i just laughed for 5 minutes straight

Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
i just laughed for 5 minutes straight

seriously. read leviticus 15:19-30. its funny.

it states that 2 pigeons must be sacrificed for every time a woman has her period.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
19 " 'When a woman has her

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

 20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

 24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

 25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

 28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO. What a load of shit. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
the bible i was reading from

the bible i was reading from has a sort of intro to each book of the bible, and it says the laws stated in leviticus doesnt apply after jesus died on the cross. but these are what god told the people to do, if he decided to change them later i wouldn't say he is too perfect.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1235
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Rev0lver wrote: ... 2

Rev0lver wrote:
... 2 pigeons must be sacrificed for every time a woman has her period.

I'll have to admit, anyone who lives near an urban center would find wisdom in those words.  If attaching religion to the menstrual cycle helps to control pests, I'd say it's worth a try (at least until the pigeons are all gone). 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Will_Know
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote:

Rev0lver wrote:
the laws stated in leviticus doesnt apply after jesus died on the cross. but these are what god told the people to do, if he decided to change them later i wouldn't say he is too perfect.


Good point Rev0lver, but were the OT laws for jews only? Or were them a perpetual covenant between god and people of the world?

This 'jesus-died-so-law-changes' seems a perfect excuse, and many christians do use it, but where is it stated in the NT? I know Paul did, but Jesus wasn't at all clear, he sometime said Law is to be kept, next time he changed parts of it, like for clean food.

So what's jesus message? Is 'I came to fulfill' the same as 'to change/add to it'?
By the way, I heard one reason for the new covenant is that it was *needed* now that jesus fulfilled the old law. Does it make sense? How can a man fulfill a law in a way that it then must decay?

And is paul's authority anywhere enough?

I think this is an important point to understand. Sometimes you see christians battling for having the decalogue on public walls, but if you say God killed so many people you hear them say 'Oh, that was the OT!'. Innocent


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
in response to the "jews

in response to the "jews only" question, in leviticus it says "the lord said to moses, say to the Israelites: (insert everything here)"

good post btw, theres been alot of contraversy about the old testament in the bible.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote: in

Rev0lver wrote:

in response to the "jews only" question, in leviticus it says "the lord said to moses, say to the Israelites: (insert everything here)"

good post btw, theres been alot of contraversy about the old testament in the bible.

One thing I'd like to point out is this: Even if we don't live under the Old Testament Law, any god that would make the OT his first attempt at a covenant is seriously fucked up. Smiling  The very need for a new covenant shows that the god of the bible is not perfect.  The very existence of the OT shows that the god of the bible is not perfect.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Will_Know
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Iruka Naminori wrote:

The very need for a new covenant shows that the god of the bible is not perfect.

 

I agree! This is my basic answer, coupled with: if he changes ideas/plans (as he does a few times), then they're NOT absolutes, but relatives, as we humans would do, no more! lol


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately a lot of

Unfortunately a lot of Christians (Gentile Christians that is) misunderstand what exactly happened with the change from the old to the new covenant. According to Hebrews 8 (vs. 7-13 in particular) and Jermiah 31 (vs. 31-34 in particular) the difference between the old covenant and the new is that in the new God's law will be written on the heart while in the old they where written on stone. Because that is the only change, clearly Christians are still meant to most of the Old Testament laws. The exceptions come in because some laws are what Christians call types and these are nolonger required. A type is like a shadow of something. It gives us an imperfect image of the true thing and when the true thing comes the type is no longer needed. This is true of the sacrifitial system of the Old Testament, once Christ had come and died there was nolonger any need to sacrifice at the temple. (No more killing of lambs because the "Lamb of God" had come.. John 1:36) This is at least partialy indicated by the tearing of the Temple curtain when Jesus died (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45).

Also another interesting thing to note is that the new covenant is made with the Jews not Gentiles. Many Christians believe that they are something new and distinct but Paul's writtings indicate that Christians are nothing but Spiritual Isreal. Note that the Jews considered themselves special because they were children of Abraham (they are Jews/Isrealites because of him). (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8; John 8:39) Christ does not disagree with them on this point but in fact uses that term "son/daughter of Abraham". (Luke 13:16; 19:9; John 8:40) So Christians are Spiritual Isreal through being made children of Abraham (who received a special blessing from God that he would bless all nations.. Acts 3:29). (Romans 4 esp. vs. 16; Gal 3 esp. vs. 7) Paul brings out the point that Gentiles are saved by becoming spiritual Isrealites more clearly through the imagery of the olive tree. (Romans 11:11-24) 

Unfortunately much of this confussion over the old and new covenants is due to the history of the Christian Church. The Jewish nation was constantly revolting which did not make them much liked by the Romans. This anti-semitic attitude crept into the church so by the time of Costantine the main gentile element in the church wanted nothing to do with jewish-christians. This is mainly the reason why much of the Christian world keeps Sunday, which is contrary to the Bible record. This also brings out the fact that Gods church is capable of falling thus the reason for the written word... so we may correct ourselves. (Psalms 119:105)


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately a lot of

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post deleted]


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Yahweh/Jesus treated women

Yahweh/Jesus treated women like objects in his godling years.

 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Deuteronomy

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Will_Know wrote: Iruka

Will_Know wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

The very need for a new covenant shows that the god of the bible is not perfect.

 

I agree! This is my basic answer, coupled with: if he changes ideas/plans (as he does a few times), then they're NOT absolutes, but relatives, as we humans would do, no more! lol

When applying this to logic, the imperfection of god requires that he cannot be omniscient, cannot be omnipotent, cannot be omnipresent, and cannot be infinate. One wonders what's left.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GreyhoundMama
GreyhoundMama's picture
Posts: 76
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
women

The trivializing of, enslavement of, and demonizing of, women, is one of the things about Christianity that can actually truly piss me off. The thing about the bleeding is only funny if I can set aside that there are still women in this world who are just as enslaved by their subjection to radical, conservative, patriarchal and STUPID ideas like this. It just makes me sick.

Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
ATOMIC SKUNK

ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Yahweh/Jesus treated women like objects in his godling years.

 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Deuteronomy

Seems a bit mean right? Let me pose this question then... can you reform someone instantly? The Isrealites had been living in Egypt for an awfully long time (estimates range between 100 to 400 years according to the Bible). Chances are they had picked up some nasty habits from the Egyptians. I would wager a captive woman would had been treated worse by the Egyptians.... so God was obviously trying to get them to improve themselves. You should read what Jesus says about one thing in particular that God allowed the Isrealites to do... divorce. Jesus tell the Jews that God allowed this because the peoples hearts were hard but that it was not Gods way. (Matthew 19:1-12) That should at least make us think about whether other things that Israelites were allowed to do were Gods way or just the best he could do at the time with a stiff-necked people.(Exd 32:9)

You should read what God has to say about the Israelites in Deut 9:4-6.

Remeber that according to the Bible everyone has free choice... God does not force you to love him or to do right.

 


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Yahweh/Jesus treated women like objects in his godling years.

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Deuteronomy

Seems a bit mean right? Let me pose this question then... can you reform someone instantly? The Isrealites had been living in Egypt for an awfully long time (estimates range between 100 to 400 years according to the Bible). Chances are they had picked up some nasty habits from the Egyptians. I would wager a captive woman would had been treated worse by the Egyptians.... so God was obviously trying to get them to improve themselves. You should read what Jesus says about one thing in particular that God allowed the Isrealites to do... divorce. Jesus tell the Jews that God allowed this because the peoples hearts were hard but that it was not Gods way. (Matthew 19:1-12) That should at least make us think about whether other things that Israelites were allowed to do were Gods way or just the best he could do at the time with a stiff-necked people.(Exd 32:9)

You should read what God has to say about the Israelites in Deut 9:4-6.

Remeber that according to the Bible everyone has free choice... God does not force you to love him or to do right.

 

Yahweh/Jesus was a bloodlusting murderer as a godling, and commanded people to slaughter innocent babies in his name, especially with his favorite assassin Moses. Even contradicting his own laws. It sounds like you're trying to make excuses for a god. And since when is it acceptable to treat people like dirt, just because somebody else is doing it. This is lame apologetic nonsense to steer you away from the truth.

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: On the

deludedgod wrote:

On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Does it have to be a pigeon or dove? I mean, there aren't a lot of either around here. What about a Blue Jay? Tufted Titmouse? I guess I could drive down the shore and get some Seagulls. I think my neighbor's got a couple of parakeets. Does that work? Is there any wiggle room with this? lol.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Yahweh/Jesus treated women like objects in his godling years.

 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Deuteronomy

Seems a bit mean right? Let me pose this question then... can you reform someone instantly? The Isrealites had been living in Egypt for an awfully long time (estimates range between 100 to 400 years according to the Bible). Chances are they had picked up some nasty habits from the Egyptians. I would wager a captive woman would had been treated worse by the Egyptians.... so God was obviously trying to get them to improve themselves. You should read what Jesus says about one thing in particular that God allowed the Isrealites to do... divorce. Jesus tell the Jews that God allowed this because the peoples hearts were hard but that it was not Gods way. (Matthew 19:1-12) That should at least make us think about whether other things that Israelites were allowed to do were Gods way or just the best he could do at the time with a stiff-necked people.(Exd 32:9)

You should read what God has to say about the Israelites in Deut 9:4-6.

Remeber that according to the Bible everyone has free choice... God does not force you to love him or to do right.

 

You are rationalizing slavery and rape. I find it disgusting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
ATOMIC SKUNK

ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Yahweh/Jesus was a bloodlusting murderer as a godling, and commanded people to slaughter innocent babies in his name, especially with his favorite assassin Moses. Even contradicting his own laws. It sounds like you're trying to make excuses for a god. And since when is it acceptable to treat people like dirt, just because somebody else is doing it. This is lame apologetic nonsense to steer you away from the truth.

Obviously you don't understand anything. You would rather leave a patient with cancer then cut it out. You want everyone to be rational but obviously you are not. Do you know anything about bringing up children? Don't you know children are effected by how their parents live. I don't even think you try to understand anything at all you just bash things you don't want to understand. I tried to explain that you can't force people to change over night but obviously you can't understand that. It would seem then that your idea of changing people is to hold a gun to thier head. The first thing you don't understand about God is that he is a God of love and justice... both and one does not negate the other. And it is beause you don't see that that nothing makes any sense to you. Have you actually ever even read the bible as a whole or even tried to understand what it is trying to say? In the Bible God's destruction of the wicked (no there is no everlasting fire, everyone burns up in a finite amout of time) is called his strange act, something he is forced to do to protect those who love him when all others are bent on their own destruction. I guess you could view it as putting a mortally wounded animal out of its missery.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: You are

Vastet wrote:

You are rationalizing slavery and rape. I find it disgusting.

And I thought this whole website was about rational... boy was I wrong. No one here is truely rational, no one is logical. I guess that is what happens when logic is not one of the core courses in school. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I do not think you can make

I do not think you can make excuses for the God of the Old Testament in this respect. In the laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers he clearly states that if anyone turns to another religion, you are to bash their heads to bloody pulp with rocks. If false prophets preach other deities, you must kill them (Deuteronomy 13). If your own children follow this prophet, you must strike the first blow without mercy.

In Judges It is clearly stated that God commanded Jephthah to slaughter the Ammonites. Should he win the battle (he did) God commanded him to initiate great slaughter, whereby he would Without mercy cut them down, kill them all, let the axe fall upon the sheep and the goat and the ass. Take the men as slaves, rape the women and murder the children.

Also In the book of Judges where Levite was travelling among the sodomites, and was dining in the company of an elderly man in his home, and the people demanded to be handed over the man's male guest. Instead, he offered his virgin daughter so they could rape her. That is how society treated women at the time.

In sociology and philosophy I study something known as Fueurbach projectionalism philosophy, which is partially explained in my essay Morality Without God. The evil God of the Old Testament reflects the barbarity of ancient Hebrew culture at the time. They were a brutal lot, with ruthless jurisprudence. They treated women like chattel and murdered their Arab captives. Thus they projected their attributes onto their mythological God. Thus Yahweh was created as an evil filicidal maniac.

Of course, today Judaism is extremely peaceful and secular. Israel is one of the most lovely nations on the Earth (I am speaking of slight bias as I am a Jew). Very few Jews I have actually met believe in God (Most of them believe God died at Auschwitz, and I agree).  

The God of the Old Testament chose a very select group of people to be his chosen ones. I distinctly remember when I study Augustinian Theodicy that God gave us free will on Earth (A bit of a misnomer, dont you think? It reminds me of the Maoist stance on democracy "you can vote, but only for the communists&quotEye-wink. Well, he certianly did not in the Old Testament! When his followers did not follow his rigid wishes, he reacted by smiting the whole place and starting anew. 

As I was raised with my Jewish heritage, I have of course read the Torah. Let me tell you the stories of the Old Testament are appalling. The fact that Abraham being tested to sacrifice Isaac is the cornerstone of Abrahmic faith is a testimony to the physcosis of monotheism. What morals could we derive from such a barbaric story? What kind of God would test faith by demanding of a man to murder his son? How could an apologist seek decency of Yahweh for this barbaric tale?

The sociology of the Yahweh God comes from a very self-centered culture of ruthless judiciary and extreme mysoginy. Is it any wonder that the Israelites created Yahweh to be such a brute? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian, i couldn't

JamesAChristian, i couldn't help but notice your posts rarely give a response to the question/statement. and if you are looking for atheists who study the bible all the time, why dont you go ahead on the RRS show?

I attend a bible study every week, but i guess your strange interpretation is better than mine Wink


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: As I was

deludedgod wrote:

As I was raised with my Jewish heritage, I have of course read the Torah. Let me tell you the stories of the Old Testament are appalling. The fact that Abraham being tested to sacrifice Isaac is the cornerstone of Abrahmic faith is a testimony to the physcosis of monotheism. What morals could we derive from such a barbaric story? What kind of God would test faith by demanding of a man to murder his son? How could an apologist seek decency of Yahweh for this barbaric tale?

I agree with you about the old testament. and it isn't just god that is doing these things, but his chosen ones. just look at moses, in the beginning of the bible it explains how he killed a random egyption.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:

Vastet wrote:

You are rationalizing slavery and rape. I find it disgusting.

And I thought this whole website was about rational... boy was I wrong. No one here is truely rational, no one is logical. I guess that is what happens when logic is not one of the core courses in school. 

Typical theist doesn't know the meaning of words. Being rational is not rationalizing something. Look the terms up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: In

deludedgod wrote:

In Judges It is clearly stated that God commanded Jephthah to slaughter the Ammonites. Should he win the battle (he did) God commanded him to initiate great slaughter, whereby he would Without mercy cut them down, kill them all, let the axe fall upon the sheep and the goat and the ass. Take the men as slaves, rape the women and murder the children.

 

Deluded... I hate to say this but I just read through the verses on Jephthah and no where does it say anything like what you say it says. What Bible are you reading?

deludedgod wrote:

Also In the book of Judges where Levite was travelling among the sodomites, and was dining in the company of an elderly man in his home, and the people demanded to be handed over the man's male guest. Instead, he offered his virgin daughter so they could rape her. That is how society treated women at the time.

And your point is what exactly? That is how women were treated throughout the middle east in those times. How does this have any bearing on God. What it does indicate is that the Bible does not suger coat the truth. Perhaps you should find some historical books that describe things like this and then you can rant and rave about them too.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Typical

Vastet wrote:

Typical theist doesn't know the meaning of words. Being rational is not rationalizing something. Look the terms up.

I looked the term up... according to the Merriam-Webster onlin dictionary rational means

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

Every thing I said is agreeable to my reasoning and that is how I understand it so don't go saying I don't know the meaning of the word. Perhaps you don't like it that I don't reason like you but that has nothing to do with my reasoning, that is just your problem.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote: I agree

Rev0lver wrote:

I agree with you about the old testament. and it isn't just god that is doing these things, but his chosen ones. just look at moses, in the beginning of the bible it explains how he killed a random egyption.

You make an interesting point that Moses killed but what does that proove? Are you implying that people cannot change? That the Moses who lead the Israelites out of Egypt was the same one who killed the Egyptian even though he had probably around 50 years to think about what he had done. You make an awfull lot of assumptions...


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Typical theist doesn't know the meaning of words. Being rational is not rationalizing something. Look the terms up.

I looked the term up... according to the Merriam-Webster onlin dictionary rational means

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

Every thing I said is agreeable to my reasoning and that is how I understand it so don't go saying I don't know the meaning of the word. Perhaps you don't like it that I don't reason like you but that has nothing to do with my reasoning, that is just your problem.

You have no idea how much of a fool you're making of yourself. Your reasoning isn't reasonable. Nor is it rational. Nor is it logical. You obviously don't know the meaning of the words.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

In Judges It is clearly stated that God commanded Jephthah to slaughter the Ammonites. Should he win the battle (he did) God commanded him to initiate great slaughter, whereby he would Without mercy cut them down, kill them all, let the axe fall upon the sheep and the goat and the ass. Take the men as slaves, rape the women and murder the children.

 

Deluded... I hate to say this but I just read through the verses on Jephthah and no where does it say anything like what you say it says. What Bible are you reading?

i'm not sure what he means with the ammonites, but he might be referring to judges 11:29-31

 but, jephthah did kill 42,000 Ephraimites in chapter 12


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
Rev0lver wrote:

I agree with you about the old testament. and it isn't just god that is doing these things, but his chosen ones. just look at moses, in the beginning of the bible it explains how he killed a random egyption.

You make an interesting point that Moses killed but what does that proove? Are you implying that people cannot change? That the Moses who lead the Israelites out of Egypt was the same one who killed the Egyptian even though he had probably around 50 years to think about what he had done. You make an awfull lot of assumptions...

that is a good point, but what kind of man of god is a sinner like that? do you think hitler should've been a man of god too? or if he feels bad about it is everything ok...


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 And your point is what

 And your point is what exactly? That is how women were treated throughout the middle east in those times. How does this have any bearing on God. What it does indicate is that the Bible does not suger coat the truth. Perhaps you should find some historical books that describe things like this and then you can rant and rave about them too

Ahem: 

 In sociology and philosophy I study something known as Fueurbach projectionalism philosophy, which is partially explained in my essay Morality Without God. The evil God of the Old Testament reflects the barbarity of ancient Hebrew culture at the time. They were a brutal lot, with ruthless jurisprudence. They treated women like chattel and murdered their Arab captives. Thus they projected their attributes onto their mythological God. Thus Yahweh was created as an evil filicidal maniac.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote: i'm not

Rev0lver wrote:

i'm not sure what he means with the ammonites, but he might be referring to judges 11:29-31

but, jephthah did kill 42,000 Ephraimites in chapter 12

I don't know where exactly to place this answer so I'll put it here...

I don't expect anyone to really understand this because we live in a society devoid of morality but...

The Bible teaches that God is defined by two chracteristics, love and justice. Love implies he will give us as much time as possible (even give us a substitute) but justice implies that eventually our times runs out. According to these two things time had run out for those people in the Bible who God had destroyed by the Isrealites. It is interesting to point out that eventually Israel's time ran out also and that is when the Assyrians carried away the Northern kingdom. Judah went on for a while longer and then God had to punish them and they went to Babylon. However he saved a remenant so that his promise to Adam and Eve (that he would one day send the seed which would crush the head of the serpent) could be fullfilled.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Love implies he will give

Love implies he will give us as much time as possible (even give us a substitute) but justice implies that eventually our times runs out.

A highly irrational precipt of Abrahmic faith. God created us so that we can worship him. He will give us free will, but he wants us to worship him (logical contradiction, God cannot have "wants", this anthropomorphization is another result of Feurbach projection, the same with "justice" and "love". You have just proved Feuerbachs' point). Do you realize how ridiculous the proposition is? You really think God has nothing better to do than micro-manage man?

However he saved a remenant so that his promise to Adam and Eve (that he would one day send the seed which would crush the head of the serpent) could be fullfilled.

Mitochondrial DNA lineage tracking has revealed that the story was a ridiculous myth. You do not genuinely believe it, do you? 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Love

deludedgod wrote:

Love implies he will give us as much time as possible (even give us a substitute) but justice implies that eventually our times runs out.

A highly irrational precipt of Abrahmic faith. God created us so that we can worship him. He will give us free will, but he wants us to worship him (logical contradiction, God cannot have "wants", this anthropomorphization is another result of Feurbach projection, the same with "justice" and "love". You have just proved Feuerbachs' point). Do you realize how ridiculous the proposition is? You really think God has nothing better to do than micro-manage man?

[\quote] 

Well it would make no sense to you because you do not believe God loves us. You introduced the rediculous element not me. There was rational behind what I said just like there is rational behind what you said but our foundations are different so your points are pointless to me.

By the way, God created us because he wants a family... people who will love him as he loves them... not so they would worship him. At least you got the free will part right.

Sounds like this Feuerbach guy liked wasting time.

deludedgod wrote:
 

However he saved a remenant so that his promise to Adam and Eve (that he would one day send the seed which would crush the head of the serpent) could be fullfilled.

Mitochondrial DNA lineage tracking has revealed that the story was a ridiculous myth. You do not genuinely believe it, do you?

How so?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
By the way, God created us

By the way, God created us because he wants a family... people who will love him as he loves them... not so they would worship him. At least you got the free will part right.

You just proved Feuerbach again. An omnipotent entity cannot have wants. The contradiction is inherent and illogical. It is the projection of the emotions of men onto God.

Feuerbach was one of the most renowned philopsher of the 19th century and your statement proves your ignorance.

 Mitochondrial DNA lineage tracking has revealed that the story was a ridiculous myth. You do not genuinely believe it, do you?

 It has revealed the the original Hominids that seeded the progenitors of the huma population lived in Africa, near Rift Valley (I actually just returned from Rift Valley, Kenya) about 140,000 years ago.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: You just

deludedgod wrote:

You just proved Feuerbach again. An omnipotent entity cannot have wants. The contradiction is inherent and illogical. It is the projection of the emotions of men onto God.

It has revealed the the original Hominids that seeded the progenitors of the huma population lived in Africa, near Rift Valley (I actually just returned from Rift Valley, Kenya) about 140,000 years ago.

And how exactly does Mitochondrial DNA record a location? And how do they know it was 140,000 years ago? (I forgot Evolution and atheist goes hand in hand)

As for you nice philosopher friend... which omnipotent god did he meet? Just because he had a little thought experiment does not mean he knew a thing...


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
And how exactly does

And how exactly does Mitochondrial DNA record a location? And how do they know it was 140,000 years ago? (I forgot Evolution and atheist goes hand in hand)

As a biologist, all I will say is that your ignorance of science is not my problem. THe date tracking is done by molecular clock tracking of amino acid divergence in conjunction with radiometry. Here, I'll show you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

When you fail to answer those questions, you can get back to me.

As to feuerbach, your ad hominid fails to counter his point. Are you going to continue to ignore the logical contradiction which I have pointed out

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:And how

deludedgod wrote:

And how exactly does Mitochondrial DNA record a location? And how do they know it was 140,000 years ago? (I forgot Evolution and atheist goes hand in hand)

As a biologist, all I will say is that your ignorance of science is not my problem. THe date tracking is done by molecular clock tracking of amino acid divergence in conjunction with radiometry. Here, I'll show you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

When you fail to answer those questions, you can get back to me.

As to feuerbach, your ad hominid fails to counter his point. Are you going to continue to ignore the logical contradiction which I have pointed out

According to an article in Archaeology (http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html) titled "Neandertal DNA" dated to July 29, 1997 and I quote...

"DNA dating is based on the assumption (debated by geneticists) that mutations occur at a constant rate."

This reminds me of what evolutionist used to believe, that is that evolution occured at a constant rate. Then evidence could not be found for that in the fosil record (or something like that) and so they had to assume that evolution had to occur in leaps and jumps. Who is to say that mitochondrial DNA does not evolve in leaps and bounds also. Since an assumption has been made and it is not possible to test it then any conclusion you reach is useless.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: As to

deludedgod wrote:

As to feuerbach, your ad hominid fails to counter his point. Are you going to continue to ignore the logical contradiction which I have pointed out

One last thing... by definition God is bigger then anything. How then can any of feuerbach philosophy apply to God? That is like trying to stick God in a box. God is by definition bigger then anything we can imagine and what that implies is that no matter how hard feuerbach philosopies he can never describe God and neither can you. God is beyond description. At most finite humanity can see a finite amount of God but there will always be much more. It's amazing that a philosophier has not noticed that yet.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
One last thing... by

One last thing... by definition God is bigger then anything. How then can any of feuerbach philosophy apply to God? That is like trying to stick God in a box. God is by definition bigger then anything we can imagine and what that implies is that no matter how hard feuerbach philosopies he can never describe God and neither can you. God is beyond description. At most finite humanity can see a finite amount of God but there will always be much more. It's amazing that a philosophier has not noticed that yet.

That was precisly his point! He was not trying to explain God, he was pointing out that the theists attempt to understand and explain  God is utterly ridiculous. His argument was not that God did not exist, but rather that religion was not a medium to understand the concept. This was corroborated by Jung, who pointed out that religion is a worthless, futile attempt to understand a concept that is inherently beyond understand, and to show that religion fails, he points out that in attempting to understand God, they project human attributes like emotion, wishes, needs and wants onto God. Therefore, the basis religion claims as a spirital medium is utterly null and void. You still do not understand and clearly have no knowledge of philosophy.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This reminds me of what

This reminds me of what evolutionist used to believe, that is that evolution occured at a constant rate. Then evidence could not be found for that in the fosil record (or something like that) and so they had to assume that evolution had to occur in leaps and jumps. Who is to say that mitochondrial DNA does not evolve in leaps and bounds also. Since an assumption has been made and it is not possible to test it then any conclusion you reach is useless.

Utter wrongness. Stephan Jay Gould was the one who developed the punctuated equilibrium theory to show that evolution works on different speed gradients. Catastrophicism plays a big part, but gradualism in the form of punctuated equilibrium is the most important aspect. It is demonstratable that for most of geologic time, evolution is slow and gradual.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
"DNA dating is based on the

"DNA dating is based on the assumption (debated by geneticists) that mutations occur at a constant rate."

Indeed it is! My personal take is that the Levinthal paradox suggests it is constant, but I digress. Furthermore, in this case with the mtDNA, we are measuring much smaller scales because it does not extend back to speciation. And, this is corroborated by radiometry. Furthermore, you (suprise!) failed to answer my question

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


GreyhoundMama
GreyhoundMama's picture
Posts: 76
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: One last

deludedgod wrote:

One last thing... by definition God is bigger then anything. How then can any of feuerbach philosophy apply to God? That is like trying to stick God in a box. God is by definition bigger then anything we can imagine and what that implies is that no matter how hard feuerbach philosopies he can never describe God and neither can you. God is beyond description. At most finite humanity can see a finite amount of God but there will always be much more. It's amazing that a philosophier has not noticed that yet.

That was precisly his point! He was not trying to explain God, he was pointing out that the theists attempt to understand and explain  God is utterly ridiculous. His argument was not that God did not exist, but rather that religion was not a medium to understand the concept. This was corroborated by Jung, who pointed out that religion is a worthless, futile attempt to understand a concept that is inherently beyond understand, and to show that religion fails, he points out that in attempting to understand God, they project human attributes like emotion, wishes, needs and wants onto God. Therefore, the basis religion claims as a spirital medium is utterly null and void. You still do not understand and clearly have no knowledge of philosophy.

 

You've just clarified something that I've been thinking for some time now. I'm going to have to read that guy. It's been a VERY long time since I studied philosophy (I have a minor in it) and it's a rusty skill. The conclusions reached, to me, are self-evident, so it's hard for me to explain to people who don't get it. Guess I'd better back up and read other's thoughts on it.

The piece that I totally fail to understand is how you (theists among you) can say he can't be described, but then proceed to explain all these things that you KNOW he wants/needs/expects. The contradiction is glaring.

Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Will_Know wrote:   I

Will_Know wrote:
 

I agree! This is my basic answer, coupled with: if he changes ideas/plans (as he does a few times), then they're NOT absolutes, but relatives, as we humans would do, no more! lol

That's a very good point, but our xian friends would say that god is exempt because he's god. Smiling  After all, he gets to send plagues and floods and command the Israelites to commit genocide...what's a new covenant every so often?

(Churchill's son was right: god IS a shit.) :D 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:

Vastet wrote:

You are rationalizing slavery and rape. I find it disgusting.

And I thought this whole website was about rational... boy was I wrong. No one here is truely rational, no one is logical. I guess that is what happens when logic is not one of the core courses in school.

Here's one of my favorite bible passages showing how rational and loving Yahweh is.

137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
What the Bible says about children and family values
137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

 

Ah, it just makes me get all gooey inside thinking about how much god loves the world.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver

Rev0lver wrote:
JamesAChristian wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

In Judges It is clearly stated that God commanded Jephthah to slaughter the Ammonites. Should he win the battle (he did) God commanded him to initiate great slaughter, whereby he would Without mercy cut them down, kill them all, let the axe fall upon the sheep and the goat and the ass. Take the men as slaves, rape the women and murder the children.

Deluded... I hate to say this but I just read through the verses on Jephthah and no where does it say anything like what you say it says. What Bible are you reading?

i'm not sure what he means with the ammonites, but he might be referring to judges 11:29-31

but, jephthah did kill 42,000 Ephraimites in chapter 12

Weren't Ammonites those nautilus-like sea creatures that died at the end of the Cretacious? 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:
Rev0lver wrote:

i'm not sure what he means with the ammonites, but he might be referring to judges 11:29-31

but, jephthah did kill 42,000 Ephraimites in chapter 12

I don't know where exactly to place this answer so I'll put it here...

I don't expect anyone to really understand this because we live in a society devoid of morality but...

The Bible teaches that God is defined by two chracteristics, love and justice. Love implies he will give us as much time as possible (even give us a substitute) but justice implies that eventually our times runs out. According to these two things time had run out for those people in the Bible who God had destroyed by the Isrealites. It is interesting to point out that eventually Israel's time ran out also and that is when the Assyrians carried away the Northern kingdom. Judah went on for a while longer and then God had to punish them and they went to Babylon. However he saved a remenant so that his promise to Adam and Eve (that he would one day send the seed which would crush the head of the serpent) could be fullfilled.

I don't know where exactly to place this answer so I'll put it here.

I don't expect anyone to really understand this because we live in a society devoid of pirates, but...

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster teaches that the FSM is defined by three characteristics: 1) pasta, 2) sauce and 3) meatballs. His pasta--or Noodly Appendages™--caress us and love us and guide us to the path of morality. But the sauce and meatballs are symbolic of blood and meat, showing that time will someday run out.

If we don't become pirates, global warming will destroy Planet Earth. So, be warned! Wear pirate garb! Buy a parrot! Sail the seven seas! I am not advocating software piracy, but if you absolutely must, PLEASE! At least wear an eyepatch while you're doing so.

People of today don't understand morality and how it relates to being a pirate. If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out (and wear an eyepatch). If thy hand offend thee, hack it off (and wear a hook...arrrrghh!)

The time is drawing nigh!


James, I wrote this to show you how you sound to anyone who isn't a Christian. Your defense of Christianity is just as weak and just as silly as what I wrote above...well, almost as silly. The reason you can't see it is you have been raised in a society that accepts the bible as fact. If you were raised in a society that accepted the Gospel of the FSM as fact, what I wrote above would seem perfectly logical to you.

How do you view Scientology? Be honest. It's pretty ridiculous, isn't it? An evil Lord Xenu? Thetan possession? I mean, get real! Yet there are people who believe that tripe.

Muslims look at what you believe as wrong, too...only they're not laughing. Many of them would stone or behead you without a twinge of conscience. During the Inquisition, Christians tortured and burned people at the stake for much the same reasons. And all of it is over stories that are absolutely ridiculous.

I believe it was Sam Harris who said it would be like believing god wrote an operating system and having wars over Mac, Linux or Windows.

Your beliefs are just as silly, just as without merit as those of Scientologists, Pastafarians and Muslims.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
GreyhoundMama wrote: The

GreyhoundMama wrote:
The piece that I totally fail to understand is how you (theists among you) can say he can't be described, but then proceed to explain all these things that you KNOW he wants/needs/expects. The contradiction is glaring.

Yes, odd, isn't it?

God is so big you can't put him in a box.  By the way, let me explain to you god's love and justice and how time runs out for certain peoples...but he's keeping back a remnant to fulfill his pledge to Adam and Eve.   

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian wrote: I

JamesAChristian wrote:

I tried to explain that you can't force people to change over night but obviously you can't understand that. It would seem then that your idea of changing people is to hold a gun to thier head.

Um, yeah.  That must be how we intend to change people. 

We're holding a gun to your head right now, forcing you to participate in this discussion so we can further force you to change your mind. Smiling

No, most of us have been through the deconversion process and understand it takes time. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
JamesAChristian

JamesAChristian wrote:

Vastet wrote:

You are rationalizing slavery and rape. I find it disgusting.

And I thought this whole website was about rational... boy was I wrong. No one here is truely rational, no one is logical. I guess that is what happens when logic is not one of the core courses in school.

So, when and where did you take your logic class? 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: And how

deludedgod wrote:

And how exactly does Mitochondrial DNA record a location? And how do they know it was 140,000 years ago? (I forgot Evolution and atheist goes hand in hand)

As a biologist, all I will say is that your ignorance of science is not my problem. THe date tracking is done by molecular clock tracking of amino acid divergence in conjunction with radiometry. Here, I'll show you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

When you fail to answer those questions, you can get back to me.

As to feuerbach, your ad hominid fails to counter his point. Are you going to continue to ignore the logical contradiction which I have pointed out

Could you provide references to journal articles/university textbooks for both Endogenous Retroviral Gene insertion and mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration. You can't expect me to take your word for it when you provide no references and you don't say exactly how dating is done or where you got the 140 000 years from. I also assume this is not the dating method of Cann, Rebecca L., Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson (1987), “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution,” Nature, 325:31-36, January 1. I noticed you mentioned it uses radiometry also...

As for the argumentum ad hominem... I did not attack your philosopher friend I plainly said that how can he know what God is if he never met him? You know that philosophy is not a science don't you? Just because some guy gets a bunch of groupies does not mean what he proposes is science. God is defined by a bunch of words which are infinities... anyone who knows math knows that you have to be very careful how you treat infinite numbers infact most operations in math are undefined anytime you run into infinities... it just seems that your treament and feuerbach treatment of inifity (God) is rather reckless. Perhaps you should work his arguments into some statements in propositional logic or something like that.


JamesAChristian
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: That was

deludedgod wrote:


That was precisly his point! He was not trying to explain God, he was pointing out that the theists attempt to understand and explain God is utterly ridiculous. His argument was not that God did not exist, but rather that religion was not a medium to understand the concept. This was corroborated by Jung, who pointed out that religion is a worthless, futile attempt to understand a concept that is inherently beyond understand, and to show that religion fails, he points out that in attempting to understand God, they project human attributes like emotion, wishes, needs and wants onto God. Therefore, the basis religion claims as a spirital medium is utterly null and void. You still do not understand and clearly have no knowledge of philosophy.

I agree at some level with what Jung and feuerbach said then... God is too big for us to understand completely however just because you cannot understand him completely does not mean you cannot understand a little. See your viewpoint and my viewpoint differ in this point... you assume because God is infinite you cannot understand him at all and that he does not have emotions, I however am not making that assumption at all. Tell me, where is the proof that God implies no emotions or not understandable at all? Since I start with the Bible I know that man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) (thus he has some common ground with God no matter how small) and that God has revealed himself through the Bible (that is why it is called God's word).