Revelation

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Revelation

All religions can be reduced in essence to revelation, that is to say, one person communing with ‘god’ or his agents to gain knowledge. A religion may be based on a singular revelation, or on a series of revelations from a string of ‘prophets’. Revelation is then passed down as oral tradition, which becomes written tradition, or, as in more ‘modern’ situations, passed directly to written tradition.

 


My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion? LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Drugs. 

Drugs.

 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
invalid is valid is invalid

Quote:
My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

Are you really asking this question?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Come on guys, theists, I

Come on guys, theists, I want to see BOTH Jews and Christians in this thread attempting to answer this. It is easy to blame us godless heathens for your lack of evidence. But please since you both think there is a magic man to appeal to who favors you over all others, please tell us all. Heck, lets make it a tri-fecta, Muslims jump in too if you read this.

How did you manage to get it right "insert deity here". If it is written, then it can only be seen as flawed because of the time it was written, if it is "revealed" then that is even worse because it makes the naked assertion that "somehow" this magic man whispered in someone's ear.

Maybe I am simply not wearing the right tin foil hat to communicate with this alleged being "insert deity here".

And also to these three, keep in mind if you are unwilling to buy your own arguments when other people of other labels use those same arguments, then maybe the real truth is that it is merely all in your head.

But in any case, feel free to give it a shot at answering Luis's question.

 

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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Why do you ask?

Yes. The theist has no other source of information, I want one or more of them to defend it.

Revelation is the ONLY source of religious 'knowledge'. Everything else is apologetics.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Yes. The

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Yes. The theist has no other source of information, I want one or more of them to defend it.

Revelation is the ONLY source of religious 'knowledge'. Everything else is apologetics.

 

LC >;-}>

 

No problem. I myself enjoy reading their responses.

It boils down to "I am special".

What you are asking anyone or all of them is HOW, not who said what, not what book, but by what means this "revelation" was shown to them. That is what I read into your question, you can correct me if I am wrong.

There responses should be entertaining.

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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Low expectations...

I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.

 

LC >:-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I'm not

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.

The validity of a "revelation" is determined by its agreement with observed reality (can't contradict OBSERVED reality) as well as the accuracy of any future claims ( "prophecy" ).  I would argue that a set of "revelations" ( call it a "Holy Book" ) should also advance a sustainable society, otherwise we're all kinda screwed and the entity providing the "revelation" is just doodling ...

If you can accept that as a basis for a conversation, we can move on.  If not, I'd ask that you provide some kind of "test" of your own and we can discuss terms of engagement.

(Edited because the stupid software thinks '"' followed by ')' is some kind of smiley.)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Ok, I knew Furry would chime

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I'm not

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.

 

LC >:-}>

 

If theists were pro dodge ball players at the level of the Super Bowl they'd win. Well, not because they play by the rules, but because the rules change when it isn't convenient to stick to them.

But I am always interested to see their attempts.

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, I knew

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

I'm still trying to figure out this "Lee" person and how he's trying to prove the virgin birth using thermodynamics.  The only thing a "virgin birth" involving a non-corporeal deity results in is a female child.

Now, it could be that Jesus was really a girl with a facial hair problem, but the entire bit about him being circumcised rules that one out.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

I'm still trying to figure out this "Lee" person and how he's trying to prove the virgin birth using thermodynamics.  The only thing a "virgin birth" involving a non-corporeal deity results in is a female child.

Now, it could be that Jesus was really a girl with a facial hair problem, but the entire bit about him being circumcised rules that one out.

Furry, I love it when you point at others and say "Yea that's absurd", but wont look in the mirror yourself.

Baal, Asurha(sp) Yahweh, El and Elohim are all characters pulled out of the Canaanite pantheon that the Hebrews ended up using.

But I AM distracting you from Luis's question which is HOW this "truth" gets into your head regardless of you ignoring that your monotheism stems from prior polytheism.

So what does it take to get this "revelation" besides making quotes from your text? What is the medium used outside making quotes from your holy book? Prayer? Meditation? Tin foil hat?

Keep in mind no science class a person can take requires being Jewish, so if you are right there has to be a universal way to demonstrate the credibility of the claim outside of "My Jewish god is the only true god".

My money is on tin foil hat. I am sure you beg to differ.

 

 

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


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Jesus

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

 

Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC) 

Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps. 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I'm not

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.

 

LC >:-}>

 

 

"...tough questions..."

*cough*

Dont flatter yourself.

Spritual Revelation (sensus divinatis) is not the only basis of theistic thought.

If it were, religion would be a complete non-starter. "Revelation" supplements reality.

The thing about revelation which energizes theism is when two or more people have similar revelations. 

This corroborates the God Conclusion even when similar revelations are - not surprisingly -interpreted differently by different humans.

 

BTW - Evidence can be detected by the senses in many different forms - sound, sight, taste, touch. And those senses are not empirically calibrated. Dogs can "detect" sounds which the human ear cannot. And many so-called scientific discoveries, far from being accidental, are the result of a moment of inspiration for which the human finds it hard to account. If God put a thought (inspiration) into someones head that leads to a discovery we dont discount that discovery we simply accept it. Christopher Columbus' motivation to explore the New World was based in part on his interpretation of prophecy in 2 Esdras. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

 

Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC) 

Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps. 

 

Monotheism is rational? As in , one source of magic is more rational than none?

Paul was Jewish? Only if you accept the atheism of the Pope.

And damn those atheist who strain at "gnats" like the Bible not being consistent from one part to the next...

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lion IRC wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.

 

LC >:-}>

 

 

"...tough questions..."

*cough*

Dont flatter yourself.

Spritual Revelation (sensus divinatis) is not the only basis of theistic thought.

If it were, religion would be a complete non-starter. "Revelation" supplements reality.

The thing about revelation which energizes theism is when two or more people have similar revelations. 

This corroborates the God Conclusion even when similar revelations are - not surprisingly -interpreted differently by different humans.

 

BTW - Evidence can be detected by the senses in many different forms - sound, sight, taste, touch. And those senses are not empirically calibrated. Dogs can "detect" sounds which the human ear cannot. And many so-called scientific discoveries, far from being accidental, are the result of a moment of inspiration for which the human finds it hard to account. If God put a thought (inspiration) into someones head that leads to a discovery we dont discount that discovery we simply accept it. Christopher Columbus' motivation to explore the New World was based in part on his interpretation of prophecy in 2 Esdras. 

 

Since no two people have had similar revelations (including the Bible's authors) are you saying that theism is not energized?

Or is there another source of power? Like, say, controlling the gullible and making money?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

 

Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC) 

Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps. 

 

No no no no, that doesn't cut it. If being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, then why would there be any need to have the Christian religion?

If you are both from the same literary bloodline, AND YOU ARE, only in the sense that your literature stems from the same sources, then there is no reason to be a Christian. Furry was first so why isn't she a Christian?

You think Jews got it wrong and you got it right. So what. She thinks you got it wrong and she has it right.

Now, here is where Furry does one of two things with you.

She stands her ground and says, no, you got it wrong and Christianity is not the one right religion. Or she pawns it of as "well Jesus did exist but he wasn't the son of the Christian God". So either way, you can pretend to be buddy buddy, but the truth is if the religions are so interchangeable then it should not matter to either of you which god you believe in.

So the only reality there can be is that neither of you has evidence for their particular books being the right one exclusively and have no choice but to admit that it is merely a preference.

They are only related because of common names, characters and motifs. But they are by no means interchangeable.

If you are Christian, then you defend the Jesus story as being the real god. If you are Jewish then you defend the Hebrew God Yahweh as the one true god.

Jesus was a Jew is a cop out and a dodge.

How about this. Back then even prior to the Hebrews all the polytheistic cultures competed to sell their super heros. Modern monotheism cherry picked the parts they liked, created a new cult, and both Hebrews and Christianity came about, not because of any real god existing, not either one, but because of mere successful marketing of the super heros they wanted to have save them BACK THEN.

 

 

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Furry, I love

Brian37 wrote:

Furry, I love it when you point at others and say "Yea that's absurd", but wont look in the mirror yourself.

Kindly butt the f*ck out.

Seriously.  I like you, but you've taken a carbide grinding wheel to my last nerve.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
yadda yadda

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

 

Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC) 

Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps. 

 

No no no no, that doesn't cut it. If being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, then why would there be any need to have the Christian religion?

Judaism isnt a static religion. There is eschatology. There is Messianic hope. And there are/were righteous Jews before and after Jesus' advent. Christianity (acceptance of Jesus as Messiah) gives me NO RIGHT to walk into a synagogue and denounce anyone I choose.

Brian37 wrote:
...If you are both from the same literary bloodline, AND YOU ARE, only in the sense that your literature stems from the same sources, then there is no reason to be a Christian...

You're right, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the garden of Eden nor in the Kingdom of God. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
...Furry was first so why isn't she a Christian?...So either way, you can pretend to be buddy buddy...

pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...but the truth is if the religions are so interchangeable then it should not matter to either of you which god you believe in.

You're conflating our qualitative argument about the nature of God with a quantitative argument. Polytheists assert multiple gods. Monotheists assert One God. Atheists assert zero gods. Accept or reject the existence of God but please dont fall for the irrational, illogical counter-apologetic that...

1. People disagree about the (complex) nature of God...

2. Therefore, no God. 

And if you disagree, then try using that approach with the mistakes and disagreements seen in (supposedly empirical) science.

Brian37 wrote:
...So the only reality there can be is that neither of you has evidence for their particular books being the right one exclusively and have no choice but to admit that it is merely a preference.

"...the only reality"

Listen to yourself preaching about "the only" reality in the post-modern year 2011. It's funny because science (physics) is the very thing making "reality" a blur. Science is dragging us further and further away from a unified theory of everything - its all but given up hope. Dogmatic scientism is so last century. Modern cosmology and quantum physics looks more and more like "woo" than any theology I ever read.   

 

Brian37 wrote:
...They are only related because of common names, characters and motifs. But they are by no means interchangeable.

If you are Christian, then you defend ...a cop out and a dodge...Back then even prior to the Hebrews all the polytheistic cultures competed...Modern monotheism cherry picked the...created a new cult...marketing of the super heros...

Yadda Yadda. You're doing exactly what you accuse and assert as mandatory for me and Furry - you're sitting around splitting hairs and straining at gnats and making petty criticism of someone elses religious denomination. Divide and conquer...yeah, yeah I get it. Nothing subtle about this. Or original.

 

You forget that Jewish people argue theology among themselves with as much conviction as they would argue over the doctrines of other faiths. Christians are equally passionate about their internal doctrinal disputes.

 

God MATTERS A LOT!  

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Courtiers reply?

Atheists who want to get involved in debates about theist doctrines / theology make me smile?


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.

Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?

Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC) 

Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps.

Jesus, assuming he existed at all (my bet is that "Jesus" is a mash-up of people who did exist, and the martyrdom of the Apostle James in 55CE) may well have been a Jew, but he certainly wasn't the Messiah, and he absolutely certainly wasn't a god-man.

If the various stories about Jesus are even remotely true, Christianity is completely false.  If the stories about Jesus aren't true, Christianity is false anyway.  There's simply no =rational= way to go from Judaism to Christianity, nor is there any =rational= way to start with Matthew 1:1 and wind up with Christianity.

Islam has its own set of problems, but Christianity has far more.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Yadda Yadda.

Lion IRC wrote:
Yadda Yadda. You're doing exactly what you accuse and assert as mandatory for me and Furry - you're sitting around splitting hairs and straining at gnats and making petty criticism of someone elses religious denomination. Divide and conquer...yeah, yeah I get it. Nothing subtle about this. Or original.

I think Brian37 was warned, or else did the warning, that I enjoy slicing and dicing Christianity about as much as I do Atheism.  It won't be "Divide and Conquer".  It will be more like me and the Atheists against you, followed by me against the Atheists.

It things get bad enough, I'll probably suggest you become a Muslim.  At least they are monotheists.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
If you DIDNT think Jewish

If you DIDNT think Jewish doctrines were rationally superior, why else would you hold to them?

l like free thought and free speech FurryCatHerder

Knock yourself out.

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Its Rational to Hold Views you think are rational.

At least we can agree there will only be ONE winner when all is said and done and it wont be atheism.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Furry, I love it when you point at others and say "Yea that's absurd", but wont look in the mirror yourself.

Kindly butt the f*ck out.

Seriously.  I like you, but you've taken a carbide grinding wheel to my last nerve.

If this were a one on one thread, which it is not, I am being more than fair to you. I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand that I am "working your last nerve" deliberately to take you outside your comfort zone. It is easy to hid behind something and retreat to your own turf. Ugly? To you, but learning never happens in a comfort zone.

Now BOTH of you would be lying to me if you try to claim "it's all the same". To make that claim logically consistent then it should not matter which religion you follow or Lee follows. Since we both know you both have reasons for your specific positions Luis is trying, and I am trying to demonstrate to you WHY "revelation" cannot work as a logical standard.

Which is why I invited you and Lee and any other theist into this thread to answer his questions.

So bottom line you cannot cop out to "it is all the same". It is not otherwise you have no reason to hold the position you do. Jews and Christians are not the same and cannot be considered the same, other than having the same literary sources. Sharing literature is not the same as sharing the same God. You do not share the same "one true god" and cannot when both of you claim "the one true god".

Your position is the Jewish God is the one true god, and Lee's position is that the NT God is the one true god.

WHAT Luis is asking outside your respective books is HOW do you demonstrate this to others other than merely claiming it and quoting your respective books?

That is the question you have dodged and Lee has dodged,

HOW not who. HOW, be it the God of Yahweh or the God of Jesus? Or even the reveled "nervana" of Buddhism or the reveled "Karma" of Hinduism.

Makes no difference to me which god you like.

 

 

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


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Band-aid for that raw nerve?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

...It won't be "Divide and Conquer".  It will be more like me and the Atheists against you, followed by me against the Atheists.

Which atheists? LOL. You just invited one of them them to butt out.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
If things get bad enough, I'll probably suggest you become a Muslim.  At least they are monotheists.

How bad does it need to get for a Jewish person to side with atheists and promote Islam?

Thats some raw nerve you got there.

Here. Have a band-aid. We wouldn't want it to get infected now would we?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lion IRC wrote:At least we

Lion IRC wrote:

At least we can agree there will only be ONE winner when all is said and done and it wont be atheism.

"My daddy is going to kick your ass"  Yea yea yea. Get in line Muslims threaten atheists with Allah and their hell.

Yea, get that from everyone.

Ok fine, I'm going to get my ass handed to me. Fine. So what. If the "prize" is getting to suck up to a guy whose only goal is to get us to suck up to him, no thanks. I like my reason with a little more meat on it than "Just obey me and I wont hurt you".

Sorry, when I die, that is it. When you die, that is it. When Furry dies, that is it. When a Muslim dies, that is it. And when our species goes extinct, and it will eventually, all the human invented myths will die with our species because there wont be any future generation to sell our myths to. And our planet will die too none of us will be remembered by anyone or anything. The universe will continue without us.

I am quite confident ESPECIALLY with claims made in ancient times, that neither of you got it right and merely worship these books and fictional gods because someone sold you these claims.

So "atheists got it wrong" would not prove to Furry that the God of Jesus is the one true god. Nor would "atheists" got it wrong would prove to you that Jewish god of Yahweh and only the OT texts apply to the one true Jewish god.

So both of you are still stuck. But please, skip the veiled threats. They are just as hollow to me as threatening me with Allah or Thor.

You are both still stuck with the inability to demonstrate outside your respective books, to each other, much less me "how" this revelation is "true" to each of you.

 

 

 

 

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


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Veiled threats? Where? When? Look Out....it's right behind you!

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

At least we can agree there will only be ONE winner when all is said and done and it wont be atheism.

"My daddy is going to kick your ass"  Yea yea yea. Get in line Muslims threaten atheists with Allah and their hell.

Yea, get that from everyone.

Ok fine, I'm going to get my ass handed to me. Fine. So what. If the "prize" is getting to suck up to a guy whose only goal is to get us to suck up to him, no thanks. I like my reason with a little more meat on it than "Just obey me and I wont hurt you".

Sorry, when I die, that is it. When you die, that is it. When Furry dies, that is it. When a Muslim dies, that is it. And when our species goes extinct, and it will eventually, all the human invented myths will die with our species because there wont be any future generation to sell our myths to. And our planet will die too none of us will be remembered by anyone or anything. The universe will continue without us.

I am quite confident ESPECIALLY with claims made in ancient times, that neither of you got it right and merely worship these books and fictional gods because someone sold you these claims.

So "atheists got it wrong" would not prove to Furry that the God of Jesus is the one true god. Nor would "atheists" got it wrong would prove to you that Jewish god of Yahweh and only the OT texts apply to the one true Jewish god.

So both of you are still stuck. But please, skip the veiled threats. They are just as hollow to me as threatening me with Allah or Thor.

You are both still stuck with the inability to demonstrate outside your respective books, to each other, much less me "how" this revelation is "true" to each of you.

 

That's a lot of text in reply to one single sentence - which didnt "threaten" anyone.

You got a raw nerve too? 

300 word reply to "veiled threats". Gimme a break. You're being paranoid.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Armour of God

I got the whole armour of God.

Nothing threatens me.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
This will be (b'li neder) my

This will be (b'li neder) my last response to you, but only because you raise a ton of very common misconceptions that need to be aired.

Brian37 wrote:
No no no no, that doesn't cut it. If being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, then why would there be any need to have the Christian religion?

Excellent point, and there absolutely wasn't any need for it, except for the Romans.

Judaism is not conducive to kissing the asses of any ruler, save G-d.  Rome didn't much like that, and couldn't figure out why we weren't perfectly content to worship their pantheon of gods, and had a pretty rough time dealing with us.  Saul, who was a Hellenized ("Greek-ified&quotEye-wink Jew, saw an opportunity to fabricate a religion that was less hostile to Roman authority.  The key items that had to be tossed was everything that made us unique (cultural practices) and everything that made us offensive to Romans (refusing to recognize Caesar as king, male circumcision).  By sometime around 50CE, he'd invented a sort of universalist version of very watered-down Judaism.  How he latched on to "the Jesus Movement", which was more "political rebellion" oriented than the "Let's go live in the desert" Essenes, is a mystery, but enough Jews hated Roman occupation that someone who wanted to kick Roman butt was likely.

Thus, the need for Christianity wasn't theological, it was purely political -- a way to make nice with Rome =and= fool as many Jews as possible.  In the First Jewish War (when the Temple was destroyed) the Romans did a pretty good job of breaking up Judaism as a religion, but Judaism had survived several other efforts, and we refused to just go away.  By 135CE, and the Bar Kochbah Rebellion, Rome was well and properly fed up and destroyed as much of Judea as possible, murdered a million or so Jews, took however many of us they could take away into slavery, and figured they were done.  By this time Christianity had legs and survived, eventually becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire.  Which was then rewarded with crumbling into non-existence.

Quote:
If you are both from the same literary bloodline, AND YOU ARE, only in the sense that your literature stems from the same sources, then there is no reason to be a Christian. Furry was first so why isn't she a Christian?

Christianity is based on Judaism the same way a vacuum cleaner is based on a potato peeler -- they both likely have metal parts and may or may not fit in ones hand.

Quote:
You think Jews got it wrong and you got it right. So what. She thinks you got it wrong and she has it right.

Now, here is where Furry does one of two things with you.

Heh.

Quote:
She stands her ground and says, no, you got it wrong and Christianity is not the one right religion. Or she pawns it of as "well Jesus did exist but he wasn't the son of the Christian God". So either way, you can pretend to be buddy buddy, but the truth is if the religions are so interchangeable then it should not matter to either of you which god you believe in.

Playing "buddy buddy" with Christians is nice when it comes time to try and get the world headed in a better direction, but I'm not a polytheist.

Quote:
Jesus was a Jew is a cop out and a dodge.

Jesus was a Jew is an excuse to co-opt Judaism and try to justify gross mistranslations of Hebrew.  On the basis of Jewish Law, not only is Christianity impossible, but Christianity doesn't even meet the requirements to be "true" if it =were= possible.  By which I mean, that if there was some possibility (which there isn't) for a man-god to be the savior of Humanity, Jesus doesn't fill the requirements for being that man-god.  AT ALL.

Quote:
How about this. Back then even prior to the Hebrews all the polytheistic cultures competed to sell their super heros. Modern monotheism cherry picked the parts they liked, created a new cult, and both Hebrews and Christianity came about, not because of any real god existing, not either one, but because of mere successful marketing of the super heros they wanted to have save them BACK THEN.

The problem with your arguments is one that Muslims often encounter when they run into Christians who insist that "Allah" is the Moon God or some other such silliness.  If you understood Semetic languages, you'd immediately recognize what "Allah" is, and it isn't some moon god.  All your talk about "El" and "Yahweh" and "Ba'al" is fueled by ignorance -- many words that are part of language =today= as "names" were words before they were names.  John Smith isn't some guy with a last name of "Smith", he's likely some guy who's father's-father's-...-father was a "smith" of some sort.  These things aren't a mystery to me, and I don't think the Baal Shem Tov was some guy who engaged in Ba'al worship.  "Baal" is just a word.

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

The other problem you have is that many of the things you accept as facts aren't facts, they are conjecture.  How the Documentary Wild Guess has survived is truly a mystery -- there are people who recognize my style of writing in =this= sort of space, who can't recognize my writing in others.  This the fatal flaw of the Documentary Wild Guess and all textual criticisms which are based on it.

Finally, Judaism is booby-trapped as a religion and has been booby-trapped as far back as anyone has managed to find portions of manuscripts, which is pushing 2,700 years right about now.  That, by the way, puts the "start" of when texts can be compared to before the date set for the Documentary Wild Guess.

When the Torah is compared between texts from groups of Jews that were separated from Israel and Judea, not only are the texts the same, with an extremely small number of deviations (none of which matter), but the =differences= in practices and whatnot are consistent with the time at which the populations were separated.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC

Lion IRC wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

...It won't be "Divide and Conquer".  It will be more like me and the Atheists against you, followed by me against the Atheists.

Which atheists? LOL. You just invited one of them them to butt out.

Brian needs to stay out of this because he doesn't have the slightest idea what Judaism or Christianity =are= and his approach to advancing Atheism borders on the rabid.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Brian a lot.  He seems genuinely concerned about the state of Humanity, and that's a major plus in a person.  I just think he'd do well to stay out of this one.

Lion IRC wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
If things get bad enough, I'll probably suggest you become a Muslim.  At least they are monotheists./quote]

How bad does it need to get for a Jewish person to side with atheists and promote Islam?

Most of the Atheists here seem to be fairly good people, even if they don't believe in G-d.  You'd do well to read my signature.

Would I rather you became a Jew than a Muslim?  Sure, but most Christians have too much of a love-fest going on for Jesus for them to make good Jews.  That and we don't recruit.

At least in Islam, Jesus is still a prophet, so you'd get to have some Isa love going on, so long as you also embrace Rasul Allah.  Islam's one major redeeming feature is that it is a monotheistic religion, which puts it a few of the 10 Commandments ahead of Christianity.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lion IRC wrote:I got the

Quote:
Brian needs to stay out of this because he doesn't have the slightest idea what Judaism or Christianity =are= and his approach to advancing Atheism borders on the rabid.

No, "RABID" is what some of even your own Jews did in defacing an ice cream shop because sticking tongues out has a sexual connotation your REALLY rabid Jews do. "Rabid" is tearing down a poster because a woman's bear sholders were exposed. And if you guessed it was Israel where it happened and Jews who did it, right again.

"Rabid" is slamming planes into buildings. "Rabid" is what the Church did to Galileo. "Rabid" is what the Dark Ages were to non Christians. Thats "Rabid".

Don't confuse passion for debate and bluntness and blasphemy for being "rabid".

And as far as not knowing anything about Christianity, I was raised Catholic. And have read the same OT and bibles you have. And you can even post whatever links to whatever texts you want here. So how inviting you to try to make a case is "rabid" is silly.

Now since you don't trust me because you think I am "Rabid" which is silly, but fine, we also have an ex minister here as well who is even much more of a historian than I am.

I am not calling for your arrest, not even calling for you to be booted off this site. So please, stop calling me "rabid". It is silly and exposes your thin skin.

 

 

 

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


wondering (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:I got the

Lion IRC wrote:

I got the whole armour of God.

Nothing threatens me.

So making stuff up is also a good defense mechanism ? Weird.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Now I did make one possible

Now I did make one possible mistake. I want to clear this up, but if the case, even better.

IRC, are you a Christian or a Muslim? If I got the wrong one stuck in my head please clear that up.

But I'd love to see all three participating in this thread in any case.

Now all three read this and picture Monty Burns from the Simpsons tapping his fingers saying "EXCELLENT" and you've got me down pat. In a silly way, not a serious way.

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:The other problem you

Quote:
The other problem you have is that many of the things you accept as facts aren't facts, they are conjecture.

Wow, for someone even before they get to their texts who defaults to the MOTHER OF all "conjecture" being the naked assertion of "My god is the one true god". That's rich.

Muslims and Christians claim that too.

WHICH IS WHY Luis wanted to avoid all your books and try to get you to find some way to translate what is in your head to others outside your head beyond the words you read or repeat. Something that, if could be done, would cut through all the crap and division that would make it clear to all, beyond "my god is the one true god".

"My book says" all of you claim. "My god is the one true god" all of you claim. What none of you have is a way to DEMONSTRATE how this "truth" was "reveled" to you. You don't have that and they don't either.

I may have made a mistake by interjecting because you haven't nor has LEE focused on his question. But even he admitted that it most likely would not produce anything fruitful other than what we've seen so far, which quite predictably you have lived up to.

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious FurryCatHerder

I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.

 

 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:...an unusual signature

FurryCatHerder wrote:

...Most of the Atheists here seem to be fairly good people, even if they don't believe in G-d.  You'd do well to read my signature.

Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.

Your scriptures may guide you (or not) about how God views such attitudes. You make of them what you will - mostly good people, fairly good people, really good people. You're entitled to your own opinions.  

 

OK if you insist. Lets take a look at that sig.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

 

I'm firstly struck by your unusual claim that the existence of God is a truth you hold with EQUAL force as the certainty with which believe in FurryCatHerder's pronouncements about who God will and will not DEFINITELY be judging as righteous or otherwise. 

Being "equally convinced" about the existence of God as you are about your own insight about what's in the hearts of atheists and Christians at the final judgement of their "good lives" strikes me as a bit pretentious. 

 

I'm also interested to know if you deliberately or inadvertently omitted the disposition of God towards Jews...

... "who've treated people like dirt". 

Or is this an area where you are "equally convinced" but less willing to write about your own certainty of God.  

 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I'm

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.

 

Theism and atheism are both optional.

I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I leave you guys alone for a couple of hours....

Lion IRC

Quote:
Jesus was Jewish.
If he existed at all.

Quote:
(Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC)

Why? I can't think of a rational reason why if you accept the existence of one invisible, intangible sentient being with magical powers it precludes the existence of others. I could argue that a number of beings, dividing power and responsibility makes more sense than a singular superbeing.

Quote:
Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.

Very ecumenical of you... but I don't see it.

Quote:
And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps.

Are you really going to try and claim that all believers are the same? That there is no very real difference between Catholics and Jews? Baptists and Muslims? Mormons and human beings? Really?

While you might want to sell an image of all god believers sitting around the camp fire singing kumbaya, it doesn't fit the reality of world history.

I can argue that all beliefs are equally silly, and all are concurrently wrong, for you to argue that you are all on the same page or even in the same book is absurd.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lion IRC wrote:blacklight915

Lion IRC wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.

 

Theism and atheism are both optional.

I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.

Great, now whatever fan club you belong to, would you PRETTY PLEASE, tell those under your same label to STOP using our planet as a giant game of capture the flag? Is that too much considering all of us only have one planet to live on?

But, as great as I think that attitude would be, the books all three of you use ARE weapons which is why even with what you say, others who believe do read that same book and use it to justify violence, even if you don't yourself. If all of humanity were like you, I could live with your absurd claims and comic books.

The OT and even parts of the NT and Revelations and the Koran are chalk full of words people read and turn around and use to infect politics and education and also use it to justify violence. EVEN IF you yourself say you would not use force. Get the world's population to that point and I wouldn't care at all what holy book you read or what god you believe in.

But since that ain't going to happen, I am going to do my best to marginalize and demonize and make fun of any moron, defending blind faith, be it of a state or a god.

 

 

 

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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Round One, lay on....

Quote:
"...tough questions..."

*cough*

Dont flatter yourself.

Why? You certainly haven't come close to a convincing answer.

Spritual Revelation (sensus divinatis) is not the only basis of theistic thought.

If it were, religion would be a complete non-starter. "Revelation" supplements reality.

Wrong. ALL religion begins with revelation. It is the basic component. There is NO direct observation of god to be had. No direct way that such a being communicates its wishes. Everything you believe is true arose from the fertile imagination of another human being.

So tell me... who observed and reported the events of say... Genesis?

Quote:
The thing about revelation which energizes theism is when two or more people have similar revelations.
It would if it ever happened.

Quote:
This corroborates the God Conclusion even when similar revelations are - not surprisingly -interpreted differently by different humans.
So if two people have the same delusion, it corroborates your delusion?

 

Quote:
BTW - Evidence can be detected by the senses in many different forms - sound, sight, taste, touch. And those senses are not empirically calibrated.

But these ARE empirical senses. And they are subject to error, and misinterpretation.

Quote:
Dogs can "detect" sounds which the human ear cannot.

And sharks can detect electrical signals, eagles can spot a mouse from 500 yards away ...so what?

Quote:
And many so-called scientific discoveries, far from being accidental, are the result of a moment of inspiration for which the human finds it hard to account.

Can you name one that depended entirely on revelation Lee??? Just one. I mean, if it's accepted as science it requires empirical verification experimentation and replication... saying that someone has an idea doesn't even hint at a supernatural origin.

Quote:
If God put a thought (inspiration) into someones head that leads to a discovery we dont discount that discovery we simply accept it.

No, but we can dismiss that a god had anything to do with it because there's no reason to assume something so asinine.

Quote:
Christopher Columbus' motivation to explore the New World was based in part on his interpretation of prophecy in 2 Esdras.

Christopher Columbus, genocidal maniac, would be conqueror was motivated by greed, nothing more.

 

LC >;-}>


 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:I got the

Lion IRC wrote:

I got the whole armour of God.

Nothing threatens me.

God Armour

200 hit points

quality 19/20

-20 to reason

+5 to blind faith

-50 to IQ

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 

Quote:
And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps.

Are you really going to try and claim that all believers are the same? That there is no very real difference between Catholics and Jews? Baptists and Muslims? Mormons and human beings? Really?

 

No I'm not claiming all believers are the same.

Read it again. I specifically used the word "differences"

Islam and Christianity and Judaism have some major doctrinal differences. They are rightly called "different" religions.

But if you put them along side one another and then compare them to ATHEISM they may as well be identical religions.

 

AvT = atheism versus theism. Thats the only game in town if you are an atheist.

Once you've gotten rid of the Catholics, and the protestants, and the JW's and the Mormons, and the Sunni and the Shiias and the Messianic Jews and the Haredi Jews, and the Lithuanian Jews, and so for and so on...

THEN...you can start on the Hindus. And after that the Buddhists. And after that the Indigenous religions. (Land rights) And then the Wiccans. And then the New Agers. Rastafarians. Satanists. Falun Gong....

 

And after you've debunked several thousand deities (many/most of which could be abstractions of each other,) then you can make up your mind about whether atheism permits belief in angels, feng shui, souls, afterlife, extra terrestial beings, parallel space-time dimensions....

 

And we can move on from AvT to atheism versus everything not clearly visible under a magnifying glass.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lion IRC wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 

Quote:
And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps.

Are you really going to try and claim that all believers are the same? That there is no very real difference between Catholics and Jews? Baptists and Muslims? Mormons and human beings? Really?

 

No I'm not claiming all believers are the same.

Read it again. I specifically used the word "differences"

Islam and Christianity and Judaism have some major doctrinal differences. They are rightly called "different" religions.

But if you put them along side one another and then compare them to ATHEISM they may as well be identical religions.

 

AvT = atheism versus theism. Thats the only game in town if you are an atheist.

Once you've gotten rid of the Catholics, and the protestants, and the JW's and the Mormons, and the Sunni and the Shiias and the Messianic Jews and the Haredi Jews, and the Lithuanian Jews, and so for and so on...

THEN...you can start on the Hindus. And after that the Buddhists. And after that the Indigenous religions. (Land rights) And then the Wiccans. And then the New Agers. Rastafarians. Satanists. Falun Gong....

 

And after you've debunked several thousand deities (many/most of which could be abstractions of each other,) then you can make up your mind about whether atheism permits belief in angels, feng shui, souls, afterlife, extra terrestial beings, parallel space-time dimensions....

 

And we can move on from AvT to atheism versus everything not clearly visible under a magnifying glass.

I don't really need to do that. All I have to do is get someone, anyone to show any real evidence that an invisible, intangible sentient being with magical powers can and does exist. Thus far, you haven't presented any. Nor has any form of revelation.

After that, I have to be shown that the consciousness can and does in any form survive the death of the body. Again, you have no evidence of this, and neither has any revelation provided evidence.

 

These are the only questions that actually matter, not the size shape hair color or dick size of your favorite deity. I don't care what flavor you favor.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Atheism is attended

Quote:
Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Now lets break this down piece by piece.

1. "Disbelief", no no no no....." lack of belief" is much more accurate.

2. "Rejection of god" yes and so what. I also reject Thor and Vishnu as well, see, you don't have to feel so lonely.

3. "hatred of God" yes, but depends on the context. We cant hate something we don't believe anymore than you can hate Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. But you would hate it if a politician tried to run on "I believe in Lex Luthor".  And I think you would hate it if someone walked into a science class and tried to sell Micky Mouse as the inventor of entropy.

Part of two number 3 would be a "lets pretend" . If we are pretending such a god were real in that context yes, we would hate such a prick who felt he had no obligation to explain himself for the mess he allows his creation to suffer in. But since it is just pretend, the only real thing atheists hate is the concept as a claim, not a reality.

4. "putting God to the proof", I think what you meant was "putting god to the test".

Yes and I don't see why not. It took someone to question the sun being a god for people to give up on sun worship.

If merely making claims is all it takes to believe in any god, then all gods are true all at the same time. You also said "we are all entitled to our own opinions" true. But we are NOT entitled to our own facts, which is what the universal tool of scientific method does to cut through "opinion".

But your original quote is merely you squirming at the mirror being put to your logic, not any REAL description a mental defect you'd like to falsely paint us with.

5. "Mockery" that too, hate to inform you but in civil societies that value dissent there is no protection from "mockery". Thats a good thing because I think Saudi Arabia deserves to be mocked for just now getting around to allowing women to vote. I don't think women are even allowed to drive there. I think it is far worse in Afghanistan.

I think even here in the states like the Mormon claim that special underwear insures the quality of the marriage somehow "magically" as if it were a Kosher food that had been blessed by a Mormon preacher.

I think religion in general should be mocked for not allowing women to lead the respective houses of worship be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

 

 

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


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
the ability to mock and insult isnt helping team atheism.

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.

 

Theism and atheism are both optional.

I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.

Great, now whatever fan club you belong to, would you PRETTY PLEASE, tell those under your same label to STOP using our planet as a giant game of capture the flag? Is that too much considering all of us only have one planet to live on?...

You want me to tell them? Whats wrong with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins et al.

Brian37 wrote:
...I am going to do my best to marginalize and demonize and make fun of any moron, defending blind faith, be it of a state or a god.

Sure. But the problem you face is not a lack of ability to mock and insult. It's the lack of ability to convince people that their theism is blind, unfounded, delusional, lacking evidence, etc.

 

Your opinion that certain evidence is unpersuasive does not translate into ..."no evidence whatsoever". If anything, the assertion that there is no evidence and never has been any evidence for theism amounts to an extraordinary claim in itself. 

 

 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Atheism

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Yep. I get that you dont. I was asking FurryCatHerder to consider what the Torah instructs.

Brian37 wrote:
Now lets break this down piece by piece.

1. "Disbelief", no no no no....." lack of belief" is much more accurate.

>snip< semantics/whatever.

 

Brian37 wrote:
4. "putting God to the proof", I think what you meant was "putting god to the test".

I wrote exactly what I meant. FurryCatHerder has Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms. She wont have trouble finding the verses.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC

Lion IRC wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

...Most of the Atheists here seem to be fairly good people, even if they don't believe in G-d.  You'd do well to read my signature.

Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.

Your scriptures may guide you (or not) about how God views such attitudes. You make of them what you will - mostly good people, fairly good people, really good people. You're entitled to your own opinions. 

Atheism is no such thing.  Atheists have a wide variety of attitudes towards G-d from disinterest to dislike to hatred.  Some atheists come to their lack of belief simply by never being exposed to a real effort to educate them about what some religion teaches.  They grow up in an environment where religious beliefs just don't exist, and by the time they are adults with well-formed opinions, "Religion" just doesn't matter.  Others "lose their faith", still others find belief in various gods to be morally repugnant, based on what people have done in the name of this religion or that.  Some feel that if G-d exists, G-d needs to make a better show of things -- the very concept of "blind faith" is just not acceptable.  And some seem to hate the idea of some Supreme Being telling them what is or isn't morally right, all the while failing to notice that they cannot flap their wings and fly, or jump off arbitrarily tall buildings and not splat.

Lion IRC wrote:

OK if you insist. Lets take a look at that sig.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I'm firstly struck by your unusual claim that the existence of God is a truth you hold with EQUAL force as the certainty with which believe in FurryCatHerder's pronouncements about who God will and will not DEFINITELY be judging as righteous or otherwise.

I'm having a hard time parsing your response, but my sig is a rational statement of my beliefs.  The notion that "salvation" is purely dependent on "belief" is irrational, baring some deity who's willing to make an appearance at regularly scheduled intervals -- say, once a week.  Likewise, belief in a =specific= theology seems equally irrational barring that same deity saying "THIS IS THE RIGHT ONE.  GO HERE." at that regularly scheduled interval.

With so many religions claiming to be The One True Religion, it's pretty hard figuring out which one IS The One True Religion.

Quote:
Being "equally convinced" about the existence of God as you are about your own insight about what's in the hearts of atheists and Christians at the final judgement of their "good lives" strikes me as a bit pretentious.

Not in the least.  Once you understand that absent "HERE I AM.  THIS IS THE REAL RELIGION.  LINE UP HERE!" there is simply no =rational= reason to accept one religion over another, including "No Religion" over any other religion.  For a belief-based religion to be "Just" or "Fair" or "Rational", whoever is in charge of deciding how punishment and reward is handed out needs to make absolutely sure that everyone really does have a shot at "Belief".  Since there are no gods with giant neon signs pointing the way to the One True Religion, that pretty much leaves people to figuring out how to get along with each other, and themselves, on their own.

And that's what the signature is about -- people who learn how to play nice and advance the Humanity of everyone on this Rock get the reward and people who don't, don't.  I'm pleased to say that I think more than a few such people exist here, even though they have absolutely =zero= belief in G-d.

Quote:
I'm also interested to know if you deliberately or inadvertently omitted the disposition of God towards Jews...

... "who've treated people like dirt". 

Or is this an area where you are "equally convinced" but less willing to write about your own certainty of God.

Jews are graded on a curve, as it were.  Jews who behave badly are judged more harshly than non-Jews who behave badly.  Jews who behave well aren't judged more favorably -- we're =expected= to behave well.  It's what we're "Chosen" to do -- be a light unto the nations.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Lion IRC wrote:I

Ktulu wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

I got the whole armour of God.

Nothing threatens me.

God Armour

200 hit points

quality 19/20

-20 to reason

+5 to blind faith

-50 to IQ

+1.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13403
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.

 

Theism and atheism are both optional.

I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.

Great, now whatever fan club you belong to, would you PRETTY PLEASE, tell those under your same label to STOP using our planet as a giant game of capture the flag? Is that too much considering all of us only have one planet to live on?...

You want me to tell them? Whats wrong with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins et al.

Brian37 wrote:
...I am going to do my best to marginalize and demonize and make fun of any moron, defending blind faith, be it of a state or a god.

Sure. But the problem you face is not a lack of ability to mock and insult. It's the lack of ability to convince people that their theism is blind, unfounded, delusional, lacking evidence, etc.

 

Your opinion that certain evidence is unpersuasive does not translate into ..."no evidence whatsoever". If anything, the assertion that there is no evidence and never has been any evidence for theism amounts to an extraordinary claim in itself. 

 

 

Still not getting it. Dawkins and the late Hitchens were not advocating violence and would not value ANY atheist who would. And if you would even BOTHER reading their books, you wont see one cuss word in them. You wont read any call for oppression of religion in any of those books. Criticism of a belief is not the same as calling for a ban on making those claims.

Now I insult and Pwnn's book "God No" has cuss words on just about every page. But even with him and I we would never value any type of violent protest against religion. He like I have the same attitude "attack the claim" and that is ALL we are doing. If any atheist were to ever physically threaten you merely because they find your claims absurd, I would be the first to defend you. Insulting your belief is not a crime. States with blasphemy laws look like Iran and North Korea(blasphemy against the state is not allowed).

Penn, like I think most humans are decent. But just because we say that does not mean their claims deserve taboo status.

AND , there is plenty of evidence that humans have made religious claims and claims about ALL SORTS OF GODS, that is not the same as having evidence for a god.

A history of tradition does not equate to truth. A history of believing the sun was a god existed and there is evidence in Egypt right now, that you can physically go see, that depicts the sun as a deity, yet you don't worship the sun.

Look in the mirror yourself before you go around throwing false accusations about me, and Dawkins and Hitchens or any other atheist you've never personally met.

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Quote:My question

luca wrote:

Quote:
My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

Are you really asking this question?

 

Not a valid means to gather opinions?

OP: I can determine my next course of action and have an epiphany, at times, by delving a bit into creative thinking better known as "imagination".

What differentiates this from revelating? My guess would be assigning a person's willpower (or the origins of it) to something other than their own cognitive ability. This includes "invisible skydaddies". Cj's example of "drugs" applies, to.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)