the argument, you have lost the context to conduct any argument whatsoever.

huh? you're questioning logic?  If you do that we're never going to get anywhere.  Please don't go there.

Of course I'm not questioning logic - I'm questioning the idea that God somehow created 'logic' - that makes no sense. Logic is a formalized expression of the most fundamental requirements of coherent discourse, starting with the idea that an basic well-formed proposition cannot be be both true and false at the same time.

Quote:

here's 2 reasons why I see our conversations making no progress:

1.  If God in fact created everything, then of course everything we know to be real and any process thereof to understand the real would have to be from him.  E.g. a computer doesn't know anything more than the programmer or operator puts into it, therefore, why should we? (logic)

That begs the question whether the concept of God is coherent. Also note that computers can come up with new syntheses of the data they are initially given, which are not explicitly 'programmed into them'. All that's programmed into them is a set of rules to manipulate, combine, compare, and re-arrange the data they start with, in ways not totally different to the way we do.

Quote:

2. You along with many others on here seem to think that it's just the tangeble researchable facts that hold me to my belief.  There's a lot more to it and no it's not just emotion or other people supporting what I know. 

Until you can accept both of the above, we will never make any progress to any conversation we might have. 

Also depends what you mean by 'tangible' - science is NOT restricted to studying 'touchable' stuff. The study of psychology and consciousness and neuroscience are coming up with many new insights into how our minds 'work'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So I stand by my claim that you have no justification for your 'God Delusion', and the confused mess that is the Bible only supports my position, an observation that many people, including many who started off studying it seriously from a position of belief, have come to conclude.

The more you dig into it with with the scales of 'faith' removed from your eyes, the more it is revealed for the confused ramblings of people who didn't know any better, and/or were without the benefit of hindsight and the enormously better understanding of the nature of reality we now possess, that it undoubtedly is.

So you're telling me that you're NOT a scientific minded person and therefore cannot fill in the obvious blanks.  

Obviously I AM saying that I am 'a scientific minded person', so where do you get this from? 'Faith' is the very opposite of science and objectively established knowledge.

Quote:

hey, if it makes you happy.  When you want to talk about the book suggested, I"m here.  If you want to talk about another SPECIFIC topic, I'm open to it on a new forum.  Thanks for your time.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:How is it

 

caposkia wrote:
How is it that you can talk so much about how you're so sure that God is not real and yet cannot bring it together enough to actually discuss the logic behind it?
 

I think his logic is...

- virgin births are impossible.

- nothing about Christianity makes it any more plausible than any other religion.

- there is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, much less was the son of God.

- person can't come back to life three days after brain death unless you're watching Dawn of the Dead. (Shawn of the Dead?)

- Jesus's life is similar to numerous pagan Gods that existed before the NT. (ex. virgin birth, wise men, december 25th, baptized at 30, crucified, dead 3 days, comes back to life)

- the Bible contradicts physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, philosophy, geography, history, mathematics, and itself. 

- the Bible tells us to stone people that 1) Eat shellfish. 2) Working on Sundays. 3) For being homosexual. 4) Disrespect parents. 5) Support another religion. 6) etc. etc.

- the Bible is a sexist, racist, slavery-condoning, virgin-raping piece of fiction. One ex-Christian told me that when she was forced to read the Bible as a kid, she got nightmares, especially in the Book of Revelations. Some of the books sound like they could be Quentin Tarantino films.     

- Christians have not been proven to be more moral than other people. They don't have longer marriages. They don't have longer life spans. They don't have lower crime rates. 

I could go on.

Your refutation is, "All of those things are taken out of context or are blatant lies. You just need to have faith in God and accept Jesus into your heart."

So, who's not discussing the logic behind it?

 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

I am not aware of any 'prophecies' which are reached the level of being particularly remarkable, even including the ones that were obviously inserted after the fact.

mmhmmm

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

The most glaring one that sticks in my mind is the one that is supposed to have foretold the coming of Jesus, which doesn't even get his name right.

I'm assuming you mean Emmanuel vs. Jesus.

If you take into consideration the languages and what each name means, they're identical.  It's what happens

Emmanuel = God with us (Hebrew)

Jesus = Jehovah among us (Greek) 

Granted there's general differences in the wording, but the meaning and/or intention behind the name is the same. 

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

Then there was the repeated claim that Jesus would return 'within the lifetime' of many people alive at the time. The writers obviously believed this, it made sense in terms of their beliefs.

The word generation was misunderstood not only by the Biblical people, but by many others through human generations.  The fact that the Bible admits to the fact that the people IN THE STORY misunderstood it and acknowlege that should be a dead giveaway. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Others amount to little more than the pronouncement that 'something bad will happen to someone sometime in the future'. Wow, such insight'

That doesn't show a lot of research

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

Please reference any 'prophecy' that made specific claims with some sort of time limit, that can be proven to not have been retro-fitted.

400 years and the enslavement of the israelites

Last supper

betrayal of Judas

etc.

Though of course I guess any of it could be "retro-fitted" if you take the point of view that they are only stories.  If that's the case, then I guess I've got nothing.  Your choice.

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

I should add 'Bibical prophecy' to my list of oxymorons...



 

mmmmmmmm... maybe

BobSpence1 wrote:

Genesis. If you aren't able to see or admit to any problems there, you are truly so sunk in apologetics that you are beyond hope. There are many web-sites that list Biblical contradictions.

yea, been there.  I've never studied apologetics. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. 

There are also many websites that contradict those websites that supposedly list Biblical contradictions.  Simply put, they didn't do their homework. 

BobSpence1 wrote:



 

The onus is on you to show how the more obvious ones are 'explained'.



 

Be it that this has nothing to do with the topic of this forum which is about a book, it's really not on me to explain anything beyond that.

If you want to start a new forum, I'm up for it

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

The more you have to dig into the text and work out the 'correct' translation/interpretation, the less warrant you have to treat it as a reliable source of information, since for every non-obvious, literal reading there are an indefinite number of other possible readings that would have to be considered in all honesty. So this amounts to a concession that it this collection of documents is grossly inadequate as a source of information about such important and significant claims.
 

I'm talking about the little critiques of non-relevent information.  I'll say Jesus is about Love, someone will bring up all the "wrong" things that the Bible talks about.  It has nothing to do with the conversation and usually its' a misunderstanding simply because they didn't read the whole story and take it into context.
 

If you want to critique the Bible, become a Biblical scholar.  If you want to become a Christ follower just learn about the love of Christ.  It's written as clear as day.  Everything else will fall into place as you learn about God.

If you are in the choice 3 category of neither, then I guess I'd have to ask why you're talking to me. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

There is no serious warrant for treating as other than a collection of writings from a particular part of the ancient world, mainly relating to a related set of religious belief systems of that era.

If so, then I guess we're done here
 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 


 

I have heard several of these believing scientists, including Frances Collins, the DNA guy you are thinking of. His belief is just plainly so vague and emotional as to be no endorsement whatever.  He presents no actual logical arguments.

have you read his book?  I guess it's generally personal perception if you have then.  I thought he brought up some logic in his understanding. 

Simply the fact that such a credible scientist can still hold onto what most on here consider a fantasy such as Christianity doesn't seem to make any logical sense at all unless of course there is some basis in their research. 

BobSpence1 wrote:


 

Nothing about studying science stops people being overwhelmed by strong emotions, or being captured by powerful memes, so inevitably there will be some believing scientists, but they are in the minority, more so at the higher levels of scientific achievement.
 

Christians will always be a minority, scientist or not



 

 

Bob took you on for the major stuff so I'll hit on a quibble he missed.

Jesus does not mean "Jehovah among us" in Greek. It means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh delivers" from the Hebrew so it would be "Jehovah saves" in the Greek (if you insist).

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Logical laws

jcgadfly wrote:

Logical laws were conceived by man based on observing the operations of the natural world. I chose natural intentionally as it is the opposite of supernatural.

What can be observed of the spiritual world that can have the scientific method applied to it?

That would depend on what approach you're willing to take.  Not all observation's are done with your eyes.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Actually,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Actually, when you put it like that, it's even weaker, because that is precisely the sort of name they would use for such a 'prophecy', so that chances of someone showing up to fit that are hardly all that improbable, even if there was an actual 'Jesus' person, which is not even solidly established.

So you're the type of person that takes what is handed to them and considers that to be everything to support X.  There is more to it than just the name.

just a note.  It is understood that no human could have fulfilled the prophesies of the Bible about Jesus Christ.  It's why so many non-believers (NOT ALL) can't percieve Jesus to be real.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That appears to very much a matter of dispute. The most straightforward interpretation does seem to assume that it would be within the lifetime of everyone in the current 'generation'.

point and case clarified.  It was most likely worded that way so that the people of the Bible would misunderstand it and record the fact that they misunderstood it.  It'd be different if there was no acknowlegement of them thinking such.

Though again, it's a translation thing.  I don't know the word in Greek, but generation isn't understood as a literal time period.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The whole 'enslavement of the israelites' in Egypt is seriously questionable.

you can question it all, but you asked for a reference, not a report.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Would have to be something well-documented outside the Bible to count for anything.

So many people think the Bible is it.  Even you should understand that the Bible as a whole was put together many many lifetimes after the books within it were written.  There are many writings today that are in question on why they're not in the Bible and whether they should be or not. 
Also, there is tons of research done on specific Biblical stories.  If you look into historical research, you will see that the israelites in Egypt is not at all in question. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

When I check the 'contradictions' web-sites I normally refer to a Bible site to look at the actual text they are referring to, and sometimes they are stretching a bit, but there I have seen more than enough cases where they do seem to have a case for seriously confused text, that the idea of taking this text as a reliable source of information is not worth taking seriously, whether the problem is translation or transcription errors or limitations in the original writings, doesn't really matter.

Do you also take into consideration the sites that answer to the contradiction sites?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just makes my point - at that level, it's all highly subjective.

if you say so. 

I've told many people on this site that I'm on here to "challenge what I know".  I've told people that if they have such concrete information that my belief is wrong, then please show me. 

I've been on here for close to a year now, though I've talked to many outside this site for years and of all the information that has been given to me, I can't say that it has been anything more than "highly subjective" at best myself.  So at this impass, where shall we go?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course I'm not questioning logic - I'm questioning the idea that God somehow created 'logic' - that makes no sense. Logic is a formalized expression of the most fundamental requirements of coherent discourse, starting with the idea that an basic well-formed proposition cannot be be both true and false at the same time.

I guess it really comes down to how you approach logic.  If logic is a concrete (what's logical to him has to be logical to her), then logic isn't a factor and it really doesn't matter becasue logic will show you the truth anyway.  If it's tangeble to the point of everyone having a different perception of logic and what would be logical to them, then where do we stand as far as God's creation? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

That begs the question whether the concept of God is coherent. Also note that computers can come up with new syntheses of the data they are initially given, which are not explicitly 'programmed into them'. All that's programmed into them is a set of rules to manipulate, combine, compare, and re-arrange the data they start with, in ways not totally different to the way we do.

Can't you learn something new too? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Also depends what you mean by 'tangible' - science is NOT restricted to studying 'touchable' stuff. The study of psychology and consciousness and neuroscience are coming up with many new insights into how our minds 'work'.

ah, now we can make progress

BobSpence1 wrote:

So I stand by my claim that you have no justification for your 'God Delusion', and the confused mess that is the Bible only supports my position, an observation that many people, including many who started off studying it seriously from a position of belief, have come to conclude.

The more you dig into it with with the scales of 'faith' removed from your eyes, the more it is revealed for the confused ramblings of people who didn't know any better, and/or were without the benefit of hindsight and the enormously better understanding of the nature of reality we now possess, that it undoubtedly is.

if it really was as simple as you try to make it, I assure you I would not be a follower

BobSpence1 wrote:

Obviously I AM saying that I am 'a scientific minded person', so where do you get this from? 'Faith' is the very opposite of science and objectively established knowledge.

but I wasn't talking about faith.  The blank isn't faith.  I'll give you a hit, they start with W's


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Actually, when you put it like that, it's even weaker, because that is precisely the sort of name they would use for such a 'prophecy', so that chances of someone showing up to fit that are hardly all that improbable, even if there was an actual 'Jesus' person, which is not even solidly established.

So you're the type of person that takes what is handed to them and considers that to be everything to support X.  There is more to it than just the name.

Coming to a different conclusion from you does not mean I haven't looked into the subject adequately. I can well believe you may have studied this much more than I have, but that doesn't automatically mean you are more likely to have come to a more accurate conclusion. There may well be more to it, but once you go beyond the literal text, you are into more and more speculative territory. Such speculations typically can generate mountains of discussion, but not necessarily more light.

I recently read Rook Hawkins account of this, and while I don't simply take his word for it, it seems to be a very plausible case for it having nothing to do with a prophecy of Jesus at all.

Quote:

just a note.  It is understood that no human could have fulfilled the prophesies of the Bible about Jesus Christ.  It's why so many non-believers (NOT ALL) can't percieve Jesus to be real.

But not remotely the only reason why people don't take this stuff seriously.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That appears to very much a matter of dispute. The most straightforward interpretation does seem to assume that it would be within the lifetime of everyone in the current 'generation'.

point and case clarified.  It was most likely worded that way so that the people of the Bible would misunderstand it and record the fact that they misunderstood it.  It'd be different if there was no acknowlegement of them thinking such.

Though again, it's a translation thing.  I don't know the word in Greek, but generation isn't understood as a literal time period.

And of course I wasn't reading as a time period.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The whole 'enslavement of the israelites' in Egypt is seriously questionable.

you can question it all, but you asked for a reference, not a report.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Would have to be something well-documented outside the Bible to count for anything.

So many people think the Bible is it.  Even you should understand that the Bible as a whole was put together many many lifetimes after the books within it were written.  There are many writings today that are in question on why they're not in the Bible and whether they should be or not. 
Also, there is tons of research done on specific Biblical stories.  If you look into historical research, you will see that the israelites in Egypt is not at all in question. 

You are simply wrong here - I have looked. Not exhaustively, but what I found is a general concession that there actually is precious little hard evidence of the Israelites in Egypt. There is in fact more solid evidence of Egyptians in the lands which became Israel. There is even less evidence of the Exodus.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

When I check the 'contradictions' web-sites I normally refer to a Bible site to look at the actual text they are referring to, and sometimes they are stretching a bit, but there I have seen more than enough cases where they do seem to have a case for seriously confused text, that the idea of taking this text as a reliable source of information is not worth taking seriously, whether the problem is translation or transcription errors or limitations in the original writings, doesn't really matter.

Do you also take into consideration the sites that answer to the contradiction sites?

I haven't, although a quick check just now of a couple of sites specifically responding to the Skeptics Annotated Bible, for example, and simply find them unconvincing. They typically seem to regard the Bible as inerrant, which is simply ABSURD.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just makes my point - at that level, it's all highly subjective.

if you say so. 

I've told many people on this site that I'm on here to "challenge what I know".  I've told people that if they have such concrete information that my belief is wrong, then please show me. 

I've been on here for close to a year now, though I've talked to many outside this site for years and of all the information that has been given to me, I can't say that it has been anything more than "highly subjective" at best myself.  So at this impass, where shall we go?  

I see the situation of scientifically based theories and descriptions of reality on one hand, built up through a process which specifically recognises the problems of subjectivity, and has procedures such as peer review and requirements for independent replication of observations and experimental results.

On the other hand I see almost pure subjectivity, with a paucity of evidence, either physical or from reliably dated and relatively independent writings.

We can't provide 'concrete' evidence that you are wrong, assuming you are not one who believes Genesis is historically accurate, but we can give you strong evidence for non-supernatural alternative explanations for those beliefs.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Your

butterbattle wrote:

 Your refutation is, "All of those things are taken out of context or are blatant lies. You just need to have faith in God and accept Jesus into your heart."

So, who's not discussing the logic behind it?

 

I don't believe I actually said the above according to what was listed with that in your post. 

I'm sure that's how nieve you'd like me to be because that'd make your case easy.  Sorry, no sale.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Bob took

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Bob took you on for the major stuff so I'll hit on a quibble he missed.

Jesus does not mean "Jehovah among us" in Greek. It means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh delivers" from the Hebrew so it would be "Jehovah saves" in the Greek (if you insist).

 

Well, actually the jury's still out.  The point was that both names had the same purpose and meaning generally speaking. 

If you want to get technical, other sources say Jesus means Jehovah is generous. 

Let's not get lost in this though, it's really not relevent to furthering this conversation.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:caposkia

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Coming to a different conclusion from you does not mean I haven't looked into the subject adequately. I can well believe you may have studied this much more than I have, but that doesn't automatically mean you are more likely to have come to a more accurate conclusion. There may well be more to it, but once you go beyond the literal text, you are into more and more speculative territory. Such speculations typically can generate mountains of discussion, but not necessarily more light.

I recently read Rook Hawkins account of this, and while I don't simply take his word for it, it seems to be a very plausible case for it having nothing to do with a prophecy of Jesus at all.

What it simply comes down to is there is a lot that people can disagree on written in the Bible because it's unclear due to translation issues, clarity in general, culture/time differences, etc.  When it comes to the core beliefs of a follower of Jesus Christ, it's clear what is right and wrong.  It's clear what's expected of you.  Beyond that is just understanding history. 

Most people don't want to get involved in something if the only thing they know is what is expected of them.  Most people want to know the why's behind the expectations and how things progressed. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

But not remotely the only reason why people don't take this stuff seriously.

agreed

BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course I wasn't reading as a time period.

how were you reading it?

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are simply wrong here - I have looked. Not exhaustively, but what I found is a general concession that there actually is precious little hard evidence of the Israelites in Egypt. There is in fact more solid evidence of Egyptians in the lands which became Israel. There is even less evidence of the Exodus.

It's there.  There may not be much due to the fact that the Egyptians occupied the land much longer than the israelites and the fact that the Israelites were slaves and none of importance in that land.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I haven't, although a quick check just now of a couple of sites specifically responding to the Skeptics Annotated Bible, for example, and simply find them unconvincing. They typically seem to regard the Bible as inerrant, which is simply ABSURD.

I can't defend those sites because I don't know what you checked out.  Hank Hanegraaff is a source I'd consider.  He's been pretty decent at answering some of the skeptics.  The Christian Research Institute is I think the site he works with.  If you request it, they have some pretty extensive information.  It's not all on the website.  http://www.cri.org

F.Y.I.  due to the disagreement with followers and Jehovah's Witnesses, I requested any information he had on the trinity.  I got a 7 page outline that tore the concept apart ultimately clarifying the correct understanding of the idea. 

It's my understanding they're that thorough with everything. 

Also, they're not the only source, they're just one and the one that came to mind at this point.  They may not have everything you're looking for either, but it never hurts to ask.  I suggest asking though because like I said, most of their information is not posted on the site.  The information that is is not very thorough. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see the situation of scientifically based theories and descriptions of reality on one hand, built up through a process which specifically recognises the problems of subjectivity, and has procedures such as peer review and requirements for independent replication of observations and experimental results.

On the other hand I see almost pure subjectivity, with a paucity of evidence, either physical or from reliably dated and relatively independent writings.

We can't provide 'concrete' evidence that you are wrong, assuming you are not one who believes Genesis is historically accurate, but we can give you strong evidence for non-supernatural alternative explanations for those beliefs.

I have purposely not gone into great detail on this forum due to the lack of attention to the topic as well as lack of specificity in conversation.  Anything specific I have challenged people to start a new forum with it.  None have yet. 

You seem to want to bypass the basic topic of conversation that will allow all the other details to stem and want to get to the specifics.  Do you agree that a logical approach to this topic would be to first come to an agreement on whether there is even a spiritual world or not? 

From there we can get into futher conversation on whether the Christian following has any credibility.  Otherwise, I guarantee there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise because no matter what subject from the Bible you bring up, it's always going to be about whether a spiritual world exists or not. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
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.

So when the atheist states the obvious you assign it to magic, that there must be a puppiteer and super villian vieing for our attention to validate their importance?

I am not important, other than to my family and friends. I was one sperm amoungst millions who happend to fertalize an egg. I am imporant to myself, and to those who value me. But since you agree that we are cosmic dust in the scope of time, what constitutes you to default to "poof" logic rather than the reality that we are, and are without magic?

Both of us will be as equally famous in 1 billion years just as you and I were famous 1 billion years ago. You paint a utopia of magic that doesn't exist, where as we face the reality that we are finite.

You spend your time manufacturing an after life because accepting your mortality frightens you. It frightens any human, including atheists. But we don't cower from reality by trying to escape it with fictional myths.

I don't want to die any more than you do. I simply don't make up stories as to my importance.

 

"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
Well said Brian37, as

Well said Brian37, as always.

Fear rules, and gets delusional, as if life is a gift to hang on too, which for me, a very lucky earthling, it is not, but more of a pain as I've always grasped for some joy, and all the the more as I age. The need to find joy in this life, we asked not be part of, is telling of this human deterministic reality, of no separate god thingy.

WE simply are obviously g-o-d, and sadly the many in fear, are in denial.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I don't believe I

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe I actually said the above according to what was listed with that in your post. 

I'm sure that's how nieve you'd like me to be because that'd make your case easy.  Sorry, no sale.

*yawn*

 

Quote:
Do you agree that a logical approach to this topic would be to first come to an agreement on whether there is even a spiritual world or not?

I agree that we would need to come to an agreement. Unfortunately, I disagree with you on the existence of a spiritual world. 

Given the fact that you've cited faith to justify your epistemological stance on prayer, I really can't imagine this thread traveling anywhere.   

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Well

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Well said Brian37, as always.

Fear rules, and gets delusional, as if life is a gift to hang on too, which for me, a very lucky earthling, it is not, but more of a pain as I've always grasped for some joy, and all the the more as I age. The need to find joy in this life, we asked not be part of, is telling of this human deterministic reality, of no separate god thingy.

WE simply are obviously g-o-d, and sadly the many in fear, are in denial.

No we are not g-o-d. We are a product of evolution. We are a product of atoms and DNA and evironment and random chance,

You understand me, and most of what others say here. You simply cling to that word because you dont want to lose your conection with those who still believe. So if you can convey that they are no different by downplaying your belief to their claims as overlaping, you can hold onto that word.

god.Gods/ Supernatural are defunct concepts rooted an an ignorant past. Your nobility in "I am God as you" merely amounts to your personal recognition that we are all human, nothing more.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposki, I was reading

caposki, I was reading 'generation' not as a specific time period, which may be based on the average generation to genration period, which has often been assumed to be something like 20 years, at least in recent times, but rather as however long it took for the those currently alive to pass away, or someting like that.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, You basically

Brian37, You basically defined  g-o-d ( "we are  product of ...."  ))) .  I don't cling to that word ... the world in which I live does. Yes, I don't want to loose my connection with my fellow suffering humans, as I recognition that we all human. I seek to invite communication with the deaf and blind. Not to appease. The word g-o-d has never meant anything to me more than all natural material existence, which I call god.

How to destroy the "god of theology definitions" is my goal. For me, god and theology is an oxymoron.

I fail to see how my method of saying no deities, no master, all is one, as we and everything is simply g-o-d, meaning all connected existence, is not helpful to eliminating superstitious separatism. Basically I am laughing at, and mocking any god higher power fantasy of idol worship supernatural theology invention.

Thanks always for your thoughts regarding my strategy to slaying the curse of religion.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Brian37, You basically defined  g-o-d ( "we are  product of ...."  ))) .  I don't cling to that word ... the world in which I live does. Yes, I don't want to loose my connection with my fellow suffering humans, as I recognition that we all human. I seek to invite communication with the deaf and blind. Not to appease. The word g-o-d has never meant anything to me more than all natural material existence, which I call god.

How to destroy the "god of theology definitions" is my goal. For me, god and theology is an oxymoron.

I fail to see how my method of saying no deities, no master, all is one, as we and everything is simply g-o-d, meaning all connected existence, is not helpful to eliminating superstitious separatism. Basically I am laughing at, and mocking any god higher power fantasy of idol worship supernatural theology invention.

Thanks always for your thoughts regarding my strategy to slaying the curse of religion.

Dont placate superstition by using a superstitious word. You are in awe of nature. Then just call nature nature.

"god" is a word of an ignorent past.

"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
... "god" is a word of an

... "god" is a word of an ignorant past." ~ Brian37 ////  ... and an ignorant present. The word g-o-d isn't the problem, the definition is the problem. I see no way to eliminate the universal word g-o-d of many definitions. The pantheists say god is simply all natural nature. The far east will say god is the unknowable un-nameable un-definable.

   Occam's Razor advises for me to say I am god too, just as you, just as everything is, which blows theology god shit into laughable, deplorable, retarded la la land. What does thermodynamics tell us today about defining g-o-d. 

I didn't invent that broad g-o-d word of innate human design ... I am just dealing with it's definitions.    


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Bob took you on for the major stuff so I'll hit on a quibble he missed.

Jesus does not mean "Jehovah among us" in Greek. It means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh delivers" from the Hebrew so it would be "Jehovah saves" in the Greek (if you insist).

 

Well, actually the jury's still out.  The point was that both names had the same purpose and meaning generally speaking. 

If you want to get technical, other sources say Jesus means Jehovah is generous. 

Let's not get lost in this though, it's really not relevent to furthering this conversation.

Of course not - it sheds light on your other errors.

You responded to me earlier on observations being made with things other than your eyes.

Like what? Your imagination? The spirit that a Christian has (that no one can define) that Paul says will bear witness to the Spirit of God (which no one can define)?

Sound to me like your saying the only way I can buy what you're selling is if I've already bought it. I have to believe before I can believe?

"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