Questions for the believer.

Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions for the believer.

Dear Members

To promote skepticism/critical thinking I wrote some questions for the Christian believer. Are you able to put the link to these questions at this forum.

Thank you very much,

Piet - Rotterdam - Netherlands.

The original questions

http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8382
The translation
http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10033

Ps. Many years ago I read a very good historical review written by Rook Hawkins. Is he still active?
My knowledge of English is too poor for a good discussion. So I spent my time with reading and watch the replies.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.Rook

Welcome to the forum.

Rook Hawkins is no longer active here. Last time I checked, he is now a deist and is still active on his personal blog.

 

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
His blog now states himself

His blog now states himself as a Possibilian.

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

Which sounds like an agnostic atheist with an imaginative speculation streak to me.

Quote:

Sam Harris (one of the four most prominent new atheists) has attacked possibilianism as intellectually dishonest, and its description of strong atheism as a straw man. Harris writes that the position Eagleman espouses "is, simply, atheism."

I think he probably just wanted to get away from being termed an "atheist".

Really all these terms are just getting ridiculous.

You can call me a Possibilian I suppose.  I call myself an Agnostic Atheist.  But if the person on the street asks me I just say Agnostic.  If another atheist asks me I say Atheist.

Because I get really bored with trying to explain what an Agnostic Atheist is.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Because I

Watcher wrote:

 

Because I get really bored with trying to explain what an Agnostic Atheist is.

 

 

Most of the times I call myself secular humanist.  But for my friends I am an atheist.  Because I do not believe in a god or something else.  Interesting that Rook Hawkins claims to be a deist.    Maybe he has to read Victor Stenger.  


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

"Possibilianism" is already built into the scientific method, it just means you lean to open mindedness.  I agree with Sam Harris, Eagleman is an atheist and wants to boost public relations.  I call myself an atheist; I rarely have to tell people what an agnostic atheist is (which is what I am).  They seem to understand that agnosticism and atheism are two different categories after I describe it.

 

Eagleman is also taking an accomodationist approach to religion.  I think he knows that you can call yourself an atheist and not be a confrontationist; maybe he wants recognition on the scene with what appears to be a new style.  I think his approach will sell well, and he has charisma, but I'm not a fan of continually changing labels.  It's like when atheists use the label "brights" or when homosexuals chose "gay" as their label because it had a good meaning.  And now gays are adopting other positive words like "Pride" and symbols like the rainbow.  The problem is that it's not the word that people don't like, it's what the word represents.  (I think changing labels can help a little bit and in the short term.)

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Piet wrote:Watcher

Piet wrote:

Watcher wrote:
Because I get really bored with trying to explain what an Agnostic Atheist is.

Most of the times I call myself secular humanist.  But for my friends I am an atheist.  Because I do not believe in a god or something else.  Interesting that Rook Hawkins claims to be a deist.    Maybe he has to read Victor Stenger.  

There was a stretch of time before I "officially" dumped Christianity and decided to run back to the religion of my ancestors when I identified as a Deist.  It's not a hard position to reach, even without reading the writings of any particular author.  I'd even go so far as to say that it's the logical conclusion of anyone who holds a theistic world-view and explores other theologies.

I'd even go so far as to say that if Judaism was an exclusionary religion -- "We're right, you're going to Hell", the way Christianity and Islam are -- that I'd still be a Deist.

The biggest issue I had, between the time I dumped Christianity and made a decision to run off and be a Jew, is that there are no Deist churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting halls or =anything=.

"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."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:The

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The biggest issue I had, between the time I dumped Christianity and made a decision to run off and be a Jew, is that there are no Deist churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting halls or =anything=.

You could have found a Unitarian Universalist congregation.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Piet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Piet wrote:

Watcher wrote:
Because I get really bored with trying to explain what an Agnostic Atheist is.

Most of the times I call myself secular humanist.  But for my friends I am an atheist.  Because I do not believe in a god or something else.  Interesting that Rook Hawkins claims to be a deist.    Maybe he has to read Victor Stenger.  

There was a stretch of time before I "officially" dumped Christianity and decided to run back to the religion of my ancestors when I identified as a Deist.  It's not a hard position to reach, even without reading the writings of any particular author.  I'd even go so far as to say that it's the logical conclusion of anyone who holds a theistic world-view and explores other theologies.

I'd even go so far as to say that if Judaism was an exclusionary religion -- "We're right, you're going to Hell", the way Christianity and Islam are -- that I'd still be a Deist.

The biggest issue I had, between the time I dumped Christianity and made a decision to run off and be a Jew, is that there are no Deist churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting halls or =anything=.

"I have less baggage, Jews don't threaten people with hell"

Still doesn't mean you don't have any baggage.

The OT God which IS your god is a nasty guy to outsiders. You cannot escape that.

But even before you get to word one of your texts you STILL start with the naked assertion that a non material thinking entity is real. DESPITE consciousness is only found in evolution. So even a generic "DEIST" god is bunk as a claim.

And you ignore the fact that your holy book IS even today used as a weapon by other Jews even without the baggage of hell you claim Jews dont sell.

Religion, yours and the other two especially, is inherently divisive and the REAL life history outside those three has constantly demonstrated that in the history of all three.

I would not call such a god, not even yours moral, to allow such suffering. If your manuals or their manuals were sufficient to make peace then that should have been reached by now. Proxy of tradition and laying claims to a god IS WHY human division exists. I'd call any god who allows this A PRICK and no one I would consider moral, especially one that could fix all this any time it wanted.

Now, the scientific reality is that our modern species has been around for half a million years. I find it funny that ANY GOD would wait all that time and then suddenly get involved just a couple thousand years ago.

Where was this god when humans didn't build houses and lived in caves? Where was it when our species didn't have writing at all and only painted pictures?

Reality is slapping you in the face Furry and you ignore it.

There is no god and never was. The reason God was not arround half a million years ago is because humans didn't have the affective marketing tool of writing then, so they couldn't invent them or sell their superstitions as well.

There were polythiesitic gods long before the Hebrews stole their characters from polytheism and marketed their new superstition.

The Universe is 14 billion years old. Why all that time for an all powerful god, just to stick us on this tiny dot with no way to get off and even wait billions of years to create us, and then wait after billions of years, wait another half a million years to FINALY say something?

Rediculous. The reality of truth in the context of the age of our universe, our planet, evolution, the evolution of our species, which most of it has been non writing and ignorant. Suddenly because humans, AND NOT EVEN JEWS, invented writing, somehow all this slow action to you means a god?

RE DIC U LOUS

The animal gods of the cave dwellers were made up. The volcano gods of polytheism were made up. The Egyptian sun god was made up, and your God of Abraham is merely a spin off of prior polytheism. Christianity is a spin off of Hebrews. And Islam is a spin off of Hebrews.

HUMANS invent gods, gods are not real. I find it absurd knowing the time frame billions of years just for the past 5 thousand years to suddenly be special. ABSURD!

 

 

 

 

"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


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: I'd

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

I'd even go so far as to say that if Judaism was an exclusionary religion -- "We're right, you're going to Hell", the way Christianity and Islam are -- that I'd still be a Deist.

The biggest issue I had, between the time I dumped Christianity and made a decision to run off and be a Jew, is that there are no Deist churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting halls or =anything=.

But what next. An adeist?   Is this more an intellectual point of view.  There's no proof; just a weak concept of a hit and run god.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Piet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Piet wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

I'd even go so far as to say that if Judaism was an exclusionary religion -- "We're right, you're going to Hell", the way Christianity and Islam are -- that I'd still be a Deist.

The biggest issue I had, between the time I dumped Christianity and made a decision to run off and be a Jew, is that there are no Deist churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting halls or =anything=.

But what next. An adeist?   Is this more an intellectual point of view.  There's no proof; just a weak concept of a hit and run god.  

Furry without realizing it is trying to paint her Jewish God as being a Jeffersonian Deist God. Jefferson with his "Jesus was just a man" had the same approach but he was still buying into some sort of generic god of nature which, like you said, is nothing but a "hit and run" concept which, even in this case does not explain a thing.

Neither he at his time, or Furry today, can escape the intent of the writings of the myths when they were written. When you read any of those books they do not start with.

"I (insert deity here), am going to get the ball rolling and then step aside."

When you read all three books you read about a head Character who is actively, all be it selectively, involved constantly in a very arbitrary manor which just so happens to lead to each readers end wishes(insert deity here).

It is all self serving and trying to cop out to "he doesn't get involved" by any of them is in direct conflict to the stories in those books which clearly show he does get involved.

It is a clear demonstration that those monotheistic books were a reflection of human ignorance which got successfully marketed as their label making them special. All those books were written in a culture where the powerful really literally thought that their success was the result of an invisible friend. But that mental trap was merely something modern monotheism stole from prior polytheism.

"My success means my deity is real" is the same mental trap the Egyptians fell for. Even Akanaton attempted to streamline the polytheism by making Ra the sun god the only real god. A much older attempt at monotheism than the Hebrews. It failed after he died and the Egyptians tried to erase his attempt at monotheism.

Zoroaster is also a much older attempt at monotheism than the Hebrews.

All cultures be they polytheist or monotheist during that time falsely attributed their success to divine help.

 

"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


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum.

Rook Hawkins is no longer active here. Last time I checked, he is now a deist and is still active on his personal blog.

 

 

Do you have a link for me?  Thanks.  


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Translate

I am thinking about dropping the last part of the questions in this arena.  Is there somebody who has the creative skills to perform bing/google translation in current English.  

 

Grtz,

 

Piet

 


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
This is what I mean about

This is what I mean about Bing translation.

13. Statement Ralf Bodelier: "now I'm not only atheist. I am also theologian. I already say I prefer: studéérde theology. In addition, I taught for years at a college. Almost weekly if I answer the question of students and colleagues how a theologian in God's name can be an atheist.My answer was rude and of rhetorical nature, although I still think the nail on its head. It was roughly as follows.
' That you which surprises! You need not to suffer cancer oncologist to be? There is much to be said for particular scepticism about theologians who believe in God. As an oncologist is no longer able to sober diagnose if he is experiencing excruciating pains, you can expect a theologian not balanced judgment if he let his thinking by blurring religious mist ".

Thus Ralf Bode lier you yourself something proposals at this answer?

14. A plane crashes and the 450 passengers survives only one person. "There is a miracle by certain persons called with the Word as final cry thanked Mr.". What do we do with the other 449 people.
15. The language factor in religion. Words can be true, false, or nonsense. Language Is essential for religion? Something happens after the use of words? The function of language is not heavily exaggerated?
16. are semantic word games an effective way to convince others of your own religious right?
17. Is ontological proof valid? If so, call a successful example?
18. Why is atheism the dominant philosophies under Nobel Prize winners?
19. we think that others share our opinion Wrongly often. This is characteristic of our social empathy. You might God call a product of the empathy of someone. If you liked this concept develops than you can expect that his opinion matches one that believeth. Nicholas Epley has done to research here. In moral issues showed this to be wrong. During the investigation, it was the opinion of the subjects on surreptitiously adjusted. It turned out that "God ' meedraaide also. A kind of compass what related is our own social empathy. So with all winds blowing this god?
20. "Why questions"; play an important role in the development of a child. It is a "teleological" way of thinking. It is extremely useful for their personal development. They learn unconsciously much things. For example, toddlers know intuitively no limits. For each problem a suitable solution. They were unrestrained. Intuitive thinking in them preferable to a rational explanation.However a person's cognitive development continues and the ratio is increasingly taking the upper hand. Are adults who screens with a teleological explanation actually stuck in their infancy?

21. My soulmate has on his site a wonderful piece of prose. It is about the Israeli psychologist George Tamarin. He did from 1966 to 1973 an investigation into the effect of "non-critical Bible education on the forms of prejudices". The investigation stretched from about 1066 Israeli children from 8 to 14 years. The children was the story of the fall of Jericho and the killing of everything that lived there read (Joshua 6). Then the children were asked "do you think that Joshua and the Israelites acted correctly or not?" The answers are divided as follows: completely right 66%, 26%, neither wholly correct, completely incorrect neither wholly incorrect 8%. If reasons for approval were called God's promise to donate the land, God's command to do this, the danger of mixing with bad other cultures and religions. Of the 8% children that there were reasons given demurred oa as: "Joshua was stupid to also to eradicate the animals, he had better they themselves can use", "The city and all the goods did not have to be destroyed."
There was no difference in rates between girls and boys.

If control group got 168 children read the same story with ' General Lin ' instead of Joshua as a hero and ' The Chinese Kingdom of 3000 years ago ' instead of the people Israel as protagonists. General Lin got only 7% approval, 18% partial approval, and an overwhelming percentage of 75% judged the matter completely.

Clearly not here speaks out that education Imaging stains? And that human morality is very old with Bible texts. Is this double morality desirable?

22. The story of creation is increasingly appears as a metaphor. In different variants. I will add just one aspect. Namely the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment. The results show that temptation someone can vastly dominate. The psychological pressure just to eat the candy (or Apple) is huge. Eventually succumbs one. A creator with any psychological insight know that of course.

23. Is Pascal's wager (gambit-bet) call to a serious argument or a complaint? You can in fact a god (which) gambling? And keeps this specific god or of people who gamble on him?

24. A question to fideïsten: why should we use less strict criteria for the review of religious affairs than the scrutiny of other assertions? Supports moderate rationalism on fideism anti?Moreover, believe a stupid way of believing Is blind? Where each form of dogmatic contrast simply disregarded.

25. If there is a "first cause" (cosmological argument) this told us something about the properties of these "first cause". May Yahweh (or any other god) fight against the concept of probabilistic causality?

26. the pious clincher "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That can in certain circumstances where and in other occasions so not. For example in the sewer system of Amsterdam roam Lions around; only visible to those who are entering into the sewer and open. The average reader will equal agree that this is not possible and pulls in advance the conclusion that it is not true. Why would a "deliberately hidden entity" under the above definition may cutters?

27. We can pursue goals that are objectively worth. We can find ourselves in meaning. We experience as a social animal pleasure to the company of others and life with the suffering of others. Ordering the values of primitive tribes religions; love for the own tribe, hatred of other tribes, a belief what the spirit feels exit and gezagsaanbidding. What meaning can we get from religion? Is the man who says: "If God does not exist has no life sentence". Not just a spoiled individual who never has looked with compassion to his fellow man?

28. Paul Davies thinks there might be a life principle has been incorporated in laws of nature.But where do we find than a life principle in nature-chemistry or biology? He suggests that there is not a recognised holistic and teleological natural law is somewhere. The non-reductive physicalism is for some a way of thinking. However, a vital principle not an emergent principle of chaos and complexity theory. A natural product of purely local interaction of matter particles. Complicated things arise from simple. Makes this a comprehensive on the whole working controller not redundant?

29. The anthropic principle I turn to. If a god a universe would have created what is tuned to human life, then you would still expect anywhere human life could easily arise. Why is the universe so desolate and inhospitable will find there a vast waste of matter and energy instead?

30. There are plenty of theologians who consider the theory of evolution as fact. But have difficulty with the seemingly accidental evolution of the human species. They think that nonetheless was pushed somewhere. But then you talk about intelligent design and let you get the natural process what is based on coincidence los? Even though it would only happen once.

31. the criteria of either has to Christianity and the Bible in whole or in part, to grant a privileged status; We must be able to submit these criteria; It has either not criteria, but then all religions and sects and their revelations on the area of truth claims worth.

Thus etiennevermeersch. Where are the relevant criteria?

32. Atheists are often accuses that they also believe. Some theists have devised the following statement. In atheism is the word theism. Very fun and very original. The philosopher Herman Philipse argues in his Atheist manifesto that all believers are in fact "semantic atheists", because every description that is given to the entity God limited to words. Also, but also a shrewd touches the deeper core?

33. a well-known internet personality screens constantly with the statement: "All scholars agree"!. And you guessed it, it comes to Jesus. Argumentum ad populum or now or argumentum ad verecundiam, let me in the middle. The insight that the Gospel has only minor historic value and only using the pyre more than 1000 years. Is the ultima ratio theologorum according to Schopenhauer. The doctrines of the Catholic Theology be skipped, because the researchers thereof are not able to free research. The Popes have their theologians bound by dogmas, everything runs on contrarationele and supernatural absurdities. In 1910, is still the anti modernists oath entered. The theologians must abide by the decisions of the Pontifical biblical Commission. Here comes on top of the principle that "testimonia pro domo" yet to collect. Gee

34. the lack of religion, according to the researcher of Der Spiegel strong influence on the morals. "People without religion opposed more than average against war, death penalty and discrimination. In addition, they have less reservations vis-à-vis foreigners, homosexuality and drugs. " So the moral of the religielozen is characterized by humanism and tolerance, values that they represent stronger than believers.

From the reformatorisch dagblad. In a discussion with a believer came the following feast."Nothing heaven, hell and eternal damnation, our pastor preaches every Sunday on brotherly love"! Wonderful to hear, but of course that weekly once is not enough? And what remains of this charity as the closest with someone wants to marry same-sex couples, his life would end let, let get away, the fetus would prefer for another faith or no faith, Nice on Sunday shopping.Hopes that the science can solve the defect in a gene. Like to house parties and does not want to indoctrinate his children with lyrics from the bronze age.

35. in The words of Jesus: "Your ancestors ate manna John 49 in the wilderness. However, they are died. " Meanwhile, the archaeology the exodus as myth. One myth believes in the other? That also applies for the texts in Matthew 24: 37-39; and Luke 17: 26, "and as it did in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the son of man: 27ze ate, they drank, they married, they were betrothed, till the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came that swallowed everyone. 28Of as it went out in the days of Lot: she ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day when Fate departed from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and all came to ".

36. Religions are extremely conservative. Many ideas have been refuted. However one cherishes them and she tries to keep still long. And usually the supporters very sensitive to criticism. Here is not the basis for the intolerance and hostility that they blame atheists; If these arguments insertion consistent with their belief?

37. "Convert the world to religion and peace will follow" for the people a complacence. This is about the worldly variety and not the heavenly one. If we compare countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, United States and Sudan just to name a few, with a high percentage of religious people with countries such as Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden with a low percentage of religious people; than how do they compare in tolerance towards homosexuals and the weak in society? Don't you think that this is slogan is just based on wishful thinking?

38. Science cannot make statements on the whole of reality. Can you give some reasons in why you think religion is able to do so? Is it not more correct to say that religion doesn't make any statement about reality? If you disagree; which existential questions does religion answer? Are these concrete answers that have research data associated with them?

39. Do you not think it is ironical that Christians who believe in an infinite and unknowable being, record this same entity in closed systems and rigid doctrines?

40. Hebrews 11 gives a treatise on faith. Many aspects are discussed. The passage through the Red Sea, the ark of Noah, the pregnancy of Sarah etc. Everything stands or falls with the faith. Is this entire chapter to identify with someone who think metaphorically. For example, it is not at odds with insights from archaeology.

41. many centuries before Jesus there was the golden rule a ruling that many quantities employed. Buddha, Confucius and had already about moral values far Mencis centuries before the advent of Christianity. We are now behind that goodness is ingrained in certain brain areas. You will also find this in animal species. The construction of morality is culturally refined or dulled. Go Christians with the contents of mother nature and the ways in which their movement for centuries for charity and promote tolerance. Today, Christians put their label on human values; However, this is not a piece of pseudohistory?

42. If miracles should be viewed as metaphors; Angels, Satan, demons and Hell should also be seen as metaphors. Than the Fall as well as the Resurrection of Jesus should be viewed in the same way. If metaphors are the guide line or your religion; when are you recognising that God is a metaphor also? And if god is a metaphor; then are you not in essence an atheist?

Like this:

Now there are believers who after all these questions tell me: "I believe good by"!. That should of course, no problem. Leave the logic, ignore evidence, faith in contradictions and impossibilities. And education yourself and others that somewhere there is a god ready to destroy this planet. And winter in this way, the fear of your own or someone else's death. But are you looking for a philosophy of life without god. With writings that full of deeper wisdoms.That reason and science embracing, progressive respect for the human rights of everyone.That the advantages, but not the disadvantages.
Then the Buddhism of Pali suitable. Also the Taoism of Lao Tzu or ChuangTzu. Another angle is pantheisme, Richard Dawkins described this as "sexed-up atheism."
A positive feeling and respect for our planet. Respect for science and logic. No belief in supernatural beings or forces. The nature is used as a basis for dealing with stress, grief and mourning.

(t. p)

With thanks to all who ask to send me directly and indirectly. The numerous authors of books, but also those who are active here on the forum.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Piet wrote:butterbattle

Piet wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum.

Rook Hawkins is no longer active here. Last time I checked, he is now a deist and is still active on his personal blog.

Do you have a link for me?  Thanks.  

Here.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/ 

 

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


Piet
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-12-27
User is offlineOffline
translation

 The translation moves slowly.  Another couple of questions in the last part.   Do you notice errors.  Please give me a call.

 

Thanks 

 

Piet


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If theologians were right

Piet wrote:
This is what I mean about Bing translation. 13. Statement Ralf Bodelier: "now I'm not only atheist. I am also theologian. I already say I prefer: studéérde theology. In addition, I taught for years at a college. Almost weekly if I answer the question of students and colleagues how a theologian in God's name can be an atheist.My answer was rude and of rhetorical nature, although I still think the nail on its head. It was roughly as follows. ' That you which surprises! You need not to suffer cancer oncologist to be? There is much to be said for particular scepticism about theologians who believe in God. As an oncologist is no longer able to sober diagnose if he is experiencing excruciating pains, you can expect a theologian not balanced judgment if he let his thinking by blurring religious mist ". Thus Ralf Bode lier you yourself something proposals at this answer? 14. A plane crashes and the 450 passengers survives only one person. "There is a miracle by certain persons called with the Word as final cry thanked Mr.". What do we do with the other 449 people. 15. The language factor in religion. Words can be true, false, or nonsense. Language Is essential for religion? Something happens after the use of words? The function of language is not heavily exaggerated? 16. are semantic word games an effective way to convince others of your own religious right? 17. Is ontological proof valid? If so, call a successful example? 18. Why is atheism the dominant philosophies under Nobel Prize winners? 19. we think that others share our opinion Wrongly often. This is characteristic of our social empathy. You might God call a product of the empathy of someone. If you liked this concept develops than you can expect that his opinion matches one that believeth. Nicholas Epley has done to research here. In moral issues showed this to be wrong. During the investigation, it was the opinion of the subjects on surreptitiously adjusted. It turned out that "God ' meedraaide also. A kind of compass what related is our own social empathy. So with all winds blowing this god? 20. "Why questions"; play an important role in the development of a child. It is a "teleological" way of thinking. It is extremely useful for their personal development. They learn unconsciously much things. For example, toddlers know intuitively no limits. For each problem a suitable solution. They were unrestrained. Intuitive thinking in them preferable to a rational explanation.However a person's cognitive development continues and the ratio is increasingly taking the upper hand. Are adults who screens with a teleological explanation actually stuck in their infancy? 21. My soulmate has on his site a wonderful piece of prose. It is about the Israeli psychologist George Tamarin. He did from 1966 to 1973 an investigation into the effect of "non-critical Bible education on the forms of prejudices". The investigation stretched from about 1066 Israeli children from 8 to 14 years. The children was the story of the fall of Jericho and the killing of everything that lived there read (Joshua 6). Then the children were asked "do you think that Joshua and the Israelites acted correctly or not?" The answers are divided as follows: completely right 66%, 26%, neither wholly correct, completely incorrect neither wholly incorrect 8%. If reasons for approval were called God's promise to donate the land, God's command to do this, the danger of mixing with bad other cultures and religions. Of the 8% children that there were reasons given demurred oa as: "Joshua was stupid to also to eradicate the animals, he had better they themselves can use", "The city and all the goods did not have to be destroyed." There was no difference in rates between girls and boys. If control group got 168 children read the same story with ' General Lin ' instead of Joshua as a hero and ' The Chinese Kingdom of 3000 years ago ' instead of the people Israel as protagonists. General Lin got only 7% approval, 18% partial approval, and an overwhelming percentage of 75% judged the matter completely. Clearly not here speaks out that education Imaging stains? And that human morality is very old with Bible texts. Is this double morality desirable? 22. The story of creation is increasingly appears as a metaphor. In different variants. I will add just one aspect. Namely the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment. The results show that temptation someone can vastly dominate. The psychological pressure just to eat the candy (or Apple) is huge. Eventually succumbs one. A creator with any psychological insight know that of course. 23. Is Pascal's wager (gambit-bet) call to a serious argument or a complaint? You can in fact a god (which) gambling? And keeps this specific god or of people who gamble on him? 24. A question to fideïsten: why should we use less strict criteria for the review of religious affairs than the scrutiny of other assertions? Supports moderate rationalism on fideism anti?Moreover, believe a stupid way of believing Is blind? Where each form of dogmatic contrast simply disregarded. 25. If there is a "first cause" (cosmological argument) this told us something about the properties of these "first cause". May Yahweh (or any other god) fight against the concept of probabilistic causality? 26. the pious clincher "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That can in certain circumstances where and in other occasions so not. For example in the sewer system of Amsterdam roam Lions around; only visible to those who are entering into the sewer and open. The average reader will equal agree that this is not possible and pulls in advance the conclusion that it is not true. Why would a "deliberately hidden entity" under the above definition may cutters? 27. We can pursue goals that are objectively worth. We can find ourselves in meaning. We experience as a social animal pleasure to the company of others and life with the suffering of others. Ordering the values of primitive tribes religions; love for the own tribe, hatred of other tribes, a belief what the spirit feels exit and gezagsaanbidding. What meaning can we get from religion? Is the man who says: "If God does not exist has no life sentence". Not just a spoiled individual who never has looked with compassion to his fellow man? 28. Paul Davies thinks there might be a life principle has been incorporated in laws of nature.But where do we find than a life principle in nature-chemistry or biology? He suggests that there is not a recognised holistic and teleological natural law is somewhere. The non-reductive physicalism is for some a way of thinking. However, a vital principle not an emergent principle of chaos and complexity theory. A natural product of purely local interaction of matter particles. Complicated things arise from simple. Makes this a comprehensive on the whole working controller not redundant? 29. The anthropic principle I turn to. If a god a universe would have created what is tuned to human life, then you would still expect anywhere human life could easily arise. Why is the universe so desolate and inhospitable will find there a vast waste of matter and energy instead? 30. There are plenty of theologians who consider the theory of evolution as fact. But have difficulty with the seemingly accidental evolution of the human species. They think that nonetheless was pushed somewhere. But then you talk about intelligent design and let you get the natural process what is based on coincidence los? Even though it would only happen once. 31. the criteria of either has to Christianity and the Bible in whole or in part, to grant a privileged status; We must be able to submit these criteria; It has either not criteria, but then all religions and sects and their revelations on the area of truth claims worth. Thus etiennevermeersch. Where are the relevant criteria? 32. Atheists are often accuses that they also believe. Some theists have devised the following statement. In atheism is the word theism. Very fun and very original. The philosopher Herman Philipse argues in his Atheist manifesto that all believers are in fact "semantic atheists", because every description that is given to the entity God limited to words. Also, but also a shrewd touches the deeper core? 33. a well-known internet personality screens constantly with the statement: "All scholars agree"!. And you guessed it, it comes to Jesus. Argumentum ad populum or now or argumentum ad verecundiam, let me in the middle. The insight that the Gospel has only minor historic value and only using the pyre more than 1000 years. Is the ultima ratio theologorum according to Schopenhauer. The doctrines of the Catholic Theology be skipped, because the researchers thereof are not able to free research. The Popes have their theologians bound by dogmas, everything runs on contrarationele and supernatural absurdities. In 1910, is still the anti modernists oath entered. The theologians must abide by the decisions of the Pontifical biblical Commission. Here comes on top of the principle that "testimonia pro domo" yet to collect. Gee 34. the lack of religion, according to the researcher of Der Spiegel strong influence on the morals. "People without religion opposed more than average against war, death penalty and discrimination. In addition, they have less reservations vis-à-vis foreigners, homosexuality and drugs. " So the moral of the religielozen is characterized by humanism and tolerance, values that they represent stronger than believers. From the reformatorisch dagblad. In a discussion with a believer came the following feast."Nothing heaven, hell and eternal damnation, our pastor preaches every Sunday on brotherly love"! Wonderful to hear, but of course that weekly once is not enough? And what remains of this charity as the closest with someone wants to marry same-sex couples, his life would end let, let get away, the fetus would prefer for another faith or no faith, Nice on Sunday shopping.Hopes that the science can solve the defect in a gene. Like to house parties and does not want to indoctrinate his children with lyrics from the bronze age. 35. in The words of Jesus: "Your ancestors ate manna John 49 in the wilderness. However, they are died. " Meanwhile, the archaeology the exodus as myth. One myth believes in the other? That also applies for the texts in Matthew 24: 37-39; and Luke 17: 26, "and as it did in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the son of man: 27ze ate, they drank, they married, they were betrothed, till the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came that swallowed everyone. 28Of as it went out in the days of Lot: she ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day when Fate departed from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and all came to ". 36. Religions are extremely conservative. Many ideas have been refuted. However one cherishes them and she tries to keep still long. And usually the supporters very sensitive to criticism. Here is not the basis for the intolerance and hostility that they blame atheists; If these arguments insertion consistent with their belief? 37. "Convert the world to religion and peace will follow" for the people a complacence. This is about the worldly variety and not the heavenly one. If we compare countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, United States and Sudan just to name a few, with a high percentage of religious people with countries such as Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden with a low percentage of religious people; than how do they compare in tolerance towards homosexuals and the weak in society? Don't you think that this is slogan is just based on wishful thinking? 38. Science cannot make statements on the whole of reality. Can you give some reasons in why you think religion is able to do so? Is it not more correct to say that religion doesn't make any statement about reality? If you disagree; which existential questions does religion answer? Are these concrete answers that have research data associated with them? 39. Do you not think it is ironical that Christians who believe in an infinite and unknowable being, record this same entity in closed systems and rigid doctrines? 40. Hebrews 11 gives a treatise on faith. Many aspects are discussed. The passage through the Red Sea, the ark of Noah, the pregnancy of Sarah etc. Everything stands or falls with the faith. Is this entire chapter to identify with someone who think metaphorically. For example, it is not at odds with insights from archaeology. 41. many centuries before Jesus there was the golden rule a ruling that many quantities employed. Buddha, Confucius and had already about moral values far Mencis centuries before the advent of Christianity. We are now behind that goodness is ingrained in certain brain areas. You will also find this in animal species. The construction of morality is culturally refined or dulled. Go Christians with the contents of mother nature and the ways in which their movement for centuries for charity and promote tolerance. Today, Christians put their label on human values; However, this is not a piece of pseudohistory? 42. If miracles should be viewed as metaphors; Angels, Satan, demons and Hell should also be seen as metaphors. Than the Fall as well as the Resurrection of Jesus should be viewed in the same way. If metaphors are the guide line or your religion; when are you recognising that God is a metaphor also? And if god is a metaphor; then are you not in essence an atheist? Like this: Now there are believers who after all these questions tell me: "I believe good by"!. That should of course, no problem. Leave the logic, ignore evidence, faith in contradictions and impossibilities. And education yourself and others that somewhere there is a god ready to destroy this planet. And winter in this way, the fear of your own or someone else's death. But are you looking for a philosophy of life without god. With writings that full of deeper wisdoms.That reason and science embracing, progressive respect for the human rights of everyone.That the advantages, but not the disadvantages. Then the Buddhism of Pali suitable. Also the Taoism of Lao Tzu or ChuangTzu. Another angle is pantheisme, Richard Dawkins described this as "sexed-up atheism." A positive feeling and respect for our planet. Respect for science and logic. No belief in supernatural beings or forces. The nature is used as a basis for dealing with stress, grief and mourning. (t. p) With thanks to all who ask to send me directly and indirectly. The numerous authors of books, but also those who are active here on the forum.

there wouldn't be theologians. The reason there's still theologians is because they still don't have it correct. That means their theology is a theory.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Watcher

Hey Watcher,

I thought in this post I would pretend to be an atheist. Try to relate to you a little.

It's really to bad your baby is a piece of shit. I mean, as an atheist, there is no meaning, purpose, hope, love, justice truth.

When you kid gets old enough and  you tell him/her you love him, you'd be a pathetic liar.

Now it's your turn to tell me the atheist redefinition and slaghter the english language and make up your own subjective version of what love is. But it is not universal and thus fallse on your early position that EVERYTHING  has no mean purpose love, justice, truth beauty, etc.

So you could easily say your baby is a ugliy bastard that is a worthless piece of shit and it would mean exactly the same thing as if you were to say i love you, since there is no absolutes.

So speaking from an atheistic perspective, congrats on have a tremendous fat ass baby that will burn that is uglier then you mama.

As a Chrisitan you see, we have absolutes, and can speak of the beuauty, Remember, when your kid says he loves you, don't be a liar and say you love him back. Tell the truth. Oh wait there is no truth. I forgot call him the bastard he really is.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Watcher,

I thought in this post I would pretend to be an atheist. Try to relate to you a little.

It's really to bad your baby is a piece of shit. I mean, as an atheist, there is no meaning, purpose, hope, love, justice truth.

When you kid gets old enough and  you tell him/her you love him, you'd be a pathetic liar.

Now it's your turn to tell me the atheist redefinition and slaghter the english language and make up your own subjective version of what love is. But it is not universal and thus fallse on your early position that EVERYTHING  has no mean purpose love, justice, truth beauty, etc.

So you could easily say your baby is a ugliy bastard that is a worthless piece of shit and it would mean exactly the same thing as if you were to say i love you, since there is no absolutes.

So speaking from an atheistic perspective, congrats on have a tremendous fat ass baby that will burn that is uglier then you mama.

As a Chrisitan you see, we have absolutes, and can speak of the beuauty, Remember, when your kid says he loves you, don't be a liar and say you love him back. Tell the truth. Oh wait there is no truth. I forgot call him the bastard he really is.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Um, wow...just, WOW.  Are you sure your brain is functioning properly?  Because I seriously think you should get some mental help...