You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING.  IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED.  HAVE AT IT...

 

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?  The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here?  You have no answer for that.  Christianity does.  I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.  Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.  I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him. 

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others. 

I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason.  You know He exists.  You just don't like it.  Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods".  But you don't.  It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.     


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Yes, you

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Yes, you did. Remember?

Uh, no.

Quote:
The above has the implication that the only people capable of doing something for the 'revolution' (I wouldn't call it that, personally; I imagine Hitchens, at least, would disagree with me) are those whom have post-secondary degrees and/or are established authors.

First, you said that I was saying this:

"You're effectively arguing that the only people who should be permitted to speak-up on an issue are those with academic credentials and/or notoritety as a published author."

Now, you said that I was implying this:

"the only people capable of doing something for the 'revolution' are those whom have post-secondary degrees and/or are established authors."

Make up your mind.  Was I saying that the only people who should be allowed to speak up on an issue are those with academic credentials, or was I saying that the only people who could do something about an issue are those with academic credentials?  Those are two different claims.

But yes, I believe that someone who has academic credentials and a real job in the field of academia can make a difference with more efficacy than a bum.  So if Brian wants to pass himself off as a martyr for atheism, it just will not work.

Quote:
Well, Dawkins himself did take the Blasphemy challenge (as did Hitchens; I'm not sure about Harris), and so by implication supported the campaign.

Daniel Dennett took it to, remember?  In other words, you guys ambushed them at some atheism conference, asked them if they denied the existence of God, and they said "yes".  Watching the Youtube clips, I got more of a "I'll just tell these guys what they want to hear so they will leave me alone" type of vibe.

Quote:
Atheism is the default (neutral) stance, so I don't see what you're driving at when you mention 'the children' as though Brian has insideously manipulated young minds. Acknowledging a lack of evidence for a deity is not a terrible thing at all to get children to do (certainly not when compared to convincing them to take things on 'faith'... but I'm dubious that you're a theist at any rate, given your rhetoric thus far).

The Blasphemy Challenge has nothing to do with denying the existence of evidence.  As far as I know, there is not a single video out there in which people say, "I deny the existence of evidence for the Holy Spirit".  The video asks them to deny the existence of God.

The point is, religion is a big deal to some people.  And a lot of people do take blasphemy seriously.  You may not like it, but the fact remains that it is not your place to raise someone else's child.  Don't pretend that posting an ad for Blasphemy Challenge at some children's website isn't a seedy thing to be doing because it is.  If someone is going to make a decision for a child (and the fact is, children really do not know what they want), it ought to be the parents.  And then when the children become adults, they can learn for themselves and then decide if they want to continue believing.  But you have absolutely no right to be messing with someone else's child.  If you want to teach your garbage to your own child, then fine.  It's not your place to pull my child aside and tell him to deny the existence of God anymore than it is my place to then pull your child aside and start teaching him religion. 

 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Oh,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Oh, really? Why does that big red button have the word 'donate' written on it, then?

Hm. Looks like they take donations to fight against theism afterall.

 

*Sigh*

Do you recall where the biggest weakness of the atheism movement is that atheists tend not to cooperate with each other on the same level as orthodox theists?

People like yourself are the cause of such flimsiness (of course, I imagine you're well aware. Anarchists love introducing such faults to a given structure).

Read closely what I wrote. 

I said that Dawkins is not relying on donations.
In other words, Dawkins is not depending on donations for his daily living.  He has other income streams, which, unlike Mr. Sapient's, are not imaginary.

Dawkins actually is an intelligent guy.  Brian Sapient is not, which is why you won't see him debating anyone in public other than Ray Comfort or Firefly. 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Oh - and

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Oh - and Dawkins certainly did support the recent campaign to put 'There probably is no God' ads on 800 buses in the UK, where they will obviously be visible to children (some people might also argue that the young woman he's supporting who started the campaign is also a 'child').

And any child who walks into a bookstore with his parents might see his book. 

Your point?  How does this compare to actually advertising on children's websites and getting children to upload a video of themselves doing something that a religious parent would take really seriously? 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:No thanks on

JillSwift wrote:

No thanks on the debate, your claim above that you proved anything about the existence of evidence for a god or gods shows that you'd just run about in circles and alter definitions to suit yourself. I really don't see the point.

Okay, here's how it went down between me and Jilly-Bean:

I made a post in response to someone asking about where God is and what God was doing before he created the universe.  In the post, I was pointing out that in theory, God is neither spatial nor temporal and therefore, those are not questions that you can ask in any meaningful way about God.  Nowhere in the post did I actually posit the there is God, but I was merely explaining God in theory.  The point of the post was to make it clear that in order to deny or accept God, you must have a real conceptual understanding.  To prove that God must be understood as neither spatial nor temporal, I cited some bible verses, showing that this understanding of God is nothing new and is actually a basic tenet of all monotheism.

Jill responded and said "No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of 'nonexistent'." 

In response, I cited the dictionary to show that there is no definition of "existent" or "nonexistent" that would cite mass, energy, or temporality as a necessary component of the definition, thereby making the claim that existence includes mass/energy/temporality an empirical claim at best.

Then Jill responded by saying, "Ooh, go run behind a dictionary?"  So on the one hand, she accuses me of giving self-serving definitions to certain words and on the other hand, if I cite another source, she will say that I'm "running behind it".  So I guess the only person who should be allowed to define words is Jill?

So then Jilly changes the subject.  She says, "If god has no mass, energy, or temporality... how can you know it exists? I mean in any quantifiable way."  What, weren't we talking about the definition of nonexistent?  Now we are talking about ways that we can know that there are things with no mass/energy/temporality?  It was kind of bizarre because these discussions are going on all the time.  Theists are always coming on these message boards and giving proofs for God, a being which they would agree is neither in space nor time.  I ask why she wants to have the same discussion that's being had on practically every other thread.

Jill responds by giving me some convoluted argument with a premise stating, "There is no evidence for God."  I responded by asking, "How do you know that?"  She responds by saying, "I've sought it, and found none. No evidence has been presented otherwise."

So because you have not found evidence, you know for a fact that none exists?  Can I conclude that tachyons do not exist simply on the grounds that I never found any?  Or better yet, if I have never seen an actual turtle or found one, could I just conclude that turtles does not exist?  It was clearly a non-sequitur. 

So exactly where did I run in circles or alter definitions?

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:So

The God of Rock wrote:
So because you have not found evidence, you know for a fact that none exists?  Can I conclude that tachyons do not exist simply on the grounds that I never found any?  Or better yet, if I have never seen an actual turtle or found one, could I just conclude that turtles does not exist?  It was clearly a non-sequitur.
This answers this:


Quote:
So exactly where did I run in circles or alter definitions?

I know you don't see it, GoR. That's because you run about the point.

To lay it out for you, I never said I know there is no evidence, but have come to the conclusion that there is no point to believing in "god" because despite every opportunity (including a search for it myself) no evidence is forthcoming. Which is quite a distance away from your carefully redefined version of my argument. To repeat and simplify for the less intelligent: I have not concluded that there is no god, just that there isn't any evidence to come to the conclusion that there is one. It's a subtle but important difference. I won't blame you if you have to have someone explain it to you a few times.

Good luck with that.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JstNEarthling
JstNEarthling's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-12-11
User is offlineOffline
existence of deities is illogical

 The universe is eternal, it allways was and allways will be. It is cyclic in behavior and therefore will go on and on in and out like the breath of life. As a matter of fact "life" itself is an enrgy that when in the right circumstance can manipulate matter and structure to "design" examples of itself in it's determination to not just survive but to thrive and with this desire comes self awareness  and with self awareness comes intelligence and so with life's need to thrive and through this need will "design" examples to make that possible. There then is your "intelligent design", very simple.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums,

Welcome to the forums, JstNEarthling. Smiling


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Make up your mind. 

Quote:
Make up your mind.  Was I saying that the only people who should be allowed to speak up on an issue are those with academic credentials, or was I saying that the only people who could do something about an issue are those with academic credentials?  Those are two different claims.

My opinion is that you were claiming the former. Of course, the only person who knows exactly what you meant is yourself, so feel free to clarify.
 

Quote:
But yes, I believe that someone who has academic credentials and a real job in the field of academia can make a difference with more efficacy than a bum.  So if Brian wants to pass himself off as a martyr for atheism, it just will not work.

In that case, you must reject the research done by Albert Einstein - a 'bum' patent clerk who had no formal post-secondary education when he first elucidated his idea on General Relativity.

Quote:
Daniel Dennett took it to, remember?  In other words, you guys ambushed them at some atheism conference, asked them if they denied the existence of God, and they said "yes".  Watching the Youtube clips, I got more of a "I'll just tell these guys what they want to hear so they will leave me alone" type of vibe.

I was not there personally, but that is not really characteristic of outspoken individuals like Hitchens or Dawkins, who are fairly likely to tell you to cram it up your ass if you they don't like your message. Can you at all substantiate this claim? Or is it just a 'feeling' you get?

Sticking out tongue

Quote:
The Blasphemy Challenge has nothing to do with denying the existence of evidence.  As far as I know, there is not a single video out there in which people say, "I deny the existence of evidence for the Holy Spirit".  The video asks them to deny the existence of God.

Hm. What does Chandler say, again? This doesn't really jive with what you claimed, does it?

Quote:
The point is, religion is a big deal to some people.

And ergo should be off-limits to ridicule or discussion? You know very well that this is not the stance of any of the authors you mentioned.

Quote:
And a lot of people do take blasphemy seriously.

And they should not, if we're to grow out of old superstitions. Why should people tremble in terror over something which we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of?

Moreover, some people take seriously the notion that women are not owed equal treatment. Should we respect that? Some people think that certain ethnicities are inferior. Should we respect that? Some people believe that people should be stoned to death for picking-up firewood on the Sabbath. Should we respect that?

Quote:
You may not like it, but the fact remains that it is not your place to raise someone else's child.

This is like saying that it is not 'my place' to inform child services upon seeing children being abused by their parents. Some people are shitty parents, and frankly, yes - it is my place to resist against suffering in the world so that, among other things, children don't mature into entities of bitterness and destruction.

Quote:
Don't pretend that posting an ad for Blasphemy Challenge at some children's website isn't a seedy thing to be doing because it is.

It's not a move for the squeamish and half-hearted, certainly. How you can characterize informing children that the deity that their parents espouse to exist is fictional as 'seedy' is beyond me, given the near certainty of the claim's veracity.

Quote:
If someone is going to make a decision for a child (and the fact is, children really do not know what they want), it ought to be the parents.

'Ought' to be the parents? Why? This phrase contains a hidden premise; an 'ought' or a 'should' always needs to be followed with it's justification, or it's empty assertion.

Quote:
And then when the children become adults, they can learn for themselves and then decide if they want to continue believing.

Except that this often proves not to be the case. Children who've become indoctrinated by their parents typically carry their religion with them into adulthood (See: Imprinting).

Quote:
But you have absolutely no right to be messing with someone else's child.  If you want to teach your garbage to your own child, then fine.

Do you see what you're doing? You're building a case based on emotional pleading. The above sentence is no different than stating, 'You have absolutely no right to be promoting your 'garbage',' except that you've added 'children' for emotional impact.

I have every right to halt the propagation of harmful superstition, yes, even when your child is involved. You'll also perhaps note that your argument from the special objectivity of parenthood fails at a fundamental level; parents are influenced by exterior forces, and thereby indirectly transfer those influences to their child (not to mention that in any circumstance beyond the parent locking their child in the house, the child will be under exterior influences - being 'messed with' - regardless).

Quote:
It's not your place to pull my child aside and tell him to deny the existence of God anymore than it is my place to then pull your child aside and start teaching him religion.

Except that you're implying that teaching a child beneficial things like critical thinking are the same as teaching them harmful things like superstitious dogma.

 

 

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

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jill responds by

Quote:
Jill responds by giving me some convoluted argument with a premise stating, "There is no evidence for God."  I responded by asking, "How do you know that?"  She responds by saying, "I've sought it, and found none. No evidence has been presented otherwise."

So because you have not found evidence, you know for a fact that none exists?  Can I conclude that tachyons do not exist simply on the grounds that I never found any?  Or better yet, if I have never seen an actual turtle or found one, could I just conclude that turtles does not exist?  It was clearly a non-sequitur.

There is no evidence for God. How do we know? Because it's never been presented. Evidence has to be presented before it's called 'evidence' (as Thomathy would say at this point, words do have meanings, and this is for a reason). There could perhaps be some indicator for a deity's existence that we just haven't yet discovered, but we can't call that evidence because it hasn't yet been discovered.

We know that tachyons exist because we discovered the evidence for them. Now, before we had discovered the evidence for them, yes - it would be bad reasoning to assert that there are these vague things called 'tachyons' that you simply have faith exist.

Likewise with your turtle example. If we never had any evidence of turtles existing, only some vague allusions to them, it would be unreasonable to assert that they exist on faith alone.

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


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote: But

The God of Rock wrote:
But you have absolutely no right to be messing with someone else's child.  If you want to teach your garbage to your own child, then fine.

Compare with the following sentence:

Quote:
But you have absolutely no right to be violent to someone else's child.  If you want to be violent to your own child, then fine.

So by your standards, Kevin can beat his own children senseless as long as he doesn't beat other people's children senseless?

The parent has full juristiction over their own child? So a farther can rape his own daugthers according to you?

Nice sentiment...

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I made a post in

Quote:
I made a post in response to someone asking about where God is and what God was doing before he created the universe.  In the post, I was pointing out that in theory, God is neither spatial nor temporal and therefore, those are not questions that you can ask in any meaningful way about God.

But this is problematic. If God is not a spatial or temporal entity (that is, God exists outside the observable universe), how could we know of God at all? If it's through divine revelation, than he does interact with our universe and is spatial/temporal in that he is able to manipulate people's thoughts.

Even if we can't detect God, we should be able to detect that God is doing things. Yet we don't.

Quote:
Nowhere in the post did I actually posit the there is God, but I was merely explaining God in theory.  The point of the post was to make it clear that in order to deny or accept God, you must have a real conceptual understanding.  To prove that God must be understood as neither spatial nor temporal, I cited some bible verses, showing that this understanding of God is nothing new and is actually a basic tenet of all monotheism.

I agree with the underlined, but again, here lies the problem:

I've yet to hear from anyone who can actually create a coherent conceptualization of what God is.

 

Care to try your own hand at it?

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

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:The God of

Nikolaj wrote:

The God of Rock wrote:
But you have absolutely no right to be messing with someone else's child.  If you want to teach your garbage to your own child, then fine.

Compare with the following sentence:

Quote:
But you have absolutely no right to be violent to someone else's child.  If you want to be violent to your own child, then fine.

So by your standards, Kevin can beat his own children senseless as long as he doesn't beat other people's children senseless?

The parent has full juristiction over their own child? So a farther can rape his own daugthers according to you?

Nice sentiment...

I was going to write something akin to this, but shied away from being crude.

 

Thanks for stepping-up, Nik. Smiling

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


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:So by your

Nikolaj wrote:

So by your standards, Kevin can beat his own children senseless as long as he doesn't beat other people's children senseless?

The parent has full juristiction over their own child? So a farther can rape his own daugthers according to you?

Nice sentiment...

Umm, no.

Because (1) rape is a federal crime, (2) rape is immoral, (3) raising a child under a religion is not even remotely the same as being violent to a child.

Why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home who is being taken to Church every Sunday?


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:My

Kevin R Brown wrote:

My opinion is that you were claiming the former. Of course, the only person who knows exactly what you meant is yourself, so feel free to clarify.

You are the one who was telling everyone what I meant, but now you've decided that I can speak for myself all of a sudden?  You're not being very consistent.

Quote:
In that case, you must reject the research done by Albert Einstein - a 'bum' patent clerk who had no formal post-secondary education when he first elucidated his idea on General Relativity.

Nothing to do with what I've said.

Quote:
I was not there personally, but that is not really characteristic of outspoken individuals like Hitchens or Dawkins, who are fairly likely to tell you to cram it up your ass if you they don't like your message. Can you at all substantiate this claim? Or is it just a 'feeling' you get?

Hitchens and Dawkins took the Blasphemy Challenge.  How does that in any prove that they approve of advertising it to children without the consent of parents?

Quote:
Hm. What does Chandler say, again? This doesn't really jive with what you claimed, does it?

The Blasphemy Challenge challenges individuals to deny that God exists, thereby committing the unforgivable sin and proving that they are not afraid.  Are you disagreeing?

Quote:
And ergo should be off-limits to ridicule or discussion?

Not what I said.

Quote:
And they should not, if we're to grow out of old superstitions. Why should people tremble in terror over something which we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of?

And that's your view.  You have no right to impose that on another person's child. 

Or will you say that because you have the right to report child abuse, you also have the right to teach the child things without the parent's consent?

Quote:
Moreover, some people take seriously the notion that women are not owed equal treatment. Should we respect that? Some people think that certain ethnicities are inferior. Should we respect that? Some people believe that people should be stoned to death for picking-up firewood on the Sabbath. Should we respect that?

Nothing to do with what I've said.

Quote:
This is like saying that it is not 'my place' to inform child services upon seeing children being abused by their parents. Some people are shitty parents, and frankly, yes - it is my place to resist against suffering in the world so that, among other things, children don't mature into entities of bitterness and destruction.

What evidence do you have that religion causes children to mature into entities of "bitterness" and "destruction"?  Is there some sort of case study being done?

Why hasn't the federal government caught wind of this and banned religion?

Furthermore, you comparison between religion and child abuse is just... warped.  You seriously have problems.

Quote:
It's not a move for the squeamish and half-hearted, certainly. How you can characterize informing children that the deity that their parents espouse to exist is fictional as 'seedy' is beyond me, given the near certainty of the claim's veracity.

I'm saying that it is seedy to be advertising the Blasphemy Challenge on children's websites.  What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:
'Ought' to be the parents? Why? This phrase contains a hidden premise; an 'ought' or a 'should' always needs to be followed with it's justification, or it's empty assertion.

Because children are the responsibility of the parents?  Are you disagreeing with that? 

Quote:
Except that this often proves not to be the case. Children who've become indoctrinated by their parents typically carry their religion with them into adulthood (See: Imprinting).

So that gives you the right to raise them yourself? Seriously, I would LOVE for you to bring this sort of testimony into a courtroom.  LOL

Quote:
Do you see what you're doing? You're building a case based on emotional pleading. The above sentence is no different than stating, 'You have absolutely no right to be promoting your 'garbage',' except that you've added 'children' for emotional impact.

Umm, no.  I'm not doing anything like that.  I'm saying that it is absolutely appauling to be advertising the Blasphemy Challenge on children's websites.

Quote:
I have every right to halt the propagation of harmful superstition, yes, even when your child is involved.

No, you don't.

Quote:
Except that you're implying that teaching a child beneficial things like critical thinking are the same as teaching them harmful things like superstitious dogma. 

You just don't get it.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Umm, no.Because (1)

Quote:

Umm, no.

Because (1) rape is a federal crime, (2) rape is immoral, (3) raising a child under a religion is not even remotely the same as being violent to a child.

Why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home who is being taken to Church every Sunday?

1) Laws do not dictate absolutely everything that is right or wrong. They are approximations.

2) Yes, it is. You might consider why we consider rape immoral?

3) Not even remotely the same? In some cases (Muslim countries, for example), the two are completely analogous. In most cases, the child is threatened into belief with scare-stories of what will happen to them if they fail to conform to the dogma - indeed violent, even if the violence isn't physical.

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


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Umm,

The God of Rock wrote:

Umm, no.

Because (1) rape is a federal crime

Granted. There is a difference. It's an extreme analogy, to get you to think. But you are right, it's not the same.

The God of Rock wrote:
(2) rape is immoral,
And teaching atheism to a child is not? Then why are you so nervous about it being taught to yours? Are you saying atheism isn't immoral?

The God of Rock wrote:
(3) raising a child under a religion is not even remotely the same as being violent to a child.
That's in the eye of the beholder. What if you teach children that the highest, most noble way to please God is to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? You don't consider that a serious thing to teach children?

And if you do, are you saying that raising a child with that belief is not raising them "under a religion" as you call it? Sure it's not your religion, but you'd have to admit that it is a religion, and I imagine that you would feel entitled, perhaps even obliged, to object to such behavior.

The God of Rock wrote:
Why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home who is being taken to Church every Sunday?
You tell me...

Anyway, they did remove all those little girls from that Mormon compound in Texas a while back. Do you think it was wrong of them to do that?

And also, why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home where both parents are atheists? I though atheism was "garbage" according to you. Don't you care about the wellfare of those poor children of atheist parents who, as you put it earlier, really don't know what they want?

I mean, I care about your children's welfare and happiness.

Don't you care about the welfare and happiness of mine?

Who's being more compassionate of the two of us then, if I have the capasity to care about all children, not just my own?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:1) Laws

Kevin R Brown wrote:

1) Laws do not dictate absolutely everything that is right or wrong. They are approximations.

Your friend Mr. "Sapient" disagrees.  Watch the Nightline debate.

Quote:
Yes, it is. You might consider why we consider rape immoral?

I have considered that quite thoroughly. 

Quote:
3) Not even remotely the same? In some cases (Muslim countries, for example), the two are completely analogous. In most cases, the child is threatened into belief with scare-stories of what will happen to them if they fail to conform to the dogma - indeed violent, even if the violence isn't physical.

Telling a child that sinners go to Hell is not the same as actually beating your child with barbed wire.

So no, they are not even close


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Granted. There

Nikolaj wrote:

Granted. There is a difference. It's an extreme analogy, to get you to think. But you are right, it's not the same.

Dear lord, you are so deep and philosophical.  I just feel so... enlightened being in your presence.

Quote:
And teaching atheism to a child is not? Then why are you so nervous about it being taught to yours? Are you saying atheism isn't immoral?

You are seriously clueless.  This is not just an issue of atheism.  The issue is one of parental control

Quote:
That's in the eye of the beholder. What if you teach children that the highest, most noble way to please God is to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? You don't consider that a serious thing to teach children?

No, it's an objective fact.  And show me in the Koran where it teaches children to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.  I want you to cite me the specific passage.

Quote:
And if you do, are you saying that raising a child with that belief is not raising them "under a religion" as you call it? Sure it's not your religion, but you'd have to admit that it is a religion, and I imagine that you would feel entitled, perhaps even obliged, to object to such behavior.

I would object to it if that was the actual teaching, which I seriously doubt that it is.

Quote:
Anyway, they did remove all those little girls from that Mormon compound in Texas a while back. Do you think it was wrong of them to do that?

I don't know.  Did they do it simply because of the Mormonism or was it something else?

Quote:
And also, why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home where both parents are atheists? I though atheism was "garbage" according to you. Don't you care about the wellfare of those poor children of atheist parents who, as you put it earlier, really don't know what they want?

Okay, you clearly have no reading comprehension whatsoever.

Quote:
Who's being more compassionate of the two of us then, if I have the capasity to care about all children, not just my own?

Looking at your picture, I doubt that you'll be having any children anytime soon. 


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

Quote:
You are the one who was telling everyone what I meant, but now you've decided that I can speak for myself all of a sudden?  You're not being very consistent.

Really?

I wrote:
If this isn't what you meant, fine - but you should be clearer about what you mean.

Quote:
Nothing to do with what I've said.

Really?

Quote:
But yes, I believe that someone who has academic credentials and a real job in the field of academia can make a difference with more efficacy than a bum.

It appears that it's not me who has problems with consistency. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Hitchens and Dawkins took the Blasphemy Challenge.  How does that in any prove that they approve of advertising it to children without the consent of parents?

It doesn't, but this is a deflection. You were talking about whether or not they actually took the test.

I don't know if Dawkins approves or not, frankly. I'll ask him.

Quote:
The Blasphemy Challenge challenges individuals to deny that God exists, thereby committing the unforgivable sin and proving that they are not afraid.  Are you disagreeing?

Not at all. You said that there wasn't a 'single video out there' that prefaced this with the fact that the conclusion is based on a lack of evidence; in fact the video in the original advertisement expressly states this. 

Again, this is a deflection.

Quote:
Not what I said.

Then what is your point? You said some people take their religion seriously. What's your point? There's no automatic virtue in that.

Quote:

And that's your view.  You have no right to impose that on another person's child. 

Or will you say that because you have the right to report child abuse, you also have the right to teach the child things without the parent's consent?

It is not 'my view'. That there is no evidence that we have any god or Hell to fear is an objective fact.

Your stance is, then, that a parent has a right to hold dogmatic sway over their child if that's what they wish to do, and that children have no intrinsic right to education (or, indeed, hardly any rights at all)? Is that correct?

Children who are not kept under strict lock and key will learn things without parental consent anyway, and yes, I do think that this is a good thing. Learning & knowledge are the cornerstone of modern civilization, and should not be 'regulated' as though they are hazardous substances.

Quote:
What evidence do you have that religion causes children to mature into entities of "bitterness" and "destruction"?  Is there some sort of case study being done?

Why hasn't the federal government caught wind of this and banned religion?

A) You might care to examine the work being done in the field of evolutionary psychology, more specifically the work of Robert Altemeyer. This title might get you started.

You'll also note I was more specifically referring to dogma.

B) The federal government, while in most using it's best judgement to pass legislation to protect people, is as imperfect as any other human tool and sometimes tries to protect us from things that are not really harmful and fails to protect us from things that are harmful.

Quote:
Furthermore, you comparison between religion and child abuse is just... warped.  You seriously have problems.

My opinion on this matter was actually shaped by Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Didn't you just finish appealing to his authority not that long ago?

Quote:
I'm saying that it is seedy to be advertising the Blasphemy Challenge on children's websites.  What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that you're claiming that. I don't understand why you're claiming that. What's the justification?

Quote:
Because children are the responsibility of the parents?  Are you disagreeing with that?

No, not at all. And when someone is responsible for something or someone, and then acts irresponsibly, what's the appropriate action?

Quote:
So that gives you the right to raise them yourself? Seriously, I would LOVE for you to bring this sort of testimony into a courtroom.  LOL

And this would be a strawman. I'm not looking to 'raise' anyone kids; I am looking to properly educate them.

As far as that's concerned, it's already been to court (See: Dover Trial), and the educators won - unequivocably.

 

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

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Telling a child that

Quote:

Telling a child that sinners go to Hell is not the same as actually beating your child with barbed wire.

So no, they are not even close.

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


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Nothing to do with what I've said.

Really?

Quote:
But yes, I believe that someone who has academic credentials and a real job in the field of academia can make a difference with more efficacy than a bum.

It appears that it's not me who has problems with consistency. :P

Okay, try to follow along here:

I said that someone with a higher education could do a better job making a difference.  In other words, Brian "Sapient" wants to vindicate the fact that he's a loser by saying that he is dedicating his life to "curing theism", when in fact, plenty of people are doing the same thing and they are not losers.  

Then you said:

"In that case, you must reject the research done by Albert Einstein - a 'bum' patent clerk who had no formal post-secondary education when he first elucidated his idea on General Relativity."

Did I say that we ought to reject everything that Sapient says because he is a loser?

Quote:
It doesn't, but this is a deflection. You were talking about whether or not they actually took the test.

Umm, I acknowledged from the outset that they took the test.  You then inferred from that that because they took the test, they approve of advertising it on children's websites.

Quote:
Not at all. You said that there wasn't a 'single video out there' that prefaced this with the fact that the conclusion is based on a lack of evidence; in fact the video in the original advertisement expressly states this.

No, I said that there wasn't a video that was simply denying the evidence for the existence of God.  The videos contained people that were denying the existence of God.

Quote:
Then what is your point? You said some people take their religion seriously. What's your point? There's no automatic virtue in that.

The point is, you have no right to impose your views on THEIR children just because you disagree with them.

Quote:
It is not 'my view'. That there is no evidence that we have any god or Hell to fear is an objective fact.

Only if you equivocate on the word "evidence".

Quote:
Your stance is, then, that a parent has a right to hold dogmatic sway over their child if that's what they wish to do, and that children have no intrinsic right to education (or, indeed, hardly any rights at all)? Is that correct?

Children have the right to education, which is why it is a law that they must go to school.

But now you are equivocating on "education".


Quote:
A) You might care to examine the work being done in the field of evolutionary psychology, more specifically the work of Robert Altemeyer.

That's it?  Don't you want to give me any statistics?

Quote:
B) The federal government, while in most using it's best judgement to pass legislation to protect people, is as imperfect as any other human tool and sometimes tries to protect us from things that are not really harmful and fails to protect us from things that are harmful.

So I should believe you over the federal government?  LOL

Quote:
Didn't you just finish appealing to his authority not that long ago?

When did I say that X is true because Richard Dawkins says so?

Quote:
I understand that you're claiming that. I don't understand why you're claiming that. What's the justification?

I've already explained that.

Quote:
No, not at all. And when someone is responsible for something or someone, and then acts irresponsibly, what's the appropriate action?

The problem is, you have an absolutely warped conception of what constitutes responsible parenting.

Do you have kids?  If so, tell me where you live so I can call child services.

Quote:
And this would be a strawman. I'm not looking to 'raise' anyone kids; I am looking to properly educate them.

You would have to be educated yourself in order to do that, and I don't see that you are anymore educated than Mr. "Sapient". 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Kevin

The God of Rock wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:
I was not there personally, but that is not really characteristic of outspoken individuals like Hitchens or Dawkins, who are fairly likely to tell you to cram it up your ass if you they don't like your message. Can you at all substantiate this claim? Or is it just a 'feeling' you get?

Hitchens and Dawkins took the Blasphemy Challenge.  How does that in any prove that they approve of advertising it to children without the consent of parents?

You're not a very good stalker.  First of all, Kevin was mistaken, and as a good stalker you would know that Dawkins didn't do the Blasphemy Challenge.  However, ironically he mentioned "young" people a gazillion times in a statement he made about it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:
"I had not given the Blasphemy Challenge any thought until you called it to my attention. Now that you have done so, I do not seem to feel strongly one way or the other. As that admirable bumper sticker has it, Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime. So, am I going to send in my own film clip denying the Holy Ghost? No, that is not what Oxford professors do, they write books instead. Do I find it offensive that so many young people are sending in their film clips? No. I hadn't listened to any of them before you raised the matter. I have now done so, and I must say I find them more charming than offensive. They mostly seem rather nice young people, and they are doing their bit, in their own lively and entertaining way, to raise consciousness and set an example to their peers. I am especially pleased to note how young they are, for organized atheists have, until recently, been noticeably and discouragingly grey-headed. I think we may be witnessing the beginnings of a shift in the tectonic plates of our Zeitgeist. I am delighted to see so many young Americans taking part, in a way that suits their age group better than mine or yours." -source

 

Your stalking skills have not informed you well on Hitchens either.  (igexpandingpanda is that you?)  Maybe you should go after the big fish.  Or is attacking/stalking a non-credible low life bum all you're capable of?

Hitchens doesn't have a direct quote in regards to advertising to teens for the Blasphemy Challenge but it would be preposterous to think that he would be against it.  We're talking about teens by the way, we're not on the streets ruining Santa Clauss for toddlers.  Hitchens is the type of guy who supports war in Iraq because he would like to see the dangers of Islam dissapear.  If it were up to him he'd  nuke the entire middle east.  I don't think he'd have a problem advertising to teens if he would be capable of supporting destroying an entire region. 

He happens to think teaching kids the principles of Christianity are immoral...

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Kevin

The God of Rock wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

1) Laws do not dictate absolutely everything that is right or wrong. They are approximations.

Your friend Mr. "Sapient" disagrees.  Watch the Nightline debate.

1. Kevin is right, I'd agree.

2. If laws do dictate right and wrong, and since there is no law against advertising on Teen Beat, then it must be right.

 

3. I'm not responding for your benefit, as is true with all my posts to you, I'm responding for the benefit of the onlooker.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

Granted. There is a difference. It's an extreme analogy, to get you to think. But you are right, it's not the same.

Dear lord, you are so deep and philosophical.  I just feel so... enlightened being in your presence.

Quote:
And teaching atheism to a child is not? Then why are you so nervous about it being taught to yours? Are you saying atheism isn't immoral?

You are seriously clueless.

So which is it? Enlightening and deep, or clueless? Eye-wink

The God of Rock wrote:
This is not just an issue of atheism.  The issue is one of parental control.
Yes, and I'm asking you, do you think parents have the right to instill immorality in their children? Is that within the rights of parental control?

The God of Rock wrote:
Quote:
That's in the eye of the beholder. What if you teach children that the highest, most noble way to please God is to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? You don't consider that a serious thing to teach children?
No, it's an objective fact.  And show me in the Koran where it teaches children to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.  I want you to cite me the specific passage.
I didn't say anything about the Koran. I said, what if you teach children that the highest, most noble way to please God is to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? You don't consider that a serious thing to teach children?

So do you consider that a serious thing to teach children?

The God of Rock wrote:
Quote:
And if you do, are you saying that raising a child with that belief is not raising them "under a religion" as you call it? Sure it's not your religion, but you'd have to admit that it is a religion, and I imagine that you would feel entitled, perhaps even obliged, to object to such behavior.

I would object to it if that was the actual teaching, which I seriously doubt that it is.

The actual teaching of what? I'm not talking about Islam here, I'm asking you do you think that they might be one or two parents somewhere in the world that might teach their children that what the 9-11 highjackers did was a noble thing, and that it was the will of God, and if you can conceive of such an eventuality, would you consider that immoral on the part of said parents?

Or are you seriously suggesting that if it is not written in the Koran word for word then there cannot be a single person on the face of the planet who could ever do that?

The God of Rock wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, they did remove all those little girls from that Mormon compound in Texas a while back. Do you think it was wrong of them to do that?

I don't know.  Did they do it simply because of the Mormonism or was it something else?

The men who had multiple underage wives justified such behavior in the name of their particular brand of Mormonism yes.

The God of Rock wrote:
Quote:
And also, why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home where both parents are atheists? I though atheism was "garbage" according to you. Don't you care about the wellfare of those poor children of atheist parents who, as you put it earlier, really don't know what they want?

Okay, you clearly have no reading comprehension whatsoever.

Possibly not, but I can read that you did not answer my question there, so I'll repeat it: Should children be removed from atheist parents, yes or no?

The God of Rock wrote:
Quote:
Who's being more compassionate of the two of us then, if I have the capasity to care about all children, not just my own?

Looking at your picture, I doubt that you'll be having any children anytime soon. 

Possibly, but I notice that you did not answer my question so I'll repeat it: Who do you think is being more compassionate in our concern for children, based on my concern for mine, and your children, and your concern only for yours?


 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:You

The God of Rock wrote:

You are seriously clueless.  This is not just an issue of atheism.  The issue is one of parental control

OK, so this discussion is about parental control.

What do you feel the boundaries of parental control are?

Should people be able to interfere with parental control if there is abuse?

If yes

Should people be able to interfere with parental control if the abuse is only verbal?

If a parent believes something do they have the right to teach it to there children?

If yes

What if the belief causes the child to harm themselves?

what if the belief causes the child to harm others?

What if the belief is obviously insane?

Do parents have the right to have their children not be exposed to certain things?

If yes what type of things should parents be able to keep from there children?

What if those things are taught in school?

What if those things come from a source of media that the parent allowed their child to view?  i.e.  TV channels, websites, whatever.

What if this exposure comes from the child's friends, teacher, or other prenatally approved acquaintances?

[Edit: Certain things should probably never be taught to children regardless of the source, do you feel atheism to be one of these things?  Also added a little to the end to help clarify what I was trying to say.]


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Yes, and I'm

Nikolaj wrote:

Yes, and I'm asking you, do you think parents have the right to instill immorality in their children? Is that within the rights of parental control?

No.

Quote:
I didn't say anything about the Koran. I said, what if you teach children that the highest, most noble way to please God is to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? You don't consider that a serious thing to teach children?

So do you consider that a serious thing to teach children?

It's a horrible thing to teach children.

Quote:
The actual teaching of what? I'm not talking about Islam here, I'm asking you do you think that they might be one or two parents somewhere in the world that might teach their children that what the 9-11 highjackers did was a noble thing, and that it was the will of God, and if you can conceive of such an eventuality, would you consider that immoral on the part of said parents?

Yes.

Quote:
The men who had multiple underage wives justified such behavior in the name of their particular brand of Mormonism yes.


Mormonism aside, polygamy is against the law.

Quote:
Possibly not, but I can read that you did not answer my question there, so I'll repeat it: Should children be removed from atheist parents, yes or no?

No. 

Quote:
Possibly, but I notice that you did not answer my question so I'll repeat it: Who do you think is being more compassionate in our concern for children, based on my concern for mine, and your children, and your concern only for yours?

Concern only for yours.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Did I say that we

Quote:
Did I say that we ought to reject everything that Sapient says because he is a loser?

That's the impression I got.

Again, feel free to clarify if I'm not taking your message as intended.

Quote:
The point is, you have no right to impose your views on THEIR children just because you disagree with them.

Advertising = Imposing?

Again, it's also not just a matter of disagreeing with someone. Someone is telling their children something that isn't true in order to frighten them into being obedient, and I'm opposed to that.

Quote:

Only if you equivocate on the word "evidence".

Ridiculous. How i it equivocating to say that there is no evidence for God's existence?

Quote:

Children have the right to education, which is why it is a law that they must go to school.

But now you are equivocating on "education".

Again, ridiculous. How is it equivocating to say that teaching children to be skeptical is educational?

Quote:
That's it?  Don't you want to give me any statistics?

The idea is that the book includes those statistics. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
So I should believe you over the federal government?  LOL

No. You should, however, believe the evidence over the federal government.

Quote:
When did I say that X is true because Richard Dawkins says so?

You said that Richard Dawkins was a proper leader for the atheism community because of his credentials and notoriety.

Quote:

The problem is, you have an absolutely warped conception of what constitutes responsible parenting.

Do you have kids?  If so, tell me where you live so I can call child services.

You can claim that all you wish; it's not like mine is the kooky fringe idea. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Singer, Pinker and Krauss, at the very least, all have the same opinion and for the same reason.

I don't have children, no. I suppose this is the appeal to parenthood where you pretend that this discludes me from discussing what is or isn't good for a child's health?

Quote:
You would have to be educated yourself in order to do that, and I don't see that you are anymore educated than Mr. "Sapient".

The above people certainly are educated, aren't they? So what's their problem, then?

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


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:That's

Kevin R Brown wrote:

That's the impression I got.

Then you're a moron.

Quote:
Again, it's also not just a matter of disagreeing with someone. Someone is telling their children something that isn't true in order to frighten them into being obedient, and I'm opposed to that.

But you do not know if it is true or not. 

Quote:
Ridiculous. How i it equivocating to say that there is no evidence for God's existence?

There is evidence.  People have been presenting evidence for the existence of God for centuries.  Some people accepted it, others have not.  Just because you say that the evidence presented is unacceptable does not mean that it is.

Quote:
Again, ridiculous. How is it equivocating to say that teaching children to be skeptical is educational?

Umm, telling children that God does not exist is not educating them.  It's imposing your views on them, which you cannot prove yourself.  Certainly you believe that you can prove it, but that's irrelevant.

Quote:
The idea is that the book includes those statistics. :P

I'm not giving you commission.

Quote:
No. You should, however, believe the evidence over the federal government.

So what is your evidence?

Quote:
You said that Richard Dawkins was a proper leader for the atheism community because of his credentials and notoriety.

That's not an appeal to authority.... and I never said that.  I did say that Dawkins is in a better position to make change because of his credentials.

Quote:
I don't have children, no. I suppose this is the appeal to parenthood where you pretend that this discludes me from discussing what is or isn't good for a child's health?

"Discludes"?  Is that even a word?  Did you mean "excludes"?

And you said you were an English teacher??


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
He certainly knows how to go

He certainly knows how to go out (for now) with a bang.  After this post God of Rock proceeded to create about 30 threads mostly with no content within 5 minutes.  All mods that were present instantly agreed to ban. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:He certainly

Sapient wrote:
He certainly knows how to go out (for now) with a bang.  After this post God of Rock proceeded to create about 30 threads mostly with no content within 5 minutes.  All mods that were present instantly agreed to ban. 
Who's surprised by this?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buller?

I thought not.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Discludes"?  Is that

Quote:

"Discludes"?  Is that even a word?  Did you mean "excludes"?

And you said you were an English teacher??

Disclude is synonomous with exclude.

 

I admit - it isn't really a word in contemporary use. Then again, nor is antilogism. Sticking out tongue

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


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:He certainly

Sapient wrote:

He certainly knows how to go out (for now) with a bang.  After this post God of Rock proceeded to create about 30 threads mostly with no content within 5 minutes.  All mods that were present instantly agreed to ban. 

I was a bit surprised so many fed the troll for so long and you didn't ban him earlier. Then I realized he was a great advertisement for showing how insane, immoral and twisted a theist can be.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Kevin

The God of Rock wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I don't have children, no. I suppose this is the appeal to parenthood where you pretend that this discludes me from discussing what is or isn't good for a child's health?

"Discludes"?  Is that even a word?  Did you mean "excludes"?

And you said you were an English teacher??

 

There is no surer sign of your opponent's inadequacy than when he begins arguing with your spelling and grammar rather than your points.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

"Discludes"?  Is that even a word?  Did you mean "excludes"?

And you said you were an English teacher??

Disclude is synonomous with exclude.

 

I admit - it isn't really a word in contemporary use. Then again, nor is antilogism. Sticking out tongue

Kevin, hate to nitpick (well, not really Laughing out loud), but it's not that the word isn't in contemporary use alone...  Using it synonymously with exclude is actually just not standard use.  The word means 'disclosure' or 'to make known'.

Ah, good thing that Douche is gone!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:They're not

Sapient wrote:

They're not exactly one and the same, considering we can easily prove life and nobody in the history of life has ever proven an afterlife. 

Yeah, except Jesus.  Remember Him?  He died and came back to life.  There were hundreds of witnesses to this fact of history.  Sounds like an  afterlife to me.  Yeah, yeah I know you don't even think He existed.  It is easy to live your life when you can just do away with the truth/reality with a hand wave because you don't like it.  However, in the long run it doesn't work.  

 

Sapient wrote:
 

You'd have to prove the existence of a soul if you wanted any of us to care that we are wagering it. 

Do you not exist? 

 

Sapient wrote:

Imagine if I asked you if you were willing to risk your flip-feep on there being a god.  Imagine if I told you that if you were wrong your flip-feep would burn forever and it would be torturous.  Might you at least want a little proof before you adopted my philosophy?

First, I would ask you to define what a flip-feep is.  If you like I can give you the definition of what a soul is.  There is actually a known definition for that. It is not something I made up as oppossed to your flip-feep analogy.  Then I would ask you where in the Bible you find evidence for this scenario you provided.  

     

Sapient wrote:
 

The argument you are using is formally called "Pascals Wager" and if you are in pursuit of the truth in this life, maybe you should waste less time defending belief in your god and spend more time actually pursuing truth.

I don't care necessarily what it's called and I have already found the truth so why should I keep persuing?  Maybe you shouldn't waste your time fighting against something you don't even think exists.  That is insane.  It seems you are fighting against nothing while I am defending something.  Doesn't seem too rational on your part.  Seems kind of senseless for you to be fighting against what you perceive to be equivalent to the boogeyman.  Makes no sense whatsoever but, hey, it's your life.      

 

 

Sapient wrote:

In this case you've wasted time arguing a point that has been exposed and picked apart many times on this site alone.  This is the point I was making about wasting the only life you get.

You only think you have exposed or picked apart a fallacy but you haven't.  This is not offered as proof of God only as part of the logical reasons to believe in God.     



Sapient wrote:
 

I seperated this sentence you stated so I could address it outside of the wager...

Quote:
And as far as being wise is concerned, the Bible says that the wise seek after God but the fool says in his heart "There is no God".  Who is wise and who is the fool? 

While the bible does call atheists fools it also says that "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

How do you reconcile the two statements?   It would seem both the writers of the bible and you are in danger of hellfire.

First of all I never called anyone a fool.  I merely quoted what God defines as wise and what He defines as a fool or foolish.  I never said "Mr. Sapient is a fool".  I only pointed out that God says, "The fool says, in his heart, 'there is no God'".  If the shoe fits...

Furthermore, if you read the Bible within its proper context and not "cherry pick" as is so often done by you and others you would find that it discusses this concept in light of sin and anger. For example: 

  1. Do not call someone a fool  
    1. (Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
  2.  Calling someone a fool                                                                                                                            A. (Psalm 14:1) - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good"  

       B. (Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more important the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"

     When Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that you should not call anyone a fool, contextually, He was speaking of those who were unrighteously angry.  That is why Jesus mentions anger in this verse.  There is a righteous anger which is not sinful (Eph 4:26 - "Be angry and do not sin . . ." ) as well as unrighteous anger that is sinful (James 1:20  - "for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.").  When God is angry with someone, He is always righteous in His anger.  Jesus, being God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col 2:9Eye-wink, can righteously be angry with people and pronounce upon them the foolishness of their deeds which He did (Matth 2:17).  Also, undoubtedly, Jesus knewPsalm 14:1 which says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God . . ." Jesus didn't forget the well known verse and God is not wrong for calling someone a fool, especially when it is true.
     So, we see that the condemnation by Jesus in regards to calling someone a fool is in the context of doing it out of unrighteous anger which does not fit the later citations of Jesus labeling the hypocritical Pharisees as fools.

 

Sapient wrote:

Additionally had you not been "wasting your time" pushing forward an unproven and untenable position you might have had time to pursue the truth that you claimed you were using this life for.  Doing so you would have found a google search of this site give you my response to your statement in advance.  Here is a thread in which the fool in the bible passage has been brought up already. 

As I said before, I have already found the truth so why would I keep persuing it?  If I have found the truth then everything else outside of that truth is NOT true.  And, believe me, this site and your responses found in this site, are so far from the truth as to be polar opposites.  It is so far from the truth that it warrants light be spread among all the darkness.

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:*emphasis

Nikolaj wrote:

*emphasis added* What sins? Answer me that. Spell out what specific sins Brian is guilty of, or I am guilty of for that matter. What sins?

Hmmmm.  What sins?  Let me see...

1. Lying.  Have you ever lied? 

2. Stealing.  Have you ever stolen anything.  When you stole it and the value of what you took is irrelevant. 

3. Adultery.   Jesus said if you look at a person with lust you commit adultery in your heart.  Have you ever done that?

4. Murder.  You may say you have never taken a life but God says if you hate anyone you are a murderer.  Have you ever hated anyone?

5. Dishonoring your mother and father.  Have you ever done everything your parents told you to do?

6.  Not honoring God first in your life.  Do I even need to ask? 

7.  Coveting.  Have you ever desired something that belonged to someone else?  

Should we continue?

Are you honestly going to tell me that neither you, nor Mr. Sapient have ever lied, stolen, coveted, lusted, etc.? Those are the sins I am refering to.  Are you innocent of these? 

 

Nikolaj wrote:

When I look around the world, when I look deep in my heart (metaphorically speaking) I see that true sin is being a judgemental prick like you are being by making yourself the judge of who get's to go to hell and who get's to go to heaven.

First of all, you don't get to define what sin is.  God does.  Secondly, I never stated nor insinuated that I judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.  You are way off base.  I was only refering to what God says about the matter.  If you have a problem with what I wrote take it up with God.  Those are His words/thoughts not my own.  If you have a problem with it you don't have a problem with me you have a problem with God. 

 

Nikolaj wrote:

Now imagine for a second that my "spiritual compass" is better calibrated than yours. I may not see God in the same way you do, but maybe I "get" God's message better than you even so.

Well, that means you are going to hell for being a judgemental prick, and skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, are going to heaven for humbly accepting that they can only know that which humans can percieve, and for not pressuming to know the "true purpose" of the universe, or the "mind of God". 

I don't even know what you are rambling about.  I do not make things up as I go.  I have a basis for what I believe.  That basis is the Bible.  The Bible is the word of God.  It is the truth as revealed by God.  I do not speak of my own authority but from what God has already revealed as being true.  Now, you may not beleive that and I can deal with that.  But on what basis do you say what you say?  If you are saying that "you are going to hell for being a judgemental prick, and skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, are going to heaven for humbly accepting that they can only know that which humans can percieve" where do you get this information from?  My information comes from the Bible.  That is my authority.  If you are the source of your statement then you are making it up and you are your own god.     

 

Nikolaj wrote:

Or otherwise, explain to me, excactly how I have sinned, and you have not.

This is part of the problem with not understanding.  Assumptions.  When did I ever say I had not sinned?  It is precisely because I am a sinner that I am a Christian.  I have broken all of the commandments myself as well.  Are you saying that you haven't?  Are you perfect?  I am not perfect which is why I need a Savior.  I have sinned.  The point that was being made was that if you die in your sins (if your sins have never been forgiven) then God will carry out justice and give you what you deserve.  God is good and by nature must punish sin.  All of it.  No matter how "big" or how "small".  He does not tolerate sin.  If God is just, which He is, he will send all those who die in their sins to Hell.  That is not my opinion that is what God says in the Bible.  However, God is rich in love and mercy and extends grace to anyone who will receive it.  By suffering and dying Himself on the cross to take the punishment that you and I deserved God can forgive your sins.  All of humanity is on death row.  He can legally dismiss your court case if you throw yourself at the mercy of the Judge because of the sacrifice of Jesus.      

 

Nikolaj wrote:

And remember, it has to allign with my understanding of what is sinful. If my "spiritual compass" is not convinced then you are basically betting your afterlife on me being wrong and you being right.

Neither you nor I get to decide what sin is.  What you or I believe is irrelevant.  What matters is what is true.  However, my 'beleifs" are based on something other than myself.  I am not God so therfore I can not base it on something intrinsic.  My "beleifs" are based on the Bbile.  On what do you base your knowledge of sin and the afterlife on?       

 

Nikolaj wrote:

Do you really know me well enough to decide that my understanding of God is not more correct than yours?

Again, it does not matter what my undestanding or your understanding is.  The only thing that matters is what is true.  Neither God nor His word are open to interpretation.  There is only one God and there is only one meaning of the scriptures.  And I may not know you but I know what the Bible says and if what you state is contrary to what the Bbile states then you are in error not the Bible because you are not God.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Hundreds of witnesses? This

Hundreds of witnesses?

 

This just gets stupider and stupider.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Neither you nor I

Doc wrote:
Neither you nor I get to decide what sin is.  What you or I believe is irrelevant.  What matters is what is true.  However, my 'beleifs" are based on something other than myself.  I am not God so therfore I can not base it on something intrinsic.  My "beleifs" are based on the Bbile.  On what do you base your knowledge of sin and the afterlife on?
Interesting contradiction.

Premise 1: What you or I believe doesn't matter.

Premise 2: You base your beliefs on the bible.

Premise 3: I base my beliefs on science and the body of knowledge it has produced.

Conclusion 1: The first premise renders the second and third irrelevant.

Conclusion 2: The subject is moot.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:spike.barnett

Doc wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.

Get ready for a logical proof for God... ... ... ... ... ... Nope guess not.

Get ready for empty words and empty rhetoric..............Yep!  Thanks Spike.barnett

I would be offended but I have considered the source. When somebody gives me an argument for God that hasn't already been shown to be illogical I'll stop treating fundies like retards.


 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Nikolaj

Doc wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

*emphasis added* What sins? Answer me that. Spell out what specific sins Brian is guilty of, or I am guilty of for that matter. What sins?

Hmmmm.  What sins?  Let me see...

1. Lying.  Have you ever lied? 

2. Stealing.  Have you ever stolen anything.  When you stole it and the value of what you took is irrelevant. 

3. Adultery.   Jesus said if you look at a person with lust you commit adultery in your heart.  Have you ever done that?

4. Murder.  You may say you have never taken a life but God says if you hate anyone you are a murderer.  Have you ever hated anyone?

5. Dishonoring your mother and father.  Have you ever done everything your parents told you to do?

6.  Not honoring God first in your life.  Do I even need to ask? 

7.  Coveting.  Have you ever desired something that belonged to someone else?  

Should we continue?

Are you honestly going to tell me that neither you, nor Mr. Sapient have ever lied, stolen, coveted, lusted, etc.? Those are the sins I am refering to.  Are you innocent of these? 

I certainly am not. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments but I live unafraid of judgment. I take solace in the fact that there is no God. But my disbelief has nothing to do with my hell worthy sins. It has only to do with rational though, lack of evidence, and evidence to the contrary.

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Yeah, except

Doc wrote:

Yeah, except Jesus.  Remember Him?  He died and came back to life.  There were hundreds of witnesses to this fact of history.

If there were 100s of witnesses please name 25 complete with DOB, home address, and a notarized statement to the effect they saw the previously dead corpse of one Yahshua bar Joseph aka Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus Christ walk among the living. If you can't do that, please provide a signed list of such witnesses dated to the 1st century CE or list at least the first 100 names of those 100s that saw the corpse walk among the living in the 1st century CE and historical proof for inclusion of these 100. 

Doc wrote:

Sounds like an  afterlife to me.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Doc wrote:
Yeah, yeah I know you don't even think He existed.  It is easy to live your life when you can just do away with the truth/reality with a hand wave because you don't like it.  However, in the long run it doesn't work.  

I have no idea if Yahshua bar Joseph existed or not and even if he did that isn't proof Yahweh sent part of himself to be killed to placate himself over an issue on the insignificant backwoods planet Earth in one galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies. 

You have absolutely nothing that substantiates truth/reality based on the Jewish myths of the bible that were misinterpreted and regurgitated into Christian delusions.

*EDIT* Added the following:

Doc wrote:

~rip~

When God is angry with someone, He is always righteous in His anger~rip~

When  anger is attributed to God or he is said to be angry this is an emotion showing disappointment in his human creatures. Disappointment indicates the god can't be all-knowing as he would already know or have known even prior to constructing his universe that said creature would do something other than he'd really like. That being the case he would not be disappoimted or angry.  Every place in the bible where the god shows such emotions shows the writings of men about their delusions of the mythical god.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Nikolaj

Doc wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

*emphasis added* What sins? Answer me that. Spell out what specific sins Brian is guilty of, or I am guilty of for that matter. What sins?

Hmmmm.  What sins?  Let me see...

Doc wrote:

1. Lying.  Have you ever lied?

Certainly, perhaps even now.

Doc wrote:

2. Stealing.  Have you ever stolen anything.  When you stole it and the value of what you took is irrelevant.

Yes.

Doc wrote:

3. Adultery.   Jesus said if you look at a person with lust you commit adultery in your heart.  Have you ever done that?

Looking only counts? What about doing? When I was married I engaged in sex outside of marriage on multiple occasions. After I was divorced I never had a problem with married women  who wanted to have sex with me.

Doc wrote:

4. Murder.  You may say you have never taken a life but God says if you hate anyone you are a murderer.  Have you ever hated anyone?

I have never devoted that much effort in disliking someone. But since I'm a citizen of the US and have voluntarily voted persons into office that have sent troops into foreign lands that killed others I'm guilty of this along with the rest of the voters in the US. No I don't mean Bush.

Doc wrote:

5. Dishonoring your mother and father.  Have you ever done everything your parents told you to do?

Absolutely every damn thing they asked, though I could be lying.

Doc wrote:

6.  Not honoring God first in your life.  Do I even need to ask?

I used to burn sheep in sacrifices to him but the city cited me for violating the outdoor fire ordinance.

Doc wrote:

7.  Coveting.  Have you ever desired something that belonged to someone else?  

With every single advertisement I see.

Doc wrote:

First of all, you don't get to define what sin is.  God does.  Secondly, I never stated nor insinuated that I judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.  You are way off base.  I was only refering to what God says about the matter.  If you have a problem with what I wrote take it up with God.  Those are His words/thoughts not my own.  If you have a problem with it you don't have a problem with me you have a problem with God.

Really I tried but the god never spoke to me even after all those sacrificed sheep. I leave my phone on next to my bed every night waiting for his return call but alas so far no contact. I'm of the opinion SETI will have results first. You may be erroneously attributing the 66 or so books of the bible (varies depending on your religious sect as to #) to be the god Yahweh making comments but you have countless issues with the fictional Jewish literature or myths to explain first. 

 

Doc wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

Now imagine for a second that my "spiritual compass" is better calibrated than yours. I may not see God in the same way you do, but maybe I "get" God's message better than you even so.

Well, that means you are going to hell for being a judgemental prick, and skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, are going to heaven for humbly accepting that they can only know that which humans can percieve, and for not pressuming to know the "true purpose" of the universe, or the "mind of God". 

I don't even know what you are rambling about.  I do not make things up as I go.  I have a basis for what I believe.  That basis is the Bible.  The Bible is the word of God.  It is the truth as revealed by God.  I do not speak of my own authority but from what God has already revealed as being true.  

I knew it! You are using the myths written by ignorant ancients in some version of the bible.  Depending which version you use affects the basis of your delusion.

Doc wrote:

Now, you may not beleive that and I can deal with that.  But on what basis do you say what you say?  If you are saying that "you are going to hell for being a judgemental prick, and skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, are going to heaven for humbly accepting that they can only know that which humans can percieve" where do you get this information from?  My information comes from the Bible.  That is my authority.  If you are the source of your statement then you are making it up and you are your own god.  

I see no evidence that after death nothing else is different from the condition I was in before I was born, not existing.

Doc wrote:

 

Nikolaj wrote:

And remember, it has to allign with my understanding of what is sinful. If my "spiritual compass" is not convinced then you are basically betting your afterlife on me being wrong and you being right.

Neither you nor I get to decide what sin is.  What you or I believe is irrelevant.  What matters is what is true.  However, my 'beleifs" are based on something other than myself.  I am not God so therfore I can not base it on something intrinsic.  My "beleifs" are based on the Bbile.  On what do you base your knowledge of sin and the afterlife on?      

To quote a famous president, "there you go again", sin can only exist if there is a god to irritate. No god of thunder Yahweh no sin.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Hundreds of

Nordmann wrote:

Hundreds of witnesses?

 

This just gets stupider and stupider.

 

Another dismissal of the truth with a simple hand wave.  How easy life is when we can just live life by hand waving off those things which we don't like to deal with. 

Hundreds of witnesses?  What hundreds of witnesses?  They never existed

*wave hand as gesture of dismissal*

Things just get darker and darker. 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Doc

JillSwift wrote:

Doc wrote:
Neither you nor I get to decide what sin is.  What you or I believe is irrelevant.  What matters is what is true.  However, my 'beleifs" are based on something other than myself.  I am not God so therfore I can not base it on something intrinsic.  My "beleifs" are based on the Bbile.  On what do you base your knowledge of sin and the afterlife on?
Interesting contradiction.

Premise 1: What you or I believe doesn't matter.

Premise 2: You base your beliefs on the bible.

Premise 3: I base my beliefs on science and the body of knowledge it has produced.

Conclusion 1: The first premise renders the second and third irrelevant.

Conclusion 2: The subject is moot.

Premise 1: God is the author of truth.

Premise 2: The truth never changes.

Conclusion 1: What you or I believe has no bearing on what is truth.

Conclusion 2:  The truth is true even if no one believes it.

Conclusion 3:  A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I would

spike.barnett wrote:

I would be offended but I have considered the source. When somebody gives me an argument for God that hasn't already been shown to be illogical I'll stop treating fundies like retards.

 

Even if God were to raise someone from the dead you wouldn't believe. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:While I

Sapient wrote:

While I understand you have a specific standard that you believe Christians should upholdm that doesn't mean they do. 

Is George Bush a Christian?  He led a war into a country based on dishonest arguments.  Are the pastors who molest children Christian?  Is the abortion clinic bomber a Christian?  Are the Christians who send us hate mail threatening our lives Christian?

The only thing one Christian must have in common with another is belief in Jesus as the Christ (or the teachings of the apostles).  Christians sometimes like to represent the idea that becoming a Christian is a catch-all to poor behavior and it's far from that.  I think if anything it promotes poor behavior, being that it offers a get out of jail free card for simply accepting Jesus who died for your sins.  As a non-believer I don't have a Jesus to suffer for my sins, I choose to suffer for any "sins" here on Earth all by myself.  Since I am held accountable in this life rather than preparing for an afterlife in which someone has already wiped my slate clean, I feel I am a better person as a result. 

If you actually do in fact believe that bad Christians aren't Christians, maybe you'll respect the words of C.S. Lewis on this matter who said...

"The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

 

This is why I specified a "follower".  I should have left my wording at just that.  You are right to say anyone who accepts Christ period is a Christian.  My purpose on here is to discipher between a "Christian" and a "follower" or "Churchianity" and "Christianity".  It really annoys me to see someone represent the Christ I know with that kind of approach. 

The reason why I specify is because it seems like 90% of the reasons I see on your site for "not being a Christian" are the things that dispensationalists (Churchianity) have implemented into the system.  It's not what it is to be a Christian and it's not what it's about. 

The point is, the problems that are being addressed, when it comes down to it, are a poor excuse for not believeing in or following Christ. 

I understand your take in that you have done your homework and came to the conclusion that there is no God.  Please do not misunderstand me.  There are a lot of people like that on here too. 


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

caposkia wrote:

Sapient wrote:

While I understand you have a specific standard that you believe Christians should upholdm that doesn't mean they do. 

Is George Bush a Christian?  He led a war into a country based on dishonest arguments.  Are the pastors who molest children Christian?  Is the abortion clinic bomber a Christian?  Are the Christians who send us hate mail threatening our lives Christian?

The only thing one Christian must have in common with another is belief in Jesus as the Christ (or the teachings of the apostles).  Christians sometimes like to represent the idea that becoming a Christian is a catch-all to poor behavior and it's far from that.  I think if anything it promotes poor behavior, being that it offers a get out of jail free card for simply accepting Jesus who died for your sins.  As a non-believer I don't have a Jesus to suffer for my sins, I choose to suffer for any "sins" here on Earth all by myself.  Since I am held accountable in this life rather than preparing for an afterlife in which someone has already wiped my slate clean, I feel I am a better person as a result. 

If you actually do in fact believe that bad Christians aren't Christians, maybe you'll respect the words of C.S. Lewis on this matter who said...

"The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

 

This is why I specified a "follower".  I should have left my wording at just that.  You are right to say anyone who accepts Christ period is a Christian.  My purpose on here is to discipher between a "Christian" and a "follower" or "Churchianity" and "Christianity".  It really annoys me to see someone represent the Christ I know with that kind of approach. 

The reason why I specify is because it seems like 90% of the reasons I see on your site for "not being a Christian" are the things that dispensationalists (Churchianity) have implemented into the system.  It's not what it is to be a Christian and it's not what it's about. 

The point is, the problems that are being addressed, when it comes down to it, are a poor excuse for not believeing in or following Christ. 

I understand your take in that you have done your homework and came to the conclusion that there is no God.  Please do not misunderstand me.  There are a lot of people like that on here too. 

Which Christ do you follow? Christ the Intercessor or Christ the Interposer?

The intercessor is described in the gospels - the interposer is described in Paul's work.

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


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I

spike.barnett wrote:

I certainly am not. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments but I live unafraid of judgment.

At least you are honest enough to admit this.  However, I, too, live unafraid of judgement because my sins have been forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and I have repented of my sins and trust in the Savior.  Unfortunately, those who do not repent and place their trust in Jesus will be judged by the Law and all their sins will be exposed and will be found guilty of breaking those Laws whether we are afraid of judgement or not. 

 

spike.barnett wrote:

I take solace in the fact that there is no God.

What proof do you have of this?  For anyone to make this statement and have it be worth anything they would have to have all knoweldge of all things known and yet to be known. 

 

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:If

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If there were 100s of witnesses please name 25 complete with DOB, home address, and a notarized statement to the effect they saw the previously dead corpse of one Yahshua bar Joseph aka Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus Christ walk among the living. If you can't do that, please provide a signed list of such witnesses dated to the 1st century CE or list at least the first 100 names of those 100s that saw the corpse walk among the living in the 1st century CE and historical proof for inclusion of these 100. 

I will play your game.  But why do you need 25?  Wouldn't 3 or 4 be sufficient?  I will name just a few for the sake of time, however, with the data you requested.  

Firstly, Peter aka Simon Peter. 

           DOB: approx. 1 BC

           Home address: Bethsaida, east of the Jordan River

           notarized statement: 1 Peter and 2 Peter written to the churches scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. 

            Status: Deceased

 

Secondly, John aka John the Apostle

                DOB: 6 AD

                Home address: Galilee in Northern Israel

                Notarized statement:  The gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John 

                Status: Deceased

 

Thirdly, Paul aka Paul the Apostle, The Apostle Paul or Paul of Tarsus

            DOB:  Unknown but known to have been born in Tarsus Known to have died approx. 64-67 AD 

            Home address: Tarsus, Turkey

            Notarized Statement:  Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephisians and Philemon. 

            Status: Deceased

      

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sounds like bullshit to me.

No need for cursing.  There are ladies and gentlemen who visit this site.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have no idea if Yahshua bar Joseph existed or not...

You admit that you "have no idea" if Jesus existed yet you so aggressively criticize and mock those who know and testify of His existence.  Interesting.  That makes no sense.  If you had an idea then maybe you could contribute something worthwhile. Otherwise those who have "no idea" about a particular subject should remain silent or at least neutral in the matter.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
      

...and even if he did that isn't proof Yahweh sent part of himself to be killed to placate himself over an issue on the insignificant backwoods planet Earth in one galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies.

No, except that is what He said (not in those words).  and He proved it by raising from the dead.     

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You have absolutely nothing that substantiates truth/reality based on the Jewish myths of the bible that were misinterpreted and regurgitated into Christian delusions.

What proof do you have that they were/are myths?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

When  anger is attributed to God or he is said to be angry this is an emotion showing disappointment in his human creatures.

This is a false statement.  Anger is "a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire."  Disappointment is "defeated in expectation or hope".  Just because God gets angry doesn't mean He is "disappointed".   

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Disappointment indicates the god can't be all-knowing as he would already know or have known even prior to constructing his universe that said creature would do something other than he'd really like. That being the case he would not be disappoimted or angry.  Every place in the bible where the god shows such emotions shows the writings of men about their delusions of the mythical god.

Another false statement.  God knew that man would sin even before He created them.  Therefore, He still can be angry at sin without having to be disappointed at what occurred because He knew it would happen.  All of it was part of His will but that doesn't mean He isn't angry with sinners and the breaking of His Laws.  what proof do you have that the men who wrote the Bible were delusional and that the God of the bible is a myth? 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:spike.barnett

Doc wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

I certainly am not. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments but I live unafraid of judgment.

At least you are honest enough to admit this.  However, I, too, live unafraid of judgement because my sins have been forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and I have repented of my sins and trust in the Savior.  Unfortunately, those who do not repent and place their trust in Jesus will be judged by the Law and all their sins will be exposed and will be found guilty of breaking those Laws whether we are afraid of judgement or not. 

 

spike.barnett wrote:

I take solace in the fact that there is no God.

What proof do you have of this?  For anyone to make this statement and have it be worth anything they would have to have all knoweldge of all things known and yet to be known. 

 

 

Ah yes, the forgiveness loop.

1. Commit "sin"

2. ask Jesus to forgive you

3. go to 1

But wait, Paul said there is no law for the believer - all one has to do is believe in Jesus and that one can break God's law (sin) as much as they want to.

Wow - good thing atheists have morals and don't do that stuff.

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