Christian Morality, Dualism, and Drugs

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Christian Morality, Dualism, and Drugs

I wonder if any of the Christians lurking about the site have ever considered the problem that drugs create for their religion.  This occurred to me while drinking alcohol, as it turns out, but that's apropos of nothing.

Anyway, here's the problem.  According to Christians, humans have a soul, which is a spiritual entity that transcends the human body.  While we have a brain that controls our body, the "essence" of our being is totally removed from our body.  The body is just a vessel for us to inhabit during our tenure on planet earth.

I was thinking about this concept, and a rather obvious question struck me.  If, as they say, the soul is separate from the body, and our "true self" resides not in our mind, but in our soul, then what's happening when we drink or take drugs?  The scientists say that alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect.  In other words, it interacts with our brains, creating a change in the way the brain works.  This change manifests in social confidence, reduced motor functions, feelings of euphoria, and reduction in reaction time, among others.  But... if changing the brain changes our personality.... then... um... what part of the personality is in the soul?  Other drugs produce more marked effects.  In fact, there are some drugs that can change a person's perceptions and thought processes so radically that they are often described as being "different people" when they're under the influence of the drugs.

But... if chemicals change our perceptions, our personality, our cognitive ability, and our emotions, and they do it by altering our brain, what's left over to be unalterable in our souls?

So, which is it?  Do changes in the brain change our minds, or do changes in the brain change our souls?  If they change our souls, then... um... doesn't that mean that our souls are physical?  If they're physical, what are they?  If they're not physical, then... um... how did something physical interact with them?

While I'm on the subject, if drugs are bad, mmmkay, then why?  A lot of Christians get their panties in a twist about marijuana.  Why?  If it doesn't change your immortal soul, then what's the harm in taking a drug that reduces anxiety and helps you relax?  For that matter, what's so wrong with cocaine?  I mean.. yeah, it can kill you if you take too much, but what's so bad about feeling jittery and talkative for six hours?  If your immortal soul is still going to heaven, what's the justification for getting so upset about changing the body, which is just a temporary vessel anyway?

I remember that when I was a Christian, I had some reason for thinking that drugs were an abomination to God, but I can't for my life remember what it was.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He probably means the

He probably means the fucking Buybull, which calling bullshit is an insult to the excrement of the bovine species.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Beatz, now that you've

Beatz, now that you've shifted the goal-posts to you liking (or at least have begun the task), let's take at look at how you've described Yahweh thus far:

* He is petty (deciding arbitrarily that he doesn't like someone, so condemning them to eternal hellfire)

* Has mortal emotions (Warth / Love, and by your own description, God's love is really not any different than human love. Selfish and largely arbitrary)

* He creates evil people with the intent & knowledge of sending them to Hell (Sociopathism)

* He feels that feeding me and giving my a habitable environment is full compensation for eternal hellfire.

* He has a divine plan, therefore I have a destiny

* He has given people free will

*He is immaterial

 

...Well, to be fair, at least you do clearly take your God right out of the OT without sprinkling-on the apologetics. We still have a number of puzzling anomalies, however:

 

Let's look at the 3rd & 2nd last attributes. These are mutually exclusive; if I have a pre-ordained destiny, I certainly don't have free will - I'm just a puppet in a play that's already been written.

You have to pick one.

 

Now let's look at the last attribute and the first two. How can he be emotional without the biology that creates emotions? Our emotions are a result of environmental pressure and natural selection - why would a divine being ever be troubled with such things? Moreover, if we look down at #5 again, we see that God already has everything figured-out and set fate in motion - so why the wrath? Why be angry with the result of his own machinations that turned-out exactly the way he intended?

 

Finally, what's the purpose of Hell? Clearly it isn't for 'punishing' anyone (burning someone forever clearly will not, and cannot, reform bad behavior), and by this definition, it can't even be for retribution.

Quote:
"The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." - Proverbs 16:4

...Does God just enjoy burning and tormenting people? If so, why on Earth worship such a deity (much less claim it as possessing 'love').

Quote:
LOL.  Nice try.  But no one will ever prove that God does not exist.

The definition you've given here is self-contradictory. It can't exist, because it is described as having mutually exclusive properties.

So, yeah. I did just prove that this version of Yahweh (...how many have we gone through, now? Anyone keeping count?) doesn't exist.

Of course, I imagine nobody will ever manage to convince you that you were conned when you traded the cow for the magical beans - so, as you were.

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

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


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Bob,Yours:  "Where do

Dear Bob,

Yours:  "Where do the ideas of the writers of the Bible come from? Why should it be given any special weight?"

The authors of the Old, and New Testaments ideas come from what they say they saw, or heard, or touched.  You can decide on your own whether you will give it any special weight. 

Yours:  "Why? I certainly do not recall ever having any thought like this."

Hmm.  Never any thoughts of a higher power or Creator.  I don't believe you.  

Yours:  "The bible 'teaches' many really nasty things, is full of clear contradictions, and is unequivocally not worth treating seriously as a source of unimpeachable moral or spiritual advice."

I'd guess it's obvious that I think completely opposite.

Yours:  "What evidence. That you include the word 'truth' in there is a silly non-sequiter. It ain't worth treating as truth until the evidence is evaluated."

I agree.  But I don't know which part of the Bible you demand evidence for.

Yours:  "We know this is factually incorrect."

So you grew up in an atheist home?  Never studied all the religions or subscribed to any of them?

Yours:  "No, we search for purpose and meaning as a side-effect of being blessed/cursed with a large conscious brain, and the urge to understand the world, which is generally helpful toward our survival, which is our particular survival strategy as a species. Actually not everyone bothers about that so much, from my observations."

Yes, probably not in the meaningful sense.  I too observe that most people just want to live their life and be happy, doing whatever it takes to obtain whatever goal they have.

Yours:  "In terms of things which can clearly be shown to be outrageous by comparing the ideas against a lot of evidence, I don't think I do. If the evidence is not clear, but fairly strongly suggestive, I try to maintain a more tentative acceptance."

I don't know you Bob, so excuse my ignorance.  How do you believe the universe came into existence?  I only know of the old theory (Big Bang), and I don't know if that is what you believe, or if there have been new discoveries.  What was there when there was nothing, if there was nothing, how did something happen?  If you subscribe to the Big Bang, please educate me on what scientist say about everything calming down, and all the planets becoming circular.  

In terms of earth, where did life start?  How did we decided what was good and bad?  Where did our conscience come from?  If you do not have time to concisely explain these things, you can refer me to a book.

Yours:  "This is where I slice your fingers off with Occam's Razor. Once you start such conjectures, you are actually ignoring a virtually infinite set of equally 'plausible', or I would say 'implausible' scenarios, which, freed from the constraints of being consistent with what we actually have learnt about reality thru serious investigation, can 'explain' anything. You are left with selecting the one which appeals most to your personal preconceptions."

I have not ignored anything.  I simply gave you a possible reason why people conjecture UFO's, alien abductions, et cetera.  You're right, that I have chosen what seems to me to be the most plausible, but otherwise there is good and evil, and people want answers.  If there is no God, everyone is just a delusional atheist.  Which begs the question, why is the majority of the population so selfish and evil?

Yours:  "For many of us here the Bible is very strong evidence against the Christian God, at least. We have had many many theists presenting what they consider strong evidence for God, and it has been uniformly pathetic."

I don't doubt that it has, which is why I dont debate God's existence.

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Butterbattle,Yours: 

Dear Butterbattle,

Yours:  "Oh, really?  What God? Yahweh? Buddha? Allah? How do you know? Some kind of feeling?"

Excuse me, a general sense of a higher power.

Yours:  "If I had not come to America, I probably would have never even asked the question."

So where are you from?  Switzerland?

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:If there is no

Beatz wrote:
If there is no God, everyone is just a delusional atheist.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sigh...

 

Beatz wrote:
Hmm.  Never any thoughts of a higher power or Creator.  I don't believe you.
 

It must be very convenient for you to simply dismiss all of our personal experiences by calling us liars.   

 

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


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Kevin,I like your

Dear Kevin,

I like your hypothetical reasoning, and I thank you for trying to gain full understanding. 

Yours:  *He is petty (deciding arbitrarily that he doesn't like someone, so condemning them to eternal hellfire)*

What is so arbitrary about not liking someone who is disobedient? 

Yours:  *Has mortal emotions (Warth / Love, and by your own description, God's love is really not any different than human love. Selfish and largely arbitrary)*

* He creates evil people with the intent & knowledge of sending them to Hell (Sociopathism)*

He has the choice to do and have those things.

Yours:  *He feels that feeding me and giving my a habitable environment is full compensation for eternal hellfire.*

No.  All humans are supposed to be in hell now.  Therefore, He's kind to let you enjoy some time on earth.

Yours:  *He has a divine plan, therefore I have a destiny*

Right.

Yours:  * He has given people free will*

*He is immaterial*

Depends on your definition of free will.  In Christian theology, humans are free to do what is natural to them, which is sin, but even that is constrained to a certain degree.  We believe you are a slave to sin, until God frees you. 

God is Spirit.

Yours:  "...Well, to be fair, at least you do clearly take your God right out of the OT without sprinkling-on the apologetics. We still have a number of puzzling anomalies, however:"

It is the same God in the Old and New Testament, Kevin.

Yours:  "Let's look at the 3rd & 2nd last attributes. These are mutually exclusive; if I have a pre-ordained destiny, I certainly don't have free will - I'm just a puppet in a play that's already been written."

If you knew that, why did you say "He has given people free will"?

Yours:  "How can he be emotional without the biology that creates emotions?"

Seems like you are understanding emotions from a humans perspective, and in a human sense.  Remember, you're trying to understand from a Christian perspective, and from God's perspective, or atleast I thought you were.  

We do not know everything about God, but we do know that if He exist and is infinite, then He is a highly more complicated Being than we can imagine.  God communicated messages to humans at the copacity to which they were able to fathom.  Let's always keep in mind that the Bible is trying to convey a message.   

Yours:  "Our emotions are a result of environmental pressure and natural selection - why would a divine being ever be troubled with such things?"

What do you mean by troubled?  And what is your authority on human emotions being brought about by environmental preasure, and natural selection?  Can these things be orchestrated? 

Yours:  "Moreover, if we look down at #5 again, we see that God already has everything figured-out and set fate in motion - so why the wrath? Why be angry with the result of his own machinations that turned-out exactly the way he intended?"

Again, God is free to choose.  But a half explanation is given in Romans 9:22,23.

Yours:  "Finally, what's the purpose of Hell? Clearly it isn't for 'punishing' anyone (burning someone forever clearly will not, and cannot, reform bad behavior), and by this definition, it can't even be for retribution."

If you go to hell, God is not trying to reform your behavior.  Also, hell is said to be tormenting, and Jesus uses the language of hell being a place "Where the fire is not quenched, and the worm does not die."  Some do not believe hell to be actual fire, but that the symbol is trying to describe something far worse.

Yours:  "...Does God just enjoy burning and tormenting people? If so, why on Earth worship such a deity (much less claim it as possessing 'love')."

No, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32).  We worship in our gratitude of life, mercy, granting of repentence, and the cross of Christ, which sums up as, Grace.

Yours:  "The definition you've given here is self-contradictory. It can't exist, because it is described as having mutually exclusive properties.

So, yeah. I did just prove that this version of Yahweh (...how many have we gone through, now? Anyone keeping count?) doesn't exist."

Maybe you have proved that the version of Yahweh you've conceived doesn't exist.

Yours:  "Of course, I imagine nobody will ever manage to convince you that you were conned when you traded the cow for the magical beans - so, as you were."

*Smiles*  Refresh my memory of what story that was, it's been a long time.

Yours:  "'We know what we're saying -- we know it requires a "leap of faith." But it's deliberate -- designed for those who would rather take that leap than stay in this world.'"

You will never hear such a thing come from my mouth.  You can't take a leap of faith, you're not free to do so.  God must take all the actions, otherwise, you will remain the way you are.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Beatz

butterbattle wrote:

Beatz wrote:
If there is no God, everyone is just a delusional atheist.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????

The atheist contention is that there is no God, and that everyone is born with the default of no God. 

If this is true, then traveling back to the beginning of life, everyone was always atheist, until atheist made up deities to manipulate each other. 

That the manipulation has set it's course, does not negate what humans really are, and what their ancestors were, atheist. 

This leads me to believe that the theist is just a delusional atheist, still under the manipulation that the atheist created.

Remember, our ape-like ancestors did not have any knowledge of a deity.  This was the pattern until an atheist finally configured a way to gain control.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quick and short instructions

Quick and short instructions on how to use the quote function.

Click the word "quote" or "reply" at the bottom of the post to which you want to reply.

An edit window will open. At the beginning of the text you will see: [ quote={person's name} ] (without the spaces)

At the end of the post you will see [ /quote ] (with the slash - again, without the spaces)

Enclose everything you want to reply to within the quote code.

If you want to reply to multiple parts of the post, be sure you have matching beginning and ending quotes, i.e. [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

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


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Quick and short

Ok, let me try.

aiia wrote:

Quick and short instructions on how to use the quote function.

Click the word "quote" or "reply" at the bottom of the post to which you want to reply.

Thanks aiia.

aiia wrote:
An edit window will open. At the beginning of the text you will see: [ quote={person's name} ] (without the spaces)

At the end of the post you will see [ /quote ] (with the slash - again, without the spaces)

I understand now.

aiia wrote:
Enclose everything you want to reply to within the quote code.

If you want to reply to multiple parts of the post, be sure you have matching beginning and ending quotes, i.e. [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

I didn't think anyone noticed my stuggles. 

I like this function though.  They should add it to the Amazon forum.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sigh..........Theism is

Sigh..........

Theism is belief in a God. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

Beatz wrote:
This leads me to believe that the theist is just a delusional atheist, still under the manipulation that the atheist created.

You're not a delusional atheist, you're just delusional.  If you wanted to butcher the English language, that's fine, but make sure that you know what you're actually saying.  

Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant to linguistics. It doesn't change the definition of these words. Either way, you're still a theist because you still believe that there is a God.

What exactly are you doing? Are you twisting words to make yourself uncomfortable so that it'll be easier to hang on to your beliefs? 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:Maybe you have

 

Beatz wrote:
Maybe you have proved that the version of Yahweh you've conceived doesn't exist.

This is not his "version," these are commonly accepted traits of God, which, ironically, you partly agreed to earlier. 

Again, you just dismissed his argument without even addressing it, in the same way that you ignore virtually all of our arguments. 

 

 

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Theism is a definition of

Theism is a definition of g-o-d rejected by Atheism. Why let the theists "own" the word/definition of g-o-d? That is why I post the way I do. I AM GOD, fuck Abraham's kind of stupid god crap.

I tell the kids they are 100% GOD, all is one and even science proves it, such as thermodynamics etc. Science is the only true worship/study of the awe , of G-awe-D. Simple. Fuck religion god dogma shit. Dogma is all our enemy, to heal, by understanding, as is sometimes called L_O_V_E ....


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:Dear

Beatz wrote:

Dear Bob,

Yours:  "Where do the ideas of the writers of the Bible come from? Why should it be given any special weight?"

The authors of the Old, and New Testaments ideas come from what they say they saw, or heard, or touched.  You can decide on your own whether you will give it any special weight.

So what are your reasons for giving those writings special weight? That was my question. You referred to it as though it was something worth supporting your position. Why?
Quote:

Yours:  "Why? I certainly do not recall ever having any thought like this."

Hmm.  Never any thoughts of a higher power or Creator.  I don't believe you.  

You stated "I believe that all humans are born with the knowledge that God exist."

I obviously thought about such things, since it was and still is part of the culure I grew up in, not to the extent it is in the US, but it never seemed much more credible than Santa Claus. I have spoken to many people both here and overseas, and heard the stories of people brought up non-religious families, and you have no basis for that statement.

Quote:

Yours:  "The bible 'teaches' many really nasty things, is full of clear contradictions, and is unequivocally not worth treating seriously as a source of unimpeachable moral or spiritual advice."

I'd guess it's obvious that I think completely opposite.

Then you are clearly ignorant of the facts.
Quote:

Yours:  "What evidence. That you include the word 'truth' in there is a silly non-sequiter. It ain't worth treating as truth until the evidence is evaluated."

I agree.  But I don't know which part of the Bible you demand evidence for.

So you agree it was a mistake to include teh word truth in that phrase?
Quote:

Yours:  "We know this is factually incorrect."

So you grew up in an atheist home?  Never studied all the religions or subscribed to any of them?

Pretty much. My mother was conventionally religious in a mild way, my father was atheist as far as I can recall. I rread about various religions, never even contemplated subscribing to any of them. Saw them and still do as just more examples of the variety of strange ideas people get attached to.
Quote:

Yours:  "No, we search for purpose and meaning as a side-effect of being blessed/cursed with a large conscious brain, and the urge to understand the world, which is generally helpful toward our survival, which is our particular survival strategy as a species. Actually not everyone bothers about that so much, from my observations."

Yes, probably not in the meaningful sense.  I too observe that most people just want to live their life and be happy, doing whatever it takes to obtain whatever goal they have.

Yours:  "In terms of things which can clearly be shown to be outrageous by comparing the ideas against a lot of evidence, I don't think I do. If the evidence is not clear, but fairly strongly suggestive, I try to maintain a more tentative acceptance."

I don't know you Bob, so excuse my ignorance.  How do you believe the universe came into existence?  I only know of the old theory (Big Bang), and I don't know if that is what you believe, or if there have been new discoveries.  What was there when there was nothing, if there was nothing, how did something happen?  If you subscribe to the Big Bang, please educate me on what scientist say about everything calming down, and all the planets becoming circular.  

The Big bang is still pretty much the current framework, at least as far as our observable Universe is concerned. Whether it was triggered by some event in a higher dimensional 'multiverse' is a matter of hypothesis and argument at the moment. How everything started, what preceded the Big Bang is the subject of conjecture, but there are ideas bounced around, such as 'circular' or multidimensional time which would make the idea of a beginning and 'before' a little more tricky.

'How did something happen? Could be a quantum fluctuation - these seem to happen all the time with no apparent cause.

The least sensible idea is a super conscious entity, because no matter how you cut it you have introduced an even bigger mystery, not least the question of what created God, so that is not an explanation of anything.

As to why things calmed down - that is a natural consequence of the expansion, spreading all the available energy over a bigger volume.

The planets are not 'circular', they are approximately spherical, due to the effects of gravitational attraction - any large mountain on a sufficiently large body would not be able to support its own weight and would slump towards a lower profile.

Any more nursery school science questions?

Quote:

In terms of earth, where did life start? 

Probably in the oceans in shallow zones near land.

Quote:

How did we decided what was good and bad?  Where did our conscience come from?  If you do not have time to concisely explain these things, you can refer me to a book.

We obviously don't have details on these questions, but we have some plausible outlines.

'Good' and 'bad', assuming you some form of moral constraints or guidelines on behaviour almost certainly arose through eveolutionary pressures on a species with a large brain living in social groups. Cooperation and restarint from violence against other members of the group would clearly be advantageous to the groups survival.

Consciousness is clearly an emergent property of complex brain structures, we think a class of cells called 'mirror neurones' which seem to respond to observations of other individuals behaviour, may be important here. do a search for "V.S. Ramachandran" a scientist of Indian background who has written and commented extensively in this area.

You should also be aware that recent studies continue to reveal how much we share of many aspects of consciousness and morality with our cousins the Chimps and Bonobos.

Quote:

Yours:  "This is where I slice your fingers off with Occam's Razor. Once you start such conjectures, you are actually ignoring a virtually infinite set of equally 'plausible', or I would say 'implausible' scenarios, which, freed from the constraints of being consistent with what we actually have learnt about reality thru serious investigation, can 'explain' anything. You are left with selecting the one which appeals most to your personal preconceptions."

I have not ignored anything.  I simply gave you a possible reason why people conjecture UFO's, alien abductions, et cetera.  You're right, that I have chosen what seems to me to be the most plausible, but otherwise there is good and evil, and people want answers.  If there is no God, everyone is just a delusional atheist.  Which begs the question, why is the majority of the population so selfish and evil?

Not particularly plausible if you are conjecturing ideas involving 'evil spirits' which have never been shown to exist. You are in fact ignoring the mundane explanations from psychology and related sciences.

And where do you get the idea that majority of the population are 'evil'. Selfish to varying degrees, maybe. Evolution again, without a significant inclination to look out for ones own needs, you are less likely to survive. Such inclination is moderated of course by other urges, such as the desire for friendship and other blocks on behaviour not conducive to a successful social group, as I mentioned before. These inhibitions against anti-social behaviour don't seem to work so well since our social environment has changed so much and so quickly from that which we evolved in.

Quote:

Yours:  "For many of us here the Bible is very strong evidence against the Christian God, at least. We have had many many theists presenting what they consider strong evidence for God, and it has been uniformly pathetic."

I don't doubt that it has, which is why I dont debate God's existence.

EDIT:

So are you not going to let us know why you believe? Just keep trying to point out flaws in our position?

I understand really, because there are no actual arguments for the existence of God that are actually worth a pile of dog-shit.

When you state you don't believe the testimony of anyone who claims never to have started out believing in God, you have actually condemned yourself as willfully believing in what we know as just ain't so, whether you can accept it or not. Your inability to believe what we are definitely in a position to know means you are accusing us of dishonesty or deep self-deception.

If you can believe that everyone who claims never to have felt any such 'knowledge' as you describe can be so deluded or dishonest, your only chance to retrieve any semblance of respect from us as other than a typical wilfully deluded nut-job worthy of total contempt, is to concede that there is at least an equivalent possibility that it is you who are dishonest or deluded.

EDIT:

I should add that I can accept that what you describe honestly applies to yourself, and presumable a percentage of the population in general. I have no problem accepting that people can feel this way. It in no way proves that there really is a God 'out there', just that some people have a propensitie to interpret a certain class of feelings and thoughts as being a form of communication with or experience of some 'being' outside their own mind. This is actually well-known, Michael Shermer refers to it in one of his books, and it appears to be at least 50% genetic.

If this assumption is a very important part of your belief system, as your refusal to accept our personal testimony to the contrary suggests it is, then you really have a problem.

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
.... "which is why I don't

.... "which is why I don't debate God's existence." - Beatz

 Duh , I am god , WTF is is not god? Atheist Buddha laughed, story atheist Jesus got pissed ... Theology theism sucks Satan's crouch .... idol worshipers suck blindly.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What is so arbitrary

Quote:
What is so arbitrary about not liking someone who is disobedient?

It's petty. It's a anthropomorphic characteristic.

Quote:
He has the choice to do and have those things.

...Your point? He had the choice, and according to you, he made them happen. Not exactly a very moral choice, was it?

Quote:
No.  All humans are supposed to be in hell now.  Therefore, He's kind to let you enjoy some time on earth.

What a load. This is like a Republican arguing that every inmate in Guantanamo Bay somehow deserves to be tortured on a daily basis, so it just goes to prove what a moral and kind administration Dubya is running because they're afforded time not being tortured.

This is not kindness. It's wickedness.

Quote:
Depends on your definition of free will.  In Christian theology, humans are free to do what is natural to them, which is sin, but even that is constrained to a certain degree.  We believe you are a slave to sin, until God frees you.

This is ass-backwards Orwellian doublethink. In fact, it's a textbook example of it.

I am a 'slave' to my own freedom (since anything I do of my own volition is 'sinful'), so the only way to become 'free' is to chain myself up at the feet of a totalitarian dogma that claims to know best.

Sound particularly benign to anyone?

Quote:
Seems like you are understanding emotions from a humans perspective, and in a human sense.  Remember, you're trying to understand from a Christian perspective, and from God's perspective, or atleast I thought you were.

Of course I'm understanding emotions from a human perspective. No other intelligent perspective we know of exists! Your own perspective is equally human, as is the perspective given in your holy book (which was written by humans!).

Moreover, we have empirically proven that emotions are a chemically-driven process. We have zero evidence of emotional systems existing without the chemical mechanisms that are known to create them.

Quote:
If you go to hell, God is not trying to reform your behavior.  Also, hell is said to be tormenting, and Jesus uses the language of hell being a place "Where the fire is not quenched, and the worm does not die."  Some do not believe hell to be actual fire, but that the symbol is trying to describe something far worse.

You didn't answer my question (though you've affirmed what I stated). Why is Hell there? Why does God send people he dislikes to be tortured forvever? What's the point? It would be higly immoral, you and I both know that, and it seems to serve no practical function at all. The world would get along just fine without God torturing people forever, so why does he do it?

Quote:
No, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32).  We worship in our gratitude of life, mercy, granting of repentence, and the cross of Christ, which sums up as, Grace.

Firstly, The Bible is erroneous. Funny fact: Did you know that not every Gospel account includes the virgin birth aspect of Jesus's life?

Second, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible (See: Circular Logic). God has no pleasure in torturing us? Then why do it? What's the goal?

Third, none of the things you mentioned are worthy of worshipping a deity over. Do you worship any thunderhead that passes by because it doesn't set your house on fire with a bolt of lightning or drop a tornado in your neighborhood?

Quote:
Maybe you have proved that the version of Yahweh you've conceived doesn't exist.

I wasn't conceiving of anything. I kept my talking points stictly tied to the deity you yourself described.

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
That was really xlint Kevin.

That was really xlint Kevin. Thanks. No deity master has been found. I fucking hate all invented idols of separatist thinkers ....  Fuck all you religious worshipers. FUCK YOU, fuck your idols, sincerely,  me god.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote:Depends on your

Quote:

Quote:
Depends on your definition of free will.  In Christian theology, humans are free to do what is natural to them, which is sin, but even that is constrained to a certain degree.  We believe you are a slave to sin, until God frees you.

This is ass-backwards Orwellian doublethink. In fact, it's a textbook example of it.

I am a 'slave' to my own freedom (since anything I do of my own volition is 'sinful'), so the only way to become 'free' is to chain myself up at the feet of a totalitarian dogma that claims to know best.

Sound particularly benign to anyone?

Wow.  That is freakishly Orwellian.  I wonder if dude's ever read 1984.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Bob,BobSpence1 wrote:

Dear Bob,

BobSpence1 wrote:
So what are your reasons for giving those writings special weight? That was my question. You referred to it as though it was something worth supporting your position. Why?

The atheist is the anomaly.  %99, of the people I come across, I don't have to ask if they believe in God, I just ask them what church they attend.  Of course in America, this is a give me, but around the world, the atheist is still the anomaly.  Yes, there might be some places with a heavy population of atheist, but still not a significant number. 

Seeing as though mostly everyone already believes in a higher power, the next question is what's His authority.  So the reason I give the Bible special weight is because I think it's God's authority.  The major three world religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), all have the same beginning, it's part 2 that the disagreement comes into play.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I have spoken to many people both here and overseas, and heard the stories of people brought up non-religious families, and you have no basis for that statement.

The reason I believe it, is because the Bible says it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Then you are clearly ignorant of the facts.

After your studies, you have came to the conclusion that those are facts.  I on the other hand have come to the conclusion that people misunderstand the Bible.  I even went on the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" website a while ago, and they have a lot of misconceptions about the Bible and Christianity. 

So lets keep in mind that you may see things as nasty, and contradictory, but I'm looking at it from a different angle.  

BobSpence1 wrote:
 So you agree it was a mistake to include teh word truth in that phrase?

Not quite.  I agreed that the evidence must be evaluated first, in order to determine whether it is truth.  Sorry, I didn't make that clear.  But I'm assuming you came to the conclusion that the whole Bible is false? 

BobSpence1 wrote:
I rread about various religions, never even contemplated subscribing to any of them. Saw them and still do as just more examples of the variety of strange ideas people get attached to.

So why did you take the time out to examine them?  Curiosity? 

BobSpence1 wrote:
'How did something happen? Could be a quantum fluctuation - these seem to happen all the time with no apparent cause.

What is energy, Bob?  Not the formula, not it's traits; what is it's ontology. 

Assuming there is no answer for that question, can you understand how I think it is outrageous to believe the universe just happened?  I can understand why you think theist are outrageous, but for some reason you feel you are exempted from this bunch.   

BobSpence1 wrote:
The planets are not 'circular', they are approximately spherical, due to the effects of gravitational attraction - any large mountain on a sufficiently large body would not be able to support its own weight and would slump towards a lower profile.

Any more nursery school science questions?

Sorry about that, I wont bother you with any more scientific questions after this post.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Cooperation and restarint from violence against other members of the group would clearly be advantageous to the groups survival.

So someone suddenly knew violence was wrong? 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Consciousness is clearly an emergent property of complex brain structures, we think a class of cells called 'mirror neurones' which seem to respond to observations of other individuals behaviour, may be important here.

So let me test if I'm following you correctly: 

There was always energy (according to the first law of thermodynamics) it didn't come from anywhere, it was just always there; energy, for no reason or cause, experiences quantum fluctuations.  These fluctuations you believe, could be responsible for the heat build-up initiating the Big Bang.  As the universe expanded, things began to cool down.  Spherical planets began to form with no orchestration, due to gravitational attraction.  (Are there any other planets besides earth with the same intense amount of gravity in it's atmosphere?)

Over a long period of time, the planet that became the most fortunate, or luckiest, was our earth.  The first particle from the chaos (iron) which is currently around 4000 degrees celsius, was encased by an outercore of iron and nickel. (Does iron naturally come from heated explosions, do any particles naturally come from explosions of heat?)  More time passed, and the gravitational attraction, attracted mantle over the outercore, then the upper mantle came, crust, and ocean.   The Solar system and orbiting was all happening during this process, right?  

Some of the planets cooled down and water formulated on them, from the cooling process?  The earth cooled down and was the right distance away from the sun (that moderately cooled down?), and moon, which enabled it to have liquid water. 

Moving on to the orgins of life to my understanding, science has no answer for.  I skimmed through a few articles that talked about amino acids, proteins, RNA, etc.  But all in all, I found no plausible answers.  Somehow, there is a leap to life.  Is this true?  Is the biogenetic law (life comes only from life) true?  

This all points back to my original statement, that I can understand why you think theist are outrageous for believing in intelligent design, but I can't understand why you wish to exclude yourself from people who have an outrageous belief.  You believe things happened with no cause and no reason, and I think things happened by cause and reason.  Or you will say, you believe there was a cause, but you're not sure what the cause was?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Not particularly plausible if you are conjecturing ideas involving 'evil spirits' which have never been shown to exist. You are in fact ignoring the mundane explanations from psychology and related sciences.

It is true that my assumption will not be plausible to you, because you do not believe in anything spiritual.  And I cannot show you that spiritual exist.  This is why I always say, "If."

I don't necessarily think I'm ignoring the explanations from pyschology, but rather, I think there is more behind it than natural disorders.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 And where do you get the idea that majority of the population are 'evil'. Selfish to varying degrees, maybe.

You know where my worldview comes from, so why ask the question? 

BobSpence1 wrote:
So are you not going to let us know why you believe? Just keep trying to point out flaws in our position?

I think I already answered this above, but to be sure;  I believe God exist because I believe in cause and effect.  You will probably say what caused God, which I find to be a foolish question.  I don't find it hard to believe an infinite Being is responsible for our finite creation.  The universe has not been proven to be infinite, but only has been said that it could be possible.

The law and order of things leads me to lean even more towards intelligent design.  If everything just happened by chance, as atheist believe, I would expect more to still be happening, more earths, more life from other planets, etc.  I would expect to see apples and oranges growing from the same trees.  I find it hard to believe all plantlife produces after it's own kind by chance, or by billions of years of unobservable evolution. 

I would expect the majority of the population to be deformed, and not have taste buds, two eyes (why not 5 or 6?), DNA, heart, brain, and spinal chord all produce itself over time.  What I see is enough for me.  And I'm glad you say that what I observe, you can understand that it applies and is good enough for myself and the majority of the population.       

BobSpence1 wrote:
 When you state you don't believe the testimony of anyone who claims never to have started out believing in God, you have actually condemned yourself as willfully believing in what we know as just ain't so, whether you can accept it or not. Your inability to believe what we are definitely in a position to know means you are accusing us of dishonesty or deep self-deception.

My first comment (that there is probably not one atheist here who didn't start out as a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, etc), was wrong.  So I'm sorry, and recant that statement.  My second statement, that every person is born with the inate knowledge of a higher power, I believe, because it comes from the Bible.

BobSpence1 wrote:
If you can believe that everyone who claims never to have felt any such 'knowledge' as you describe can be so deluded or dishonest, your only chance to retrieve any semblance of respect from us as other than a typical wilfully deluded nut-job worthy of total contempt, is to concede that there is at least an equivalent possibility that it is you who are dishonest or deluded.

It's your choice to treat me with disrespect, as a nut-job, or as a deluded and dishonest person worthy of all contempt.  I actually expect that from you and all atheist. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
I have no problem accepting that people can feel this way. It in no way proves that there really is a God 'out there', just that some people have a propensitie to interpret a certain class of feelings and thoughts as being a form of communication with or experience of some 'being' outside their own mind.

I have in no way, attempted to prove to you the existence of God.  I'm merely answering the questions you posed to me. 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: What

Dear butterbattle,

butterbattle wrote:
What exactly are you doing? Are you twisting words to make yourself uncomfortable so that it'll be easier to hang on to your beliefs?

No, I accept the definition of those terms.  I have heard on numerous occasions, atheist say that all humans are born atheist (with a lack of belief in God), and are later indroctrinated with theist beliefs.  If your origin is an atheist, and you are later manipulated to believe God exist, that does not change your origin.  A human being who is manipulated to believe that he is a dog, doesn't make him a dog, he's still a human being, a delusional human, but still a human.  

If there is no God, theist are delusional atheist. 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Using the Buybull as

Using the Buybull as evidence for Christianity is circular reasoning. The Buybull is 100% utter bullshit and one of the most idiotic books ever written.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Beatz, what's your point?

Beatz, what's your point? Higher power, when all is one? The NT story jesus, who wrote nothing, is multi sided, and then religiously blended, as we have an atheist buddha like jesus, and a pauline like jesus god man idol.  .... Yin Yang .... The Far East is atheistic/pantheistic in it's general god definitions, which aligns with a buddha jesus and rejects pauline jesus idol worship.

  Gods in general Hinduism, for example, is merely an appreciation for the many things that make life possible. The god of the sun, earth, water, animals, vegetation, etc.

  Me: "I am one with the cosmos, this is the power, the kingdom of heaven and hell NOW."   Yea, athiest buddha jesus , etc .....

              ZERO DUALISM


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Kevin,Sorry I wasn't

Dear Kevin,

Sorry I wasn't able to respond yesterday, I didn't have enough time.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
It's petty. It's a anthropomorphic characteristic.

You're entitled to your opinion, or maybe you'll say they're facts; you're still entitled.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
...Your point? He had the choice, and according to you, he made them happen. Not exactly a very moral choice, was it?

If God exist, I don't think I am in a position to tell Him what is moral, based on my faulted standards.  And of course I think God always does the right thing.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
What a load. This is like a Republican arguing that every inmate in Guantanamo Bay somehow deserves to be tortured on a daily basis, so it just goes to prove what a moral and kind administration Dubya is running because they're afforded time not being tortured.

This is not kindness. It's wickedness.

I disagree.  Instead of God immediately placing everyone in hell, He saves some, and He allows some to enjoy a life. 

If a person is told beforehand that if he murders someone, he is going to get the electric chair, and they let him enjoy a meal before the execution, that's kind.  So God, letting humans enjoy a life, is merciful and kind.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
This is ass-backwards Orwellian doublethink. In fact, it's a textbook example of it.

I am a 'slave' to my own freedom (since anything I do of my own volition is 'sinful'), so the only way to become 'free' is to chain myself up at the feet of a totalitarian dogma that claims to know best.

Sound particularly benign to anyone?

Orwell might've meantioned something similar, but the things I said are from Jesus (John 8:34).

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Of course I'm understanding emotions from a human perspective. No other intelligent perspective we know of exists! Your own perspective is equally human, as is the perspective given in your holy book (which was written by humans!).

Yes, my perspective is human, but I try to understand from a divine perspective to the best of my ability. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
You didn't answer my question (though you've affirmed what I stated). Why is Hell there? Why does God send people he dislikes to be tortured forvever? What's the point? It would be higly immoral, you and I both know that, and it seems to serve no practical function at all. The world would get along just fine without God torturing people forever, so why does he do it?

I think I answered your question, but to be sure; Hell is a place for people who want to be away from the grace of God.  Atheist make the statement that they "would rather go to hell than worship God," all the time, so you'll get what you ask for.  It also serves as a place for punishment, for disobedience.  If you commit the crime, you serve the time.   

You just gave the analogy of prison.  Why do people get life sentences?  What purpose does that serve? 

The world would not get along fine without justice.  Humans paying the price for the sins they commit is justice.  I guess you would prefer God to overlook transgressions of His law, just like you would prefer police to overlook transgressors of the civic laws?

Do you disagree that people like "Stalin" should be served justice, and go to hell?

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Firstly, The Bible is erroneous.

I disagree.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Funny fact: Did you know that not every Gospel account includes the virgin birth aspect of Jesus's life?

I'm familiar with the gospels.  They each have certain aspects of Jesus life not mentioned in the others.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Second, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible (See: Circular Logic). God has no pleasure in torturing us? Then why do it? What's the goal?

This coming from the guy whose tried to prove Adonai doesn't exist by the attributes given from the Bible? 

Besides, I haven't tried to use the Bible to prove the Bible.  I simply told you according to the Bible, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  That's not an effort to prove the Bible.

Why would you expect God to only act in ways that bring Him pleasure?  Is it because that's what you would do, or because that's what makes more sense to you? 

Granted, He does not have to do things that don't bring Him pleasure, but He still has the choice to operate the way He wants.  If you want an outline of the ultimate reasons behind His every act, then I can't help you.  But the Scripture says that everything He does, He does to bring glory to Himself.  You will think that is selfish, and I think God must operate in that manner in order to be God. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Third, none of the things you mentioned are worthy of worshipping a deity over.

Ok.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Do you worship any thunderhead that passes by because it doesn't set your house on fire with a bolt of lightning or drop a tornado in your neighborhood?

No, I thank God for directing it away from my house.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Beatz,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Beatz, what's your point? Higher power, when all is one? The NT story jesus, who wrote nothing, is multi sided, and then religiously blended, as we have an atheist buddha like jesus, and a pauline like jesus god man idol.  .... Yin Yang .... The Far East is atheistic/pantheistic in it's general god definitions, which aligns with a buddha jesus and rejects pauline jesus idol worship.

  Gods in general Hinduism, for example, is merely an appreciation for the many things that make life possible. The god of the sun, earth, water, animals, vegetation, etc.

  Me: "I am one with the cosmos, this is the power, the kingdom of heaven and hell NOW."   Yea, athiest buddha jesus , etc .....

              ZERO DUALISM

No offense, but I usually skip over your post because of the vulgar language. 

But I was going to ask you a few days ago; Out of your 4000 or so post, have you ever voiced with normal speech?  I think this post answers my question though.  It almost reads normal.  But usually your post appear to be ecstatic.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You just gave the

Quote:
You just gave the analogy of prison.  Why do people get life sentences?  What purpose does that serve?

This is a great question!

The stated purpose is to keep unformable criminals unable to harm people. Personally, I don't feel that this is a good justification... but before we derail this into a penal code tangent, let's take a look at what I just wrote:

The stated purpose part.

 

Beatz still hasn't stated the purpose of Hell. Likely, he never will (not here, anyway) - simply deflecting with matter-of-factly toned questions of his own or appealing to ignorance. Hell certainly isn't about retarding a criminal's ability to cause harm; death has already done that to the fullest extent possible. Even if it hadn't, why torture them? Why not merely detain or annihilate them?

Punishing disobedience is done to correct behavior. But the people in question are already dead, and the punishment is eternal. Forever[/i]. God isn't correcting any behavior this way.

Quote:
Do you disagree that people like "Stalin" should be served justice, and go to hell?

Burning forver is not 'justice', even if we despise the people being treated to such torments. What's done is done, and Stalin is no longer able to inflict atrocities upon the planet. Saying that he should burn forever is spiteful and born of nothing other than malice and a thrist for retribution, given that no amount of pain inflicted upon him can ever reverse the genocide he oversaw.

Quote:
No, I thank God for directing it away from my house.

Doublethink.

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Well fucking god damit, I am

Hey brother Beatz -

Well fucking god damit, I am jesus gnosis, still trying to communicate to you idol worshipers of satan god seraratism ... I LOVE YOU,     fucker .... track and read my posts friend and get pissed as jesus did .... Shout at the Devil, heal the enemy of separatism, We are ONE. Story atheist buddha jesus was right, we are god .... Saul Paul who wrote some cool things, was also wrong in his jesus summation.

  I recommend doing 40 days alone with our devil of wrong thinking, as story jesus did. I call it a long meditation in nature .... the desert or forest will work .... ALL IS ONE.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh my God, you can't even

Oh my God, you can't even understand something this simple?!?

Beatz wrote:
No, I accept the definition of those terms.

Then use them correctly.  

Beatz wrote:
If your origin is an atheist, and you are later manipulated to believe God exist, that does not change your origin.

The words "theist" and "atheist" don't have jack shit to do with your origins. If you believe in God, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter what you were born as. If you currently believe in God, then you're a theist. 

Beatz wrote:
 A human being who is manipulated to believe that he is a dog, doesn't make him a dog, he's still a human being, a delusional human, but still a human. If there is no God, theist are delusional atheist. 

 

 

What the fuck does atheist and theist have to do with humans and dogs? Believing in God makes you theist. The definition of a theist is that if you believe in God, you're a theist. Believing that you're a dog doesn't mean that you're a dog!

All you're really saying is that if there is no God, then you're wrong, except you want to stick on the word atheist because that makes it sound "uncomfortable" or something. 

Yeah, you'll be wrong, but it doesn't mean you're an atheist. You're still using the word incorrectly. 

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah butterbattle , Atheist

Yeah butterbattle , Atheist only means NO to the theist god, such as god of abe is rejected as a rational g-o-d definition, of reality.

  And hey Beatz ,  the best jesus minds of yesterdays would cuss, just as wise man, prophet buddha George Carlin and I do. So yeah in the spirit of my atheist jesus, who said I am god as you,  FUCK YOU, and your idiot god Mr. Abraham and Saul Paul. Xainity is devil shit of wrong thinking separatism ... FUCK that dogma god shit.

  Hey Beatz, my jesus bluntly said fuck your god, you blind hypocrite idol worshiper. "Get behind me satan, jesus shouted at peter, and so the same to you Beatz. You fucking don't get it, I am jesus the christ as you are the same  ...... Get satan out of your ear .... do your 40 days brother .... You are god. NO NO , not god of your devil separatism dogma stupid idol shit.


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Kevin,Kevin R Brown

Dear Kevin,

Kevin R Brown wrote:
The stated purpose is to keep unformable criminals unable to harm people. Personally, I don't feel that this is a good justification... but before we derail this into a penal code tangent, let's take a look at what I just wrote:

A place where criminals are kept away and from harming others is a stated observation given in the Scripture.  But of course, not the stated purpose you're looking for.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Beatz still hasn't stated the purpose of Hell. Likely, he never will (not here, anyway) - simply deflecting with matter-of-factly toned questions of his own or appealing to ignorance. Hell certainly isn't about retarding a criminal's ability to cause harm; death has already done that to the fullest extent possible. Even if it hadn't, why torture them? Why not merely detain or annihilate them?

How about you answer for me, because I don't know what answer you want.

And some Christians believe in annihilationism (unbelievers simply burned into non-existence).

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Burning forver is not 'justice', 

In your judgment.  But if God makes a promise then He must keep it.  If He says we will go to hell forever for one transgression against Him, then it's our responsibilty to obey the command.

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
 butterbattle wrote:  Oh

Dear butterbattle,

butterbattle wrote:

Oh my God, you can't even understand something this simple?!?

Beatz wrote:
No, I accept the definition of those terms.

Then use them correctly.  

Beatz wrote:
If your origin is an atheist, and you are later manipulated to believe God exist, that does not change your origin.

The words "theist" and "atheist" don't have jack shit to do with your origins. If you believe in God, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter what you were born as. If you currently believe in God, then you're a theist. 

Beatz wrote:
 A human being who is manipulated to believe that he is a dog, doesn't make him a dog, he's still a human being, a delusional human, but still a human. If there is no God, theist are delusional atheist. 

What the fuck does atheist and theist have to do with humans and dogs? Believing in God makes you theist. The definition of a theist is that if you believe in God, you're a theist. Believing that you're a dog doesn't mean that you're a dog!

All you're really saying is that if there is no God, then you're wrong, except you want to stick on the word atheist because that makes it sound "uncomfortable" or something. 

Yeah, you'll be wrong, but it doesn't mean you're an atheist. You're still using the word incorrectly. 
  All too easy.

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I don't

MattShizzle wrote:
I don't consider giving the individual pleasure to be a valid reason to keep something legal if it causes harm to others;

My smoking causes you no harm, and it relieves stress. You have no right to stop me.
Quote:
- by that logic we should allow rape - yes it harms the victims, but it gives the rapist pleasure.

As per above, this is invalid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It DOES harm me if I'm in

It DOES harm me if I'm in the same place as you. I'm fine with smoking in one's own home, assuming there are no children, but not in public.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:It DOES

MattShizzle wrote:

It DOES harm me if I'm in the same place as you. I'm fine with smoking in one's own home, assuming there are no children, but not in public.


Then ban cars.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
?

Vastet wrote:
Then ban cars.

Um, that's not a valid analogy.

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Smokers need to knock off

Smokers need to knock off the red herrings - driving is vital to keep our society in a recongnizable form. Smoking isn't.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Smokers

MattShizzle wrote:

Smokers need to knock off the red herrings - driving is vital to keep our society in a recongnizable form. Smoking isn't.

butterbattle wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Then ban cars.

Um, that's not a valid analogy.

 

Ridiculous. Driving isn't necessary for anyone, and is far more polluting than smoking. If you make me quit smoking, you quit driving first. Ever here of public transit?

 

As for my smoking hurting you, you're full of shit. My constant smoking in a small area with you locked inside over a ten year period would hurt you. My having a smoke beside you on the street doesn't hurt you at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Public transit isn't

Public transit isn't available where I live. It is very harmful smoking nearby- especially to someone with respiratory problems. I'm not saying you can't smoke - just not in public. You're not allowed to have sex in public but that doesn't mean you have to stay abstinent. Have consideration for someone besides yourself for fucks sake.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I know you were writing to

I know you were writing to Bob, but I can't let manufactured statistics go. Call it a character flaw.

Beatz wrote:
The atheist is the anomaly.  %99, of the people I come across, I don't have to ask if they believe in God, I just ask them what church they attend.  Of course in America, this is a give me, but around the world, the atheist is still the anomaly.  Yes, there might be some places with a heavy population of atheist, but still not a significant number.

The people you "come across" are obviously not from Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Vietnam, Japan, The Czech Republic, Finland or France, where the population is 50% or above agnostic and atheist. "Anomaly" refers to something that isn't common.

[edit: forgot to include link to statistics I DIDN'T make up]

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Beatz wrote:
Seeing as though mostly everyone already believes in a higher power

... in your imagination ...

Beatz wrote:
 the next question is what's His authority.

Well, it's in your imagination, so I'd guess ... His Authority is Almighty and Shiny for Eternity ... in your imagination.

Beatz wrote:
So the reason I give the Bible special weight is because I think it's God's authority.  The major three world religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), all have the same beginning, it's part 2 that the disagreement comes into play.

The fact that His Authority is Kind Of Confused doesn't bother you?

Beatz wrote:
The reason I believe it, is because the Bible says it.

So that whole bit about when a woman is in a field and she gets raped ... if she doesn't scream, it's her fault, right? I think that's Leviticus, you know, the chapter with all the insane babbling in it. God wrote that. That's God's Insane Babbling. I've met Three Year Olds who would make better Legislators.

Beatz wrote:
After your studies, you have came to the conclusion that those are facts.

Uh, yeah. Bob's what's know as a "scientist". That's a person who seeks to clarify things so that we can have MORE facts. It's tough work, especially when so many people earnestly compare its value to memorizing passages from a stone-age book of the dead.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


A Devout Christian
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Anyway,

Hambydammit wrote:
Anyway, here's the problem.  According to Christians, humans have a soul, which is a spiritual entity that transcends the human body.  While we have a brain that controls our body, the "essence" of our being is totally removed from our body.  The body is just a vessel for us to inhabit during our tenure on planet earth.

I was thinking about this concept, and a rather obvious question struck me.  If, as they say, the soul is separate from the body, and our "true self" resides not in our mind, but in our soul, then what's happening when we drink or take drugs?  The scientists say that alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect.  In other words, it interacts with our brains, creating a change in the way the brain works.  This change manifests in social confidence, reduced motor functions, feelings of euphoria, and reduction in reaction time, among others.  But... if changing the brain changes our personality.... then... um... what part of the personality is in the soul?  Other drugs produce more marked effects.  In fact, there are some drugs that can change a person's perceptions and thought processes so radically that they are often described as being "different people" when they're under the influence of the drugs.

But... if chemicals change our perceptions, our personality, our cognitive ability, and our emotions, and they do it by altering our brain, what's left over to be unalterable in our souls?

So, which is it?  Do changes in the brain change our minds, or do changes in the brain change our souls?  If they change our souls, then... um... doesn't that mean that our souls are physical?  If they're physical, what are they?  If they're not physical, then... um... how did something physical interact with them?

I don't believe that during the life of a human the mind is separate from the body. Not all Christians believe this - only literalists. I believe that during life, the mind exists in a physical state (the brain) and so is subject to the natural laws of the universe - including chemical alterations to the state of the analog incarnation of the mind.

 

Hambydammit wrote:
While I'm on the subject, if drugs are bad, mmmkay, then why?  A lot of Christians get their panties in a twist about marijuana.  Why?  If it doesn't change your immortal soul, then what's the harm in taking a drug that reduces anxiety and helps you relax?  For that matter, what's so wrong with cocaine?  I mean.. yeah, it can kill you if you take too much, but what's so bad about feeling jittery and talkative for six hours?  If your immortal soul is still going to heaven, what's the justification for getting so upset about changing the body, which is just a temporary vessel anyway?

I remember that when I was a Christian, I had some reason for thinking that drugs were an abomination to God, but I can't for my life remember what it was.

 

Drugs are bad - they can cause serious health problems, but as long as healthcare in this country is private recreational drug use should be legal. If universal healthcare were to be implemented though, I wouldn't want it to be legal for people to use drugs for non medicinal purposes since we'd beleft  paying for the medical bills of people who only got sick through use of unnecessary drugs.


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear HisWillness,HisWillness

Dear HisWillness,

HisWillness wrote:
The people you "come across" are obviously not from Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Vietnam, Japan, The Czech Republic, Finland or France, where the population is 50% or above agnostic and atheist. "Anomaly" refers to something that isn't common.

I've met individuals from those areas.  I live in Los Angeles, and people from all across the globe travel here to snap photos of the ground.  

Adherents.com wrote:
These figures do not necessarily represent the number of people who identify themselves as "atheists." For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists.

Although this has nothing to do with the reasoning behind my statement, it is an interesting observation.  I meet people who say they don't believe in God, but upon further probation they mean to say they don't believe in any of the deities portrayed in the Scriptures or any other written documents, but they believe God exist.  Wouldn't that technically make you theist?  An agnostic is a skeptic, correct?

Were these detailed surveys?  How do they know that when asked, "Do you believe in God," the subject did not automatically assume the deities of the manifold manuscripts, and say, "no"?

Besides, I do not have any quarrel with the statistics you listed.  I clearly stated that there might be places with heavy populations of atheist.  I still hold that collectively, the number is insignificant. 

Let's say there are seven hundred million atheist on earth.  That might not be %10.  And seeing as though %30 in Estonia simply said, "I don't believe in God," based on the above mentioned encounters, that does not garuantee that they are atheist. So then, that number could be dwindled down to four or five hundred million, out of 6.7 billion makes an anomaly.

Beatz wrote:
Seeing as though mostly everyone already believes in a higher power.

HisWillness wrote:
... in your imagination ...

I'm imagining that almost %90 of the world's population believes in a higher power?

HisWillness wrote:
The fact that His Authority is Kind Of Confused doesn't bother you?

No.

HisWillness wrote:
So that whole bit about when a woman is in a field and she gets raped ... if she doesn't scream, it's her fault, right? I think that's Leviticus, you know, the chapter with all the insane babbling in it.

I didn't see that in Leviticus.. Actually I didn't see that anywhere.. But you said "think," in reference to the book you tried to remember off-hand, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Besides, you could careless about Christianity, and it's not your job to memorize Scripture. 

You may be referring to Deuteronomy 22:23,24, which doesn't say anything you said, but to the contrary, contradicts your whole indictment.  Let's quote it correctly:

"23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you." - Emphasis added

Clearly the most notable implication is a well populated area (city).  Notice also that the man "finds" the woman, meaning, "meets."  The implication is that they meet each other, and mutally consent to have sex with eath other.  The woman is betrothed which was basically equivalent to being married in the Hebrew culture.  They are found out, obviously because someone in the well-populated city witnessed the event take place. 

The woman is stoned because it is implied that her alibi, or attempted story for acquittal, is a lie.  If she was in the city, and the man attempted such a violent crime, she would've screamed in front of everyone, and someone would've heard her, and saved her.  Then the man is stoned as well, for sleeping with a married woman.  Both parties because of the implied mutual consent, with the knowledge of the upcoming event (wedding).  The assumption, is that the woman willingly slept with the man, since no one heard her screaming in the highly populated city.  Note the difference in vs.25-27:

"25 But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the counrtyside/field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside/field, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her." - Emphasis added

A notable implication here is the setting.  Rather than a city, it is a countryside/field, implying a non-populated area.  Notice the different language; instead of meeting the woman and sleeping with her, the man meets her and "forces" her to have sex.  Then it is inferred that the woman survives and reports the crime.  Granted, in that kind of situation, the woman could lie if she consented and felt guilty afterwards and decided to claim rape to avoid punishment for not being a virgin on her wedding day, but that's not the point of the passage. 

Intstead of despising the Scripture because of the missing details, why don't we look at the overall implication; namely that adultery and rape are evil acts committed by humans, and deserving of execution.  The sentences in these laws are maximums.  The Hebrews could've chose to have mercy, depending on the circumstances, and sentenced the criminals to a lighter punishment.  When Jesus incarnates, He gives us a further glimpse into the wickedness of man; He shows that they always want the maximum sentence for criminals, when they themselves are just as guilty.

And contrary to your accusation, "if she doesn't scream, it's her fault, right"? Wrong.  The Bible not even remotely described such a situation, and rather, if she screamed in the countryside, but no one was there to save her, it was not her fault.

HisWillness wrote:
God wrote that.

You could say that, but moreso God inspires, and man writes.. Almost the same.

HisWillness wrote:
That's God's Insane Babbling. 

...In your imagination...

HisWillness wrote:
I've met Three Year Olds who would make better Legislators.

I've met three year olds who've attested to Scripture more accurately.

And there isn't anything wrong with God's law, it's perfect.

HisWillness wrote:
Uh, yeah. Bob's what's know as a "scientist". That's a person who seeks to clarify things so that we can have MORE facts.

Often times I find myself in those shoes.

HisWillness wrote:
It's tough work, especially when so many people earnestly compare its value to memorizing passages from a stone-age book of the dead.

Same here, especially when people hate "fictional fairy-tales," as if they were real.

And excuse me, if you don't mind, we prefer you refer to the Scripture as the living word. (cf. Mark 12:27)

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Beatz, where in that

Ok, Beatz, where in that pile of ancient dog turd you would prefer to refer to as "the living word" does it condemn rape as a sin in itself? How about torture?

In the OT. he actually seems to encourage visting rape and torture on whole populations if they happen to be getting in the way of his 'chosen people', so I guess it would be a little inconsistent perhaps. Not that that't seems to bother him, or at least the writers recording their fantasies in those pages. Actually it seems all that stuff, including 'thou shalt not kill' etc only applies to people in his own in-group, it's open slather on anyone outside the Yahweh Club.

What a nasty petty hypocritical little tyrant you worship....

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


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Bob,BobSpence1 wrote:

Dear Bob,

BobSpence1 wrote:
Ok, Beatz, where in that pile of ancient dog turd you would prefer to refer to as "the living word" does it condemn rape as a sin in itself? How about torture?

There's no need for name calling.  I could say the same about your holey science.  But degradation is not my forte.  I'd rather try to obtain a better understanding, and learn where you're coming from.  Instead of just blasting you for no reason, I ask questions.. And I'm shot down for those questions as well.

You're right, the Scripture does not explicitly state "thou shall not rape," it is only implied in passages such as the above mentioned (Deuteronomy 22:25), that it is a sin deserving of death.  But atleast there is implication.

BobSpence1 wrote:
How about torture?

The Bible is always under the assumption that man is supposed to be in hell being tormented, so that anything that happens to us here on earth is well deserved.

BobSpence1 wrote:
In the OT. he actually seems to encourage visting rape and torture on whole populations if they happen to be getting in the way of his 'chosen people', so I guess it would be a little inconsistent perhaps.

God seems to encourage rape in the Old Testament?  I'd need specific references for such allegations. 

Again, it is assumed that all the nations, including the Hebrews, should be in hell.  God is free to have mercy on whomever He will have mercy.  He chose the Hebrews.  The Hebrews were ordered to annihilate sinning populations, who deserved death, not innocent people who never did anything wrong.  The Bible assumes that there is not one innocent person.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Not that that seems to bother him, or at least the writers recording their fantasies in those pages.

So none of those wars ever happened?  Why would rape and torture even matter if none of these things ever happened anyway?  And God hears the cries of the oppressed and afflicted.  Those people weren't begging God for mercy, they were despising God just like we all do.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Actually it seems all that stuff, including 'thou shalt not kill' etc only applies to people in his own in-group, it's open slather on anyone outside the Yahweh Club.

It applies to everyone.  Those other nations killed each other, just as the Hebrews killed each other.  They all sinned. 

God did leave the other nations to themselves during those times.  But now since Jesus died and resurrected, that wall of seperation is broken, and Jews and Gentiles alike can be granted mercy. 

Also, in the Old Testament, if a Gentile wanted to be saved, he could enter into the nation of Israel, and practice Judaism.  God saved some Gentiles in the Old Testament too.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What a nasty petty hypocritical little tyrant you worship....

Well how much of that means anything, seeing as though He doesn't exist to you?

 

 

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The bible, ok a compromise -

The bible, ok a compromise - I'll refer to it as the Dead Word of a bunch of long-dead writers who knew so much less about the universe and human nature than experienced educated people do today, that it is a sick joke that anyone would even try take it seriously apart from its archeological value, as one recounting something about the life and times of a small part of the world a few thousand years ago, unfortunately written under the obscuring pre-conceptions of their particular primitive belief systems.

Once you take seriously the idea of a super powerful all-knowing God thingy, you have rendered potentailly useless any lnowledge about it, because it call all be overturned tomorrow at the whim of a being who certainly is supposed to have the power to do so, and whose ultimate motivations would be forever beyound our grasp.

At least the naturalistic world-view is more consistent with a world governed, at its base, by unconscious natural processes and 'laws' (just regularities of behaviour, not to be confused with the more arbitrary proscriptions handed down from an authority figure of some kind). This assumption (note, no 'faith' required) seems to be working well so far as the progress of science and associated technology vastly beyond anything those scribes who wrote in the Dead Word Book could have imagined.

You should be ashamed for trying to make that childish point about the writings containg references to a number of actual places and events, as though the fact that many current and older super-hero stories are set in real cities means they are not fantasies. Batman is real...

Just one of the sillier attempts to try and wiggle around the intrinsic evil and absurdity of so much of the content of the book.

And of course i was insulting and ridiculing the idea of God, as portrayed in those writings. You make another lame attempt to try and paint the atheist viewpoint as contradictory - we don't 'hate' or ridicule a being we secretly believe exists, or direct hate at a non-existent entity, just at the absurdity and silliness of believing in and worshipping such an (mis-)conception.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:Let's say there

Beatz wrote:
Let's say there are seven hundred million atheist on earth.  That might not be %10.  And seeing as though %30 in Estonia simply said, "I don't believe in God," based on the above mentioned encounters, that does not garuantee that they are atheist. So then, that number could be dwindled down to four or five hundred million, out of 6.7 billion makes an anomaly.

Okay, sure, surveys aren't reliable. That's a fair statement. You may find, however, that among even the people who go to church, there are those who are "believing" because it's socially expedient. Hey, if you can fudge the figures, so can I, I guess.

Beatz wrote:
Seeing as though mostly everyone already believes in a higher power. 

HisWillness wrote:
... in your imagination ...

I'm imagining that almost %90 of the world's population believes in a higher power?

Well yeah. You can't read people's minds. To what degree they believe is difficult to determine. They could believe in life after death but no all-powerful being. At that point it's all speculation. But I have no problem agreeing with you that 90% of the population has been conditioned to believe in a god of some sort. I think that's a fair statement. Before the one god idea took over, there were multiple gods, and you shopped around for favours. Now people just stick to the one that everyone around them is praying to, for the most part.

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
The fact that His Authority is Kind Of Confused doesn't bother you?

No.

I have to ask why. You've equated God's Authority with The Bible, and The Bible is admittedly unclear on a variety of topics, so ... God's Authority seems a bit bumbling.

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
So that whole bit about when a woman is in a field and she gets raped ... if she doesn't scream, it's her fault, right? I think that's Leviticus, you know, the chapter with all the insane babbling in it.

I didn't see that in Leviticus.. Actually I didn't see that anywhere.. But you said "think," in reference to the book you tried to remember off-hand, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Besides, you could careless about Christianity, and it's not your job to memorize Scripture.

True enough.

Beatz wrote:
You may be referring to Deuteronomy 22:23,24

That's right, I forgot that there are a few chapters of legal insanity in the bible, not just the one.

Beatz wrote:
 ... which doesn't say anything you said, but to the contrary, contradicts your whole indictment.

Well ...

Beatz wrote:
Let's quote it correctly:

Yes, let's.

Beatz wrote:
"23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you." - Emphasis added

So let me get this straight: If a woman is in the city and has consensual sex with someone, they both should be stoned to death. K. Seems a bit harsh, but you're entitled to your view of the abdication of all women's rights.

Beatz wrote:
The woman is stoned because it is implied that her alibi, or attempted story for acquittal, is a lie.  If she was in the city, and the man attempted such a violent crime, she would've screamed in front of everyone, and someone would've heard her, and saved her.

Uh-huh. Worked with a lot of traumatized women, have you? Seen the gritty underbelly of the world, where women always scream when in danger, and someone is always there to save them? C'mon. How old are you?

Beatz wrote:
Then the man is stoned as well, for sleeping with a married woman.

It seems like the punishment fits the crime to you. Are you joking? In the historical context, women were property. If you sullied someone's property (this poor girl), and she didn't struggle enough, then you both get rocks thrown at you until the blunt force trauma kills you both. That could take several bloody tearful minutes. Minutes of stones beating your body into a pulp. Maybe the girl was in love, and didn't want to marry that guy. Guess what? Too bad. God says we have to beat the shit out of you, little girl. With rocks.

Beatz wrote:
Intstead of despising the Scripture because of the missing details, why don't we look at the overall implication; namely that adultery and rape are evil acts committed by humans, and deserving of execution.

K, that's a much better reason to discard the scripture, yeah. I don't despise it, I just think it makes for crappy law. Of course I know there are cut-and-dried rape cases. I know. But those may not be the majority of cases. Life is complicated, and because it is, it requires a system that is not black and white to deal with it adequately. Do you really need the bible to tell you that rape is nasty? No. Do you really need the bible to tell you that adultery will cause emotional turmoil? No. But stone them to death? For adultery? That option's even on the table?

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
God wrote that.

You could say that, but moreso God inspires, and man writes.. Almost the same.

Wait, then which writing is divine? When I write, am I inspired by God, or is that exempt? 

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
That's God's Insane Babbling.

...In your imagination...

I'm not the one recommending a maximum penalty of "stone the bitch".

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
I've met Three Year Olds who would make better Legislators.

I've met three year olds who've attested to Scripture more accurately.

That's chilling. Do they quote the parts about stoning people to death?

Beatz wrote:
And there isn't anything wrong with God's law, it's perfect.

It's perfectly awful. Leviticus 21:9 is a good example. If a priest's daughter becomes a prostitute, she should be burned in a fire. Uh-huh. Yeah, that's perfectly level-headed. Nice job.

Beatz wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
It's tough work, especially when so many people earnestly compare its value to memorizing passages from a stone-age book of the dead.

Same here, especially when people hate "fictional fairy-tales," as if they were real.

Not sure what you're talking about. What I "hate" (though "fear" is actually a more accurate word) is the use of the Bible as a moral compass, when it suggests such ridiculous punishments for such naïve social situations. Stories like Noah's flood, the curing of the sick, etc, already existed centuries before the Hebrews. The Bible is a compilation, and to elevate it beyond that limits the capacity of humanity to find more appropriate situations to a changing social environment.

Beatz wrote:
And excuse me, if you don't mind, we prefer you refer to the Scripture as the living word. (cf. Mark 12:27)

I hope you'll excuse my confusion. If it's a living word, it's certainly obsessed with death and dismemberment. Oh, and slavery. Forgot slavery.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:The Bible is

Beatz wrote:

The Bible is always under the assumption that man is supposed to be in hell being tormented, so that anything that happens to us here on earth is well deserved.

...

Again, it is assumed that all the nations, including the Hebrews, should be in hell.  God is free to have mercy on whomever He will have mercy.  He chose the Hebrews.  The Hebrews were ordered to annihilate sinning populations, who deserved death, not innocent people who never did anything wrong.  The Bible assumes that there is not one innocent person.

...

It applies to everyone.  Those other nations killed each other, just as the Hebrews killed each other.  They all sinned. 

God did leave the other nations to themselves during those times.  But now since Jesus died and resurrected, that wall of seperation is broken, and Jews and Gentiles alike can be granted mercy. 

Okay, so when we're discussing the Living Word, which one is it? Is it the first half, where everyone should pretty much kill each other because, well, we're all terrible so the slaughter really doesn't matter, or are we now in a kind of situation where the Old Testament is a moot point, and replaced by forgiveness?

Honestly, it doesn't need to be this confusing. In the first part, we all deserve to be in hell, and there is no being "innocent"? Now, there's what? Mercy from what? The hell we no longer need to go to? Did God inspire the Bible specifically to mess with our heads?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The whole idea of anyone

The whole idea of anyone deserving to be tortured forever is fucking insane - let alone everyone. I have to agree with Richard Dawkins - the God of the Buybull is the most vile character in all fiction.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
A Devout Christian wrote:I

A Devout Christian wrote:
I don't believe that during the life of a human the mind is separate from the body. Not all Christians believe this - only literalists. I believe that during life, the mind exists in a physical state (the brain) and so is subject to the natural laws of the universe - including chemical alterations to the state of the analog incarnation of the mind.

Thanks for answering the original question for me, ADC!  I was beginning to think this thread was hopelessly lost.

I'm not going to try to answer this here because the problems with the concept of the soul have been done to death in other threads.  If you're interested in joining that debate, we can certainly start a new thread to talk about it, but for right now, I'll just thank you for offering one Christian answer to my question.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Sheezz you religious ones,

Sheezz you religious ones, how best would we learn about existence, the awe, GaweD ... by science interpretation, or fantasy interpretation?

  Religion based on a bible god is blasphemy. Separatism idol worship is saddening and embarrassing.  Yeah, and the gnostic jesus wept.

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


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Dear Bob,BobSpence1

Dear Bob,

BobSpence1 wrote:
 The bible, ok a compromise - I'll refer to it as the Dead Word of a bunch of long-dead writers who knew so much less about the universe and human nature than experienced educated people do today,

We might as well say the same for everyone up to Copernicus.  But let me guess, you revere men like Aristotle?  

Given the technologoy of our day, and all the people who paved the way for your scientific studies, of course you would know more about the universe and human nature.  But I'd say those dead Bible writers have one up on you, atleast they claim to know the origin of human nature, and the universe.

BobSpence1 wrote:
...that it is a sick joke that anyone would even try take it seriously apart from its archeological value, as one recounting something about the life and times of a small part of the world a few thousand years ago, unfortunately written under the obscuring pre-conceptions of their particular primitive belief systems.

Again, are you saying all the events in the Bible never transpired?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Once you take seriously the idea of a super powerful all-knowing God thingy, you have rendered potentailly useless any lnowledge about it, because it call all be overturned tomorrow at the whim of a being who certainly is supposed to have the power to do so, and whose ultimate motivations would be forever beyound our grasp.

All I can do is put my trust in Him, and what His word says.  He says He doesn't change, and His promises never fail, so I believe it.  But it is true, humans would not be able to do anything to God if He exist, is as complicated as we are able to perceive, and overturns on the things He says. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
This assumption (note, no 'faith' required) seems to be working well so far as the progress of science and associated technology vastly beyond anything those scribes who wrote in the Dead Word Book could have imagined.

No faith required?  It takes a bundle of faith to believe everything proceeds from, "unconscious natural processes and 'laws'."  

BobSpence1 wrote:
You should be ashamed for trying to make that childish point about the writings containg references to a number of actual places and events, as though the fact that many current and older super-hero stories are set in real cities means they are not fantasies. Batman is real...

So the whole history of the Nation of Israel never happened?  The land of Israel, and the Jews were recently discovered..

BobSpence1 wrote:
Just one of the sillier attempts to try and wiggle around the intrinsic evil and absurdity of so much of the content of the book.

I haven't tried to wiggle around anything.  I've been up-front about any content that has been presented.    

BobSpence1 wrote:
And of course i was insulting and ridiculing the idea of God, as portrayed in those writings. You make another lame attempt to try and paint the atheist viewpoint as contradictory - we don't 'hate' or ridicule a being we secretly believe exists, or direct hate at a non-existent entity, just at the absurdity and silliness of believing in and worshipping such an (mis-)conception.

You're entitled to insult and ridicule ideas, that's your right.  But again, if it all never happened, and it's just a fairy tail, who cares?  Do you put the same energy towards insulting and ridiculing the ideas of children who believe in Santa Clause?  Let's be fair Bob, you mention "oxymorons" in your signature.

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote: Do you put the

Beatz wrote:

 Do you put the same energy towards insulting and ridiculing the ideas of children who believe in Santa Clause? 

 

I definitely would if most adults believed in Santa, discriminated against people who didn't and tried to use Santa belief to influence the laws that affect everyone, and to teach as Science the ability of 8 reindeer to carry thousands of tons of presents to every child's house on Earth within 24 hours.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team