The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She assumes that atheists are at war with Christians. She may only mean those she calls "new atheists". Most of us don't give a damn about the views of Christians or any other kind of a believer, so long as they aren't developing plans to burn us at the stake or kick down our doors to see what we are doing out of their view. (Like Brian maybe I'm barbecuing kittens or instead having wild group sex). So she is pretty amazed that there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy of atheists plotting to execute them in a version of the Coliseum as food for lions. She says new atheists have no war plans or really any idea what to do if they actually succeed in ridding the world of belief. She somehow can't see that when we confront god-belief in the secular world, we do it to protect everyone's rights to be different. In our society, many things don't belong in the public sector, and god beliefs are way at the top of that list. Pretty much most of us go through life not even thinking about religious fanatics up until the point they stick a religious tract in our face or walk up and ask us if we have been saved. Or when one of them is offended by our apparent lack of their Christian morality for example. So it seems there isn't an overall generalized plan to rid the world of delusional believers. The author should be happy that we haven't organized efforts to eliminate their fantasies from the world. But she seems to think this is a weakness on our part. Here is where the issue develops. It seems that Christians in the US especially, think that interactions with other people must involve their beliefs in the god fantasy. I known your view on this already, but even you tread over the line. More on this later.

It is important to note that she is specifically referencing the "new atheists" who are making it their life's work to attack the religious beliefs of the world and that it (from what I understood) doesn't apply to those who aren't in attack mode.

Her larger point was to show the general flaws in understanding or mistaken approaches to Christianity by the way that "Christians" in general present themselves.  Basically, a lot of claims toward Christianity don't hold water because its basis is in dispensationalism only.. (I'm not sure if she actually used that word)

Though most of us on RRS don't go to the extent of opening a public debate or to make our life's work attacking religion, we don't walk away from many discussions. Public confrontation is not out of the question nor is confrontation when theists start a fight. Other than that my life's work continues to be of self interest in doing what enthralls me.

I got that she was showing the flaws of understanding by the general presentation of Christians.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you can say no to sex and no means no, just what is the deal when you tell one of these fanatics no that is somehow misunderstood? No means no. As in, no thanks I don't want your religious BS tract on how I'm going to burn in hell. Or no, I left the beliefs in imaginary friends behind when I stopped carrying around a blanket and sucking on my thumb. Why does it have to come with but you are going to your eternal damnation and it's needless because Jesus has died for you and me and the hicks in Patagonia. Maybe we need a law that prosecutes believers for illegal soliciting for proselytizing after they have been told no. She claims to be appalled and run from the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson but doesn't get how annoying even her ideas are to a non-believer. She claims to recognize that most of us that don't buy religious delusions would just like to be left alone. Again, that would be really great yet that isn't what actually happens.

It's also good to note as I had mentioned that her book was directed at Christians and not at the non-believer.  Therefore she need not understand how much you don't care because unless you were on this forum or a believer, you wouldn't be reading her book. 

As far as your "no means no".  That's exactly what she (and Christians like us) are getting at.  It's not how its' suppose to be and that's why Christianity is percieved as is.

A well read critic would read her book as she herself is aware.

Glad you and her get no means no. Keep up your efforts to inform your 'Christian' friends.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps one should consider exactly how much god belief is tossed at non-believers on a daily basis. The god fantasy comes to us in many ways. We see homeless on the street corners with signs saying God Bless. The money has God on it, no picture though as that would be idolatry.We swear in a new President and have to have prayers as part of it. Graduations have some sort of group prayer activities as do other supposed secular activities. Issues of controversy such as marriage, divorce, gays, stem cell research, clones, abortion, murder, pedophiles, and even education all have god beliefs injected as part of the discussion. As an atheist it's impossible to avoid the Christian belief because they use such beliefs in a means to propagate rules and laws for all. What if this happened to the Christian every day? How about a pledge that says one nation under Islam, or Yahweh, or Satan? Or a song how Buddha sheds his grace on thee from sea to shining sea? .

uh... there are countries that say that.  and... uh... Christians are persecuted all over the world, sometimes to death for their belief.  So in other words, it does happen to the Christian every day, usually in a much more forceful way than Christians do to the non-believer.  Though I can't speak for every sect, nor do I feel God represents every sect, but I digress.

We have established too, just because someone prays near you doesn't mean you have to too.  Just as a Christian should tolerate the fact that you don't bow your head when they pray, so should the non-believer tolerate someone else praying. 

Everything else you listed off is politics.  Yes, we have our beliefs, but the fact that they have become legal issues in this country goes beyond Christianity.  (at least that's what I believe)

The very same countries that persecute Christians to death also generally do the same to non-believers as well. I assume you mean Islam.

I could care less if someone chooses to pray as they sit down at a blackjack table as long as they don't ask for participation or expect it.

Christianity has entered politics though you may choose to not call the particular sects of believers that do so Christians if you like. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is possible to discuss issues such as abortion without bringing up a god at all.~rip

...says the Baptist around the corner.

I agree with you about how it is possible to discuss any issue without bringing up God.  There are many reasons why a person will agree or disagree with any and all issues.

Exactly.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The stupid Bush policy regarding stem cell research is the epitome of ignorance for example. People got all up in arms over their use, yet these embryos could not survive in the world anyway. It's against the god's will. Since it was man that intervened and developed the embryos, the right time to bitch was before they were fertilized, not after. Next consider how evil clones are. Clones are different than twins exactly how? The clone would be essentially your twin. It would not be you any more than a twin born at the same time you were. Unless they have proof of the soul and can show a twin has only a half a soul. Too many people watched Arnold in the 6th Day apparently.

you are right to include the exception.  If there is a soul... which brings us to the spirit topic again.

Though my issue with cloning doesn't even consider the fact that there's a soul.  All you're doing is manipulating DNA.  So the person might have the same physical and mental traits as the person they were cloned from... does that mean they're born without a soul? (assuming souls exist)  Was science so far advanced that by manipulating physical attributes they were also able to manipulate the persons soul, thus pissing God off???

c'mon people.

I get your point. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The author seems to think we have inadequately defined the enemy as well. Using an extremist such as Coulter, Robertson or Falwell is not to her liking. Yet we also criticize popes, Billy Graham, priests, and even ‘normal believers’ such as her. Consider her comment in her book regarding Dawkins who says there is minimal evidence Jesus claimed any divine status versus her statement that Jesus of Nazareth made it pretty clear why he thought he was here. She clearly missed the point. Is there a recording or vid of Jesus saying this? Did he actually write a book and leave copies, signed as Jesus the Son of God. No, he didn’t So she missed the point as do many theists that argue that Jesus said or did this or that. The claim being made is the writing by unknown writers describes true events by a guy that is supposedly the Son of God. Jesus never wrote even one word. Yeah, I know it was inspired by the god, but how do you know that?

I’ll have more comments on more of her book later as this post seems long enough already. Have fun with it.

you asked if there was video or audio recordings of Jesus making the aforementioned claims.   If the technology was around, maybe, but being it that it was just a tad bit early, the next best thing had to be used.  Writing.  Granted, you see what the Bible says, but the Bible isn't the only book out there that holds record of Jesus.  Do some homeowork.

We understand it to be inspired by God just as you understand your sisters secret diary being inspired by your sister.  Let's even assume she had a friend scribe for her and that you found her diary in a location that wouldn't automatically suggest your sister put it there.  How would you still know it was inspired by her?  Just to put the synics aside, if you say you wouldn't know, then you must not have a sister, either that or you've never read her secret diary or any writings from her.  

As to other books containing records of Jesus, I was not aware you considered advocating Josephus for example to be a true history if that is one of the other books you mean. There is of course the prophet Jesus in the Quran, but you claim to be Christian not Muslim. As to the rest, they are very suspect. See Rook's thread on Jesus as historical. None of the supposed references are able to stand up under scrutiny. Then we have the lack of mention by authors who lived at the time or in the area, such as Philo of Alexandria who lived in Jerusalem during the period of Jesus' supposed life. Or how about Justus of Tiberias who came from Galilee the same area as Jesus who wrote nothing of him. Christian critics agree he was concise but was blinded because he was a Jew. Duh, so was Jesus supposedly. I realize the argument from lack of mention proves little. Perhaps these authors and dozens of others at the time just weren't into a cult believing in a resurrected messiah. Cap, I have done extensive 'homework' regarding the mention of Jesus even in works such as Clement.

The difference is I can actually see my sister in the real world and quiz her on the content of said diary. Can you do the same with God or Jesus in a physical form? No, didn't think so.

If said diary was found after her death her writing is so obvious that I would immediate recognize it. If she had a friend write it, transcribed literally without additions it would still be obvious, though I'd need an explanation from the friend. If it was not obvious that it was literal, my sis goes into a higher plane of intellect or conjecture, I would suspect it was not her original work and had been edited or altered or was pure BS.

I'm nearing completion on a 2nd installment of comments of the book.

 

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

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap, we've established that

Cap, we've established that your view of "true Christianity" is not dispensationalist.

Which is it? Covenant Theology? Preterism (full or partial)?

PM me if you want.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have a

Brian37 wrote:

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

I'm kinda jellous.  Lucky bastard doesn't have to pay taxes. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A well read critic would read her book as she herself is aware.

Glad you and her get no means no. Keep up your efforts to inform your 'Christian' friends.

we try.  People are stubborn.  See the Gospels.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The very same countries that persecute Christians to death also generally do the same to non-believers as well. I assume you mean Islam.

Not necessarily Islam, but they're one of many.  Maybe China?  North Korea?  Granted North Korea falls into the same category of persecuting anyone who doesn't follow Kim's ways. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I could care less if someone chooses to pray as they sit down at a blackjack table as long as they don't ask for participation or expect it.

Good.  You're not one of them then.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christianity has entered politics though you may choose to not call the particular sects of believers that do so Christians if you like. 

That's not what I was saying either.  It's just that politics is no place for those matters.  People are stubborn.  They want their way so badly, that they want to force it upon others.  (This goes for both sides)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to other books containing records of Jesus, I was not aware you considered advocating Josephus for example to be a true history if that is one of the other books you mean. There is of course the prophet Jesus in the Quran, but you claim to be Christian not Muslim. As to the rest, they are very suspect. See Rook's thread on Jesus as historical. None of the supposed references are able to stand up under scrutiny. Then we have the lack of mention by authors who lived at the time or in the area, such as Philo of Alexandria who lived in Jerusalem during the period of Jesus' supposed life. Or how about Justus of Tiberias who came from Galilee the same area as Jesus who wrote nothing of him. Christian critics agree he was concise but was blinded because he was a Jew. Duh, so was Jesus supposedly. I realize the argument from lack of mention proves little. Perhaps these authors and dozens of others at the time just weren't into a cult believing in a resurrected messiah. Cap, I have done extensive 'homework' regarding the mention of Jesus even in works such as Clement.

The difference is I can actually see my sister in the real world and quiz her on the content of said diary. Can you do the same with God or Jesus in a physical form? No, didn't think so.

If said diary was found after her death her writing is so obvious that I would immediate recognize it. If she had a friend write it, transcribed literally without additions it would still be obvious, though I'd need an explanation from the friend. If it was not obvious that it was literal, my sis goes into a higher plane of intellect or conjecture, I would suspect it was not her original work and had been edited or altered or was pure BS.

I'm nearing completion on a 2nd installment of comments of the book.

I was making a general statement that there are many other writings.  More even than you referenced including conflicting beliefs which makes a suggestion at least.

The point of your sisters diary is that you most likely would know her well enough to tell the next person that it was her writing (no matter how erronious or not) due to the fact that you know her personality and her style and approach to life.  That is unless your relationship with said sister is not close.  That would be the exception to the rule.

also same with followers of Christ. 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I am surprised

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

I'm kinda jellous.  Lucky bastard doesn't have to pay taxes. 

         Caposkia;   you finnaly get it. Now just reverse your statement. The CHristian god exist in your belief system, in your head in your heart:  and NO-where else on the face of the earth.  Being rational doesn't hurt at all does it?

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

I'm kinda jellous.  Lucky bastard doesn't have to pay taxes. 

I point at the moon and you constantly stare at my finger tip. Your failure to see my point is that you are focused on detail, when I am trying to point out to you I MADE THAT CRAP UP.

Your worship of a motif of a super hero in the sky is MADE UP. As soon as you face reality, you will understand what I am saying. But because you are so deeply addicted to your nerological morphine case of "warm fuzzies", I might have to conceed to myself that I am fighting an uphill battle trying to free you from your needless adiction to superstition.

 

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, we've

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, we've established that your view of "true Christianity" is not dispensationalist.

Which is it? Covenant Theology? Preterism (full or partial)?

PM me if you want.

Thanks for the candid invite on that response.  I'll give you my strait out honest answer.  I don't know.

I've never tried to put a label nor was a label given to me to put on my following.  I don't have a church or a theological institution that has taught me my ways.  I have not concluded by an individuals persuasion or a groups particular following my understanding of my God.  It is personal growth and research that I have done asking many questions and looking at a lot of different sources and methods of understanding.

This is the biggest challenge I think I and others who hold onto the same following run into.  It is so drilled into people's minds that if you believe in God, you must have a specific source or label for your following.  How do you explain to someone that there isn't for us?  We don't have an established church or following except the general Church of Christ as mentioned in the Bible.  We are united in our following, but we are individual as far as our ways and sources.  We may not understand everything fully and may be wrong about a few things, but we also don't sweat the small stuff and understand that opinions are opinions and nothing more.  It's how you act upon them that makes the difference. 

After all that, to also give you an answer that is simple and concise, in order for me to have an answer to that question, I would have had to pick a particular way of understanding what I know, which I have not.  Therefore, it could be both and it could be neither, partial or whole.  I would also have to consider the people groups involved in each label, which I may or may not agree with either or both, then again, makes it impossible to answer to one label.  (just for the record, I understand what those are and have a general understanding of each)

This is not just my answer, it is the same for all of those people who follow the same way I do.  We don't sweat the small stuff.  That would be one of those things.  To us, it doesn't matter which we are as long as we're following Christ to the best of our understanding and ability. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I point at the

Brian37 wrote:

I point at the moon and you constantly stare at my finger tip. Your failure to see my point is that you are focused on detail, when I am trying to point out to you I MADE THAT CRAP UP.

Your worship of a motif of a super hero in the sky is MADE UP. As soon as you face reality, you will understand what I am saying. But because you are so deeply addicted to your nerological morphine case of "warm fuzzies", I might have to conceed to myself that I am fighting an uphill battle trying to free you from your needless adiction to superstition.

Brian, I know what you're trying to do.  What you're missing is I'm keeping an open mind.

Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.  I would need a legitimate reasoning behind me doubtful accusations.

Simply put, your last attempt first of all doesn't affect me directly, therefore I could care less whether you were making it up or not.  It wouldn't be my place to doubt you unless after a long back and forth discussion I came to a rational conclusion with reasoning behind it for doing so.

You seem to want to bypass rationality and stick right to, "it doesn't jive with my understanding... therefore, it's false." 

Keep trying I guess.

Just a hint:  we might get further in your attempts if you actually try some questioning or research to discuss.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why am I even typing this

Why am I even typing this post? I really do hope that I am not deluding myself into holding out hope that I can snap you out of your fairy tale dream.

I guess it is for the mere reason you have hung on so long. But in any case, Jesus was either divine or magical, pick a word, and humans do not survive rigor mortis. And no one ever claimed that George Washington spit in someone's eye to cure their blindness.

It simply bugs you that we face the reality that gods are merely made up words to placate the emotions of those who dont want to face the reality that this is all there is.

You think you are out to help us, but the reality is the reverse.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christianity has entered politics though you may choose to not call the particular sects of believers that do so Christians if you like. 

That's not what I was saying either.  It's just that politics is no place for those matters.  People are stubborn.  They want their way so badly, that they want to force it upon others.  (This goes for both sides)

OK. Agreed, religious ideas have no business at all in politics or in laws.

caposkia wrote:

I was making a general statement that there are many other writings.  More even than you referenced including conflicting beliefs which makes a suggestion at least.

The point of your sisters diary is that you most likely would know her well enough to tell the next person that it was her writing (no matter how erronious or not) due to the fact that you know her personality and her style and approach to life.  That is unless your relationship with said sister is not close.  That would be the exception to the rule.

also same with followers of Christ. 

I have clearly read even more books on the subject of Jesus in history or in writings then I referenced but still can't tell if he was a real person or not.

My point on my sister is I actually know she exists and can produce her for a physical presentation. She is in the physical dimension of reality. As to the writers of the holy books, they were once here in the real world but the entity they claim inspired them seems to not be in the physical world. As said entity has not shown himself in the real world it is not possible to verify by physical means the writing of said holy books are authentic. These books easily can be like the writings regarding Thor, An, Ki, Eridu, Osaris and Isis created by man to justify and explain actions and events in the world. More on this in my second installment on the book.

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I point at the moon and you constantly stare at my finger tip. Your failure to see my point is that you are focused on detail, when I am trying to point out to you I MADE THAT CRAP UP.

Your worship of a motif of a super hero in the sky is MADE UP. As soon as you face reality, you will understand what I am saying. But because you are so deeply addicted to your nerological morphine case of "warm fuzzies", I might have to conceed to myself that I am fighting an uphill battle trying to free you from your needless adiction to superstition.

Brian, I know what you're trying to do.  What you're missing is I'm keeping an open mind.

Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.  I would need a legitimate reasoning behind me doubtful accusations.

Simply put, your last attempt first of all doesn't affect me directly, therefore I could care less whether you were making it up or not.  It wouldn't be my place to doubt you unless after a long back and forth discussion I came to a rational conclusion with reasoning behind it for doing so.

You seem to want to bypass rationality and stick right to, "it doesn't jive with my understanding... therefore, it's false." 

Keep trying I guess.

Just a hint:  we might get further in your attempts if you actually try some questioning or research to discuss.

Dont try to make this about me. This is about your lack of evidence.

It is false. The Christian god or any claim of the super natural is a gap answer that you, and believers of other silly superstitions cling to because you merely like what you believe.

Humans don't pop out of dirt. The sun and moon reflect the same light from the sun, despite the claims in your convoluted pile of tripe.

Your main character "God" is merely a litterary characture and belongs in the same catigory of Isis and Menervia, despite your repeated claims.

And your claims of your magical camera in the sky, by virtue of the constant human suffering your daddy blames on us. Even if such a being were real(thank thor it isnt) but for argument's sake, I would have no choice but to intelectually view such a claimed being as moraly reprehensable and not worthy of even spitting on.

Facing reality for most is not easy, but is well worth it.

This is not about me. This is about YOU and your lack of evidence.

When you can replicate godsperm and poney it up in a petre dish, you won't just convince me, but Muslims and Jews and Scientologists. Good luck with that. I am sure the medical community and biological comunity is waiting with baited breath for your world shattering descovery.

Believing that the bible is true is like trusting the Weekly World News to tell you that the sun is made of marshmellows.

 

"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


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm reposting a comment that

I'm reposting a comment that got lost in a flurry of posting a page back, I think:

Quote:
is that a better answer to your post?

Not entirely.  But I do appreciate that you're trying to explain your view.

Quote:
Key word here:  His being is beyond our perception.  In other words, what he is, where he is, his existance as a lifeforce (as we understand lifeforce to be)... though we understand he lives because of that general perception that we have of him.

So...

We cannot perceive what God is.

We cannot perceive where God is (though I suppose one could answer "everywhere" if you believe in an omnipresent God).

We cannot perceive God's "lifeforce" (frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since you're saying we couldn't perceive it regardless even if I understood what you meant it doesn't really matter in this context).

But we generally perceive God.  What, might I ask, are we perceiving of God, then?

More importantly: if we cannot perceive what God is, how do you know it is the "True Christian" God of the Bible?  I think you're saying you can perceive some supernatural presence, but why are you assuming it is there the "True Christian" God?

caposkia wrote:
God generally is not beyond human perception.  If he was, then how could we follow Him?

If God is generally not beyond human perception, why are so many people perceiving him differently, and why are many people not perceiving him at all?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia

 Cap.

This is my 2nd installment of comments on the book.

Garrison next launched into a criticism of Dawkins and others stating they brought nothing new to the fray that one had not encountered in their freshman year in college. She satirizes that at best they were sophomoric and even that is unfair to college sophomores. She suggests many of her philosophy discussions were under the influence of illegal substances. This comment makes me wonder about her foundation in basic understanding. If her grandiose ideas and concepts especially conjecture in areas of philosophy have a basis in drug use it casts serious doubt on her eventual conclusions. Drugs play havoc with one's brain and mental processes for years after their use. Anyway, back to my comments. She likens them to be stuck in freshman mode from a theological point of view. Clear she wouldn't’t appreciate that my opinion of her is she is stuck in fantasyland, and she’s not even at Disney. She continues to not grasp the FSM idea especially the demand it be also taught in the event ID would be done in Kansas. In other words, it's just as ridiculous of an idea and has no basis in the real world. In my opinion, elective classes in college could be offered in virtually any subject including these. She goes on to insult Marilyn Manson by comparing him to Coulter at least in methods to generate revenue.

She then suggests that no serious theologian has been refuted by Harris or Dawkins or any other new atheist. They she says, use material from Thomas Aquinas, Anselm or Voltaire. She also claims they disagree on what an atheist is. She of course uses this to suggest if they can't get it together on atheism where do they get to go railing against believers. As I personally don't care what Dawkins or Harris thinks atheism is or isn't I see this as a shot to distract people from the real issue. The real issue being that god belief is fantasy based delusion. I never read Harris or Dawkins or any other atheist author in my quest of understanding that lead me to disbelief. Instead, I read history and the holy books and tried to grapple the contradictions with my science and engineering education and my religious upbringing.

In contrast to her earlier appeal that Jesus said clearly why he was here she hypocritically asserts that a moratorium should be in place on Jesus said it comments, that ends it she says .She seemed to go to that well herself. She agrees that most American Christians know diddy about the basic tenets of their own faith and even less about other religions. I too have seen this evident both online and in discussions with believers. She admits that she is not a leading knowledgeable expert but suggests other modern thinkers like Brian McLaren would be better suited to triumph over the dead delusionals advocating new atheism. My view on believers in America is the majority makes the claims and knows very little. That which they do know is based on the KJV, non-Catholics anyway. They have no idea about the history of the church, the origins of their sacred book, its inaccuracies, and the events of the reformation, the early church fathers, or the early beliefs of the 1st century. They will cling to literal concepts until you hand them a fossil you just removed from a rock formation. Then they begin to wriggle and squirm. You soon learn they only profess belief because mommy and daddy were Christian.

In her chapter called Does God Matter she begins by questioning the why of atheists even bothering with beliefs they consider absurd nonsense. She understands that we demand concrete proof of the God but is dismissive of it. She thinks from her reading that ‘new atheists’ generally come from a non-religious environment. As I indicated in my case that is not so. This she thinks causes atheists to question or buck authority. This leads into her satire about Stenger wanting concrete proof Jesus was a real man and if so his bones need to be produced. She proceeds to explain how that would not be so as in his tomb was found empty. So far I don’t see where she answers the question of providing proof.

She continues in her explanation of events after the resurrection by selecting parts of Luke describing the encounter on the road to Emmaus and adding Matthew’s tomb sealing with Roman guards. This is a technique of Hollywood such as Mel Gibson when he tossed all of the Gospels into a blender to create Passion. She asserts the claim that being a Christian was a risky thing to do so if it was mythical why do it. She ends the discussion saying “using empirical data to describe a transcendent God that defies human descriptions doesn’t work. ‘Nuf said.” This makes it clear she relies on faith and sees a demand for proof as unneeded. In her words, ‘nuf said. Cap, you know how atheists view this evasion by now.

Garrison next discusses Dawkins idea called memes. She discredits it by arguing most scientists don’t concur or even grasp what he is talking about. I don’t see the idea of memes as essential to the discussion at hand. She goes on to discuss ungodly standards where she continues to justify the lack of real world evidence regarding god as he /she/it transcends time, space and matter. Therefore you can't lay the god out on a lab table. So instead of proof she suggests beating the ‘new atheists’ over the head literally with the writing of Phyllis Tickle.

She then claims the NAS, National Academy of Science can make no claim regarding the supernatural & whether god exists or not. That diversion burned up a few pages of content for her. On she moves to the discussion by Stenger & Dawkins about soul existence. She says Stenger suggests if it exists we should be able to measure it’s life forces such as chi (qi) and ESP & use psychics & mediums to communicate with the dead. She then satirizes this pointless discussion until she burns another page off. As this subject is in the thread on supernatural and seems to be well discussed I won’t dwell on it here. IMO, if you can’t see, measure, feel, touch, describe, or test it’s on you to prove it’s in the real world and not part of the fantasy dimension.

She discusses the Christian community’s lukewarm ludicrous at times portrayal of the Jesus teachings. This is a major way that atheists get ammo to blast away. This includes the ridiculous efforts to equate men and monkeys in the past as well as televangelists that solicit cash to pay your way to god. She cites also that those who blame God for all the evils and actions of the Church over the years to realize it’s not the faith but those that deceive that are the problem. She suggests it’s up to Christians to stand up collectively and kick these charlatans to the curb. If Christians seek to be like Jesus then they must seek a life of faith that governs all of their actions. Here I always have agreed with the statement that generally one would never know what a Christian believed by the actions one sees them do. I would guess this is part of what you say makes a Christian a true believer instead of those that profess belief and burn heretics at the stake.
Again this is quite enough for this post.

 

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

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Why am I even

Brian37 wrote:

Why am I even typing this post? I really do hope that I am not deluding myself into holding out hope that I can snap you out of your fairy tale dream.

I guess it is for the mere reason you have hung on so long. But in any case, Jesus was either divine or magical, pick a word, and humans do not survive rigor mortis. And no one ever claimed that George Washington spit in someone's eye to cure their blindness.

It simply bugs you that we face the reality that gods are merely made up words to placate the emotions of those who dont want to face the reality that this is all there is.

You think you are out to help us, but the reality is the reverse.

I'm not sure why you're even typing this post.  It's obvious from this post that you have ignored much of what I've said on here and fail to accept the fact that I'm on here so people can "challenge what I know". 

I'm sorry.  I respect you. I really do, but you have failed miserably in challenging any part of my belief.  I've already told you, if you really want to "make me face reality", then please, present me something besides your own belief. 

You know the same presentation from me would not work on you, why would you expect it to work on me?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have clearly read even more books on the subject of Jesus in history or in writings then I referenced but still can't tell if he was a real person or not.

Ok, let's go with this.  The first question I would ask myself is whether those books were contradictory in any way.  If so, I'd like references.  It's very possible I haven't read them yet. 

I'm also curious on what it is that's holding you to not knowing if Jesus is a real person or not?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Dont try to

Brian37 wrote:

Dont try to make this about me. This is about your lack of evidence.

I apologise for my attempt to ask you to present any evidence for your claims. 

It becomes about you when you're presenting me your belief without evidence.  Isn't that what you keep complaining about as far as believers go?

Brian37 wrote:

It is false. The Christian god or any claim of the super natural is a gap answer that you, and believers of other silly superstitions cling to because you merely like what you believe.

that's heavy... alright.  I'm convinced!

Brian37 wrote:

Humans don't pop out of dirt. The sun and moon reflect the same light from the sun, despite the claims in your convoluted pile of tripe.

now that's poetic justice

Brian37 wrote:

Your main character "God" is merely a litterary characture and belongs in the same catigory of Isis and Menervia, despite your repeated claims.

you're good.  I think I might almost be an atheist!

Brian37 wrote:

And your claims of your magical camera in the sky, by virtue of the constant human suffering your daddy blames on us. Even if such a being were real(thank thor it isnt) but for argument's sake, I would have no choice but to intelectually view such a claimed being as moraly reprehensable and not worthy of even spitting on.

Facing reality for most is not easy, but is well worth it.

This is not about me. This is about YOU and your lack of evidence.

I'm sorry.  Please tell me what you were looking for.  SPECIFICALLY.  Sorry, I don't see it relevent to pray to my God for him to allow you to fart out a car.

Brian37 wrote:

When you can replicate godsperm and poney it up in a petre dish, you won't just convince me, but Muslims and Jews and Scientologists. Good luck with that. I am sure the medical community and biological comunity is waiting with baited breath for your world shattering descovery.

Why is it that you continue looking for physical evidence of a spiritual God?  It seems most others on here at least understand where I'm coming from on that topic.

Brian37 wrote:

Believing that the bible is true is like trusting the Weekly World News to tell you that the sun is made of marshmellows.

I'm convinced! I'm now an atheist!!! woot!  I feel so... confined...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:We cannot

Balkoth wrote:

We cannot perceive what God is.

We cannot perceive where God is (though I suppose one could answer "everywhere" if you believe in an omnipresent God).

We cannot perceive God's "lifeforce" (frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since you're saying we couldn't perceive it regardless even if I understood what you meant it doesn't really matter in this context).

But we generally perceive God.  What, might I ask, are we perceiving of God, then?

I'd say his being.  This is a disciphering of spiritual presence vs. physical presence.  Have you ever known someone was in the room with you even though you didn't see them or hear them?  Same idea.

Balkoth wrote:

More importantly: if we cannot perceive what God is, how do you know it is the "True Christian" God of the Bible?  I think you're saying you can perceive some supernatural presence, but why are you assuming it is there the "True Christian" God?

I have continuously challenged my understanding.  The more I challenge it or allow others to challenge it, the more I'm convinced this understanding is true. 

It is very possible that my understanding is wrong.  Though right now, we're trying to get past the point of whether this spiritual being whoever he may be exists at all or not.

Balkoth wrote:

If God is generally not beyond human perception, why are so many people perceiving him differently, and why are many people not perceiving him at all?

Are you refering to perception or understanding.  There's a difference.  I think you mean understanding. 

They all understand he's real, they perceive him, but they understand him differently. 

You have to take into consideration too the influences behind each persons "understanding". 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap.

This is my 2nd installment of comments on the book.

Garrison next launched into a criticism of Dawkins and others stating they brought nothing new to the fray that one had not encountered in their freshman year in college. She satirizes that at best they were sophomoric and even that is unfair to college sophomores. She suggests many of her philosophy discussions were under the influence of illegal substances. This comment makes me wonder about her foundation in basic understanding. If her grandiose ideas and concepts especially conjecture in areas of philosophy have a basis in drug use it casts serious doubt on her eventual conclusions. Drugs play havoc with one's brain and mental processes for years after their use. Anyway, back to my comments. She likens them to be stuck in freshman mode from a theological point of view. Clear she wouldn't’t appreciate that my opinion of her is she is stuck in fantasyland, and she’s not even at Disney. She continues to not grasp the FSM idea especially the demand it be also taught in the event ID would be done in Kansas. In other words, it's just as ridiculous of an idea and has no basis in the real world. In my opinion, elective classes in college could be offered in virtually any subject including these. She goes on to insult Marilyn Manson by comparing him to Coulter at least in methods to generate revenue.

You can question her conclusions by her claim of a drug haze, but how much water do they hold...  Her point was obvious I'm sure and doesn't need further explanation. 

I get her point though.  Not you necessarily, but many atheists use the excuse that there are 5000 different ways of "knowing God" in just the United States.  I accept that as true.  They go on to say that because of that, God can't be true.  Her point was she can make the same claim about atheists. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then suggests that no serious theologian has been refuted by Harris or Dawkins or any other new atheist. They she says, use material from Thomas Aquinas, Anselm or Voltaire. She also claims they disagree on what an atheist is. She of course uses this to suggest if they can't get it together on atheism where do they get to go railing against believers. As I personally don't care what Dawkins or Harris thinks atheism is or isn't I see this as a shot to distract people from the real issue. The real issue being that god belief is fantasy based delusion. I never read Harris or Dawkins or any other atheist author in my quest of understanding that lead me to disbelief. Instead, I read history and the holy books and tried to grapple the contradictions with my science and engineering education and my religious upbringing.

that would mean this would not apply to you.  It seems you've taken a smart approach to your current following.  Have you considered comparing your science and engineering education to God with religion out of the picture?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In contrast to her earlier appeal that Jesus said clearly why he was here she hypocritically asserts that a moratorium should be in place on Jesus said it comments, that ends it she says .She seemed to go to that well herself. She agrees that most American Christians know diddy about the basic tenets of their own faith and even less about other religions. I too have seen this evident both online and in discussions with believers. She admits that she is not a leading knowledgeable expert but suggests other modern thinkers like Brian McLaren would be better suited to triumph over the dead delusionals advocating new atheism. My view on believers in America is the majority makes the claims and knows very little. That which they do know is based on the KJV, non-Catholics anyway. They have no idea about the history of the church, the origins of their sacred book, its inaccuracies, and the events of the reformation, the early church fathers, or the early beliefs of the 1st century. They will cling to literal concepts until you hand them a fossil you just removed from a rock formation. Then they begin to wriggle and squirm. You soon learn they only profess belief because mommy and daddy were Christian.

precisely.  So then what's my excuse?  There are many believers out there that acutally know a thing or two about things of relevence.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In her chapter called Does God Matter she begins by questioning the why of atheists even bothering with beliefs they consider absurd nonsense. She understands that we demand concrete proof of the God but is dismissive of it. She thinks from her reading that ‘new atheists’ generally come from a non-religious environment. As I indicated in my case that is not so. This she thinks causes atheists to question or buck authority. This leads into her satire about Stenger wanting concrete proof Jesus was a real man and if so his bones need to be produced. She proceeds to explain how that would not be so as in his tomb was found empty. So far I don’t see where she answers the question of providing proof.

She was only clarifying the source for proofs from what I understand.  You can't ask for certain proofs because the Bible makes it clear that they wouldn't be there.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She continues in her explanation of events after the resurrection by selecting parts of Luke describing the encounter on the road to Emmaus and adding Matthew’s tomb sealing with Roman guards. This is a technique of Hollywood such as Mel Gibson when he tossed all of the Gospels into a blender to create Passion. She asserts the claim that being a Christian was a risky thing to do so if it was mythical why do it. She ends the discussion saying “using empirical data to describe a transcendent God that defies human descriptions doesn’t work. ‘Nuf said.” This makes it clear she relies on faith and sees a demand for proof as unneeded. In her words, ‘nuf said. Cap, you know how atheists view this evasion by now.

absolutely.  Which is why I take the approach I do.  Her book was more trying to discredit the ideas many atheists have brought up rather than provide tangeble evidences for God.

The reason I brought it up is because I've repeatedly seen many feeble approaches that she (in my understanding) clearly shows couldn't possibly hold water on either side. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Garrison next discusses Dawkins idea called memes. She discredits it by arguing most scientists don’t concur or even grasp what he is talking about. I don’t see the idea of memes as essential to the discussion at hand. She goes on to discuss ungodly standards where she continues to justify the lack of real world evidence regarding god as he /she/it transcends time, space and matter. Therefore you can't lay the god out on a lab table. So instead of proof she suggests beating the ‘new atheists’ over the head literally with the writing of Phyllis Tickle.

as I've tried to explain a few times.  You can't rely on the physical alone for "proof" of God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then claims the NAS, National Academy of Science can make no claim regarding the supernatural & whether god exists or not. That diversion burned up a few pages of content for her. On she moves to the discussion by Stenger & Dawkins about soul existence. She says Stenger suggests if it exists we should be able to measure it’s life forces such as chi (qi) and ESP & use psychics & mediums to communicate with the dead. She then satirizes this pointless discussion until she burns another page off. As this subject is in the thread on supernatural and seems to be well discussed I won’t dwell on it here. IMO, if you can’t see, measure, feel, touch, describe, or test it’s on you to prove it’s in the real world and not part of the fantasy dimension.

99% of atheists wouldn't even consider the use of the suggested approaches Stenger offered.  Therefore, what other proof would there be?  I do believe you can see the effects in the real world of spirits, though I also believe most will work harder at trying to explain it away than to surrender to the idea that it could have been a spirit.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She discusses the Christian community’s lukewarm ludicrous at times portrayal of the Jesus teachings. This is a major way that atheists get ammo to blast away. This includes the ridiculous efforts to equate men and monkeys in the past as well as televangelists that solicit cash to pay your way to god. She cites also that those who blame God for all the evils and actions of the Church over the years to realize it’s not the faith but those that deceive that are the problem. She suggests it’s up to Christians to stand up collectively and kick these charlatans to the curb. If Christians seek to be like Jesus then they must seek a life of faith that governs all of their actions. Here I always have agreed with the statement that generally one would never know what a Christian believed by the actions one sees them do. I would guess this is part of what you say makes a Christian a true believer instead of those that profess belief and burn heretics at the stake.
Again this is quite enough for this post.

yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out.

 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'd say his

caposkia wrote:
I'd say his being.  This is a disciphering of spiritual presence vs. physical presence.  Have you ever known someone was in the room with you even though you didn't see them or hear them?  Same idea.

No, I've never felt like there was a supernatural presence.  What you're saying, then, basically sums up to this:

There is absolutely no physical evidence of God.  I sense a supernatural presence anyway.

If that is true, then we can disregard the physical side for a moment.  In terms of this...supernatural presence...why do you think it's there?  How do you know that your mind isn't playing tricks on you or that you're not hallucinating?  If you're sure neither of those is true, then why do many people not sense this supernatural presence?  Are you supernaturally gifted in a way that they are not?

Quote:
I have continuously challenged my understanding.  The more I challenge it or allow others to challenge it, the more I'm convinced this understanding is true. 

It is very possible that my understanding is wrong.  Though right now, we're trying to get past the point of whether this spiritual being whoever he may be exists at all or not.

Pardon me, but you *haven't* challenged your understanding.  Again, please correct me if I missed something, but what you've said seems to boil down to...

"There is absolutely no physical evidence of God.  I sense a supernatural presence anyway."

And yes, many people disagree that anything supernatural exists.  That's the issue.  You obviously think you're right and that a supernatural world exists and thus disagree with us.  Why are we not sensing this supernatural world?

As an aside, logic wise, since you're making the claim that a supernatural world exists, the burden of proof for it is technically on you.  How did you convince yourself?

Quote:
Are you refering to perception or understanding.  There's a difference.  I think you mean understanding. 

They all understand he's real, they perceive him, but they understand him differently. 

You have to take into consideration too the influences behind each persons "understanding".

No, I mean perception.  I have not ever percieved a supernatural world.  Nor have many people, I think.  Frankly, if we could percieve the supernatural world, then it wouldn't be faith so much, would it?  It would be believing in something we had SOME kind of evidence for.  So #1 issue is that many people do not percieve a supernatural power, period.

Issue #2 is that some people percieve multiple gods.  How do you reconcile that?

Issue #3 is how radically the perception can differ.  And if people "understand" God differently, why do you think your understanding is correct?  If you were raised a Muslim, do you think you'd believe what you believe now?  How about if you were raised in a deist family, or even an atheist family?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do believe you can

Quote:
I do believe you can see the effects in the real world of spirits, though I also believe most will work harder at trying to explain it away than to surrender to the idea that it could have been a spirit.

Spirits, Isis, leprechans, snarfwidgits......yadda yadda yadda. If you truely want to believe you are Napolean, certainly one can delude themselves into believing anything. You simply like the idea of "spirits". You need to stop treating the Weekly World News as your herion.

Spirits are NOT real anymore than the earth is flat.

I'll give you the same challenge I give on the claim of "spirits" as I do your claim of your deity, "poney up with some spirit sperm, or spirit DNA", then you'll have something.

It is all in your head, nothing more.

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap, you wrote:"yes, this is

Cap, you wrote:

"yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out."

So, if you and the author are correct that a Christian life is one where faith in Christ permeates all actions, you have a life that is fun to talk about but is unlivable.

For a life to be totally dependent on faith would be a life of inaction. Any action you take to assist yourself would negate the faith you have.

Or do you mean that you tkae all your actions while looking over your spiritual shoulder to make sure that Christ would approve? That seems too much like the paranoia that Ilived through as a Christian - not sure if I want to go back to that again.

Then again, it could just mean that you are so secure that your actions fit Christ's pattern that you are your own Christ...

Just musing, don't mind me.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap.

This is my 2nd installment of comments on the book.

Garrison next launched into a criticism of Dawkins and others stating they brought nothing new to the fray that one had not encountered in their freshman year in college. She satirizes that at best they were sophomoric and even that is unfair to college sophomores. She suggests many of her philosophy discussions were under the influence of illegal substances. This comment makes me wonder about her foundation in basic understanding. If her grandiose ideas and concepts especially conjecture in areas of philosophy have a basis in drug use it casts serious doubt on her eventual conclusions. Drugs play havoc with one's brain and mental processes for years after their use. Anyway, back to my comments. She likens them to be stuck in freshman mode from a theological point of view. Clear she wouldn't’t appreciate that my opinion of her is she is stuck in fantasyland, and she’s not even at Disney. She continues to not grasp the FSM idea especially the demand it be also taught in the event ID would be done in Kansas. In other words, it's just as ridiculous of an idea and has no basis in the real world. In my opinion, elective classes in college could be offered in virtually any subject including these. She goes on to insult Marilyn Manson by comparing him to Coulter at least in methods to generate revenue.

You can question her conclusions by her claim of a drug haze, but how much water do they hold...  Her point was obvious I'm sure and doesn't need further explanation. 

I get her point though.  Not you necessarily, but many atheists use the excuse that there are 5000 different ways of "knowing God" in just the United States.  I accept that as true.  They go on to say that because of that, God can't be true.  Her point was she can make the same claim about atheists.

Only 5000 ways of knowing god? I thought it was over 270 million just in the US. One doesn't need to use the multitude of how believers perceive god to show it's not true. That shows something else. It shows the basis of the belief is based on complications and misunderstandings not that the basis is imaginary. The imaginary part comes from the acceptance of concepts in general that have no basis in reality. This is what you call faith. You are basing your faith on written words from 2000 years ago which cannot be shown to have occurred in our time space dimension. It gets even worse when you realize that the writers 2000 years ago did the same using oral tradition and written words from either further ancient times. In the end, the beliefs comes out of the time of mists and myths which are very clearly shown in the Bible as such. It's here where you overlook what has occurred and accept the written words of unknown writers that interpreted their world in light of the available knowledge. That you choose to accept the words of these people over that which you actually see and observe is the major difference between you as a believer and those of us that question all of it.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then suggests that no serious theologian has been refuted by Harris or Dawkins or any other new atheist. They she says, use material from Thomas Aquinas, Anselm or Voltaire. She also claims they disagree on what an atheist is. She of course uses this to suggest if they can't get it together on atheism where do they get to go railing against believers. As I personally don't care what Dawkins or Harris thinks atheism is or isn't I see this as a shot to distract people from the real issue. The real issue being that god belief is fantasy based delusion. I never read Harris or Dawkins or any other atheist author in my quest of understanding that lead me to disbelief. Instead, I read history and the holy books and tried to grapple the contradictions with my science and engineering education and my religious upbringing.

that would mean this would not apply to you.  It seems you've taken a smart approach to your current following.  Have you considered comparing your science and engineering education to God with religion out of the picture?

I try to be objective as I can in analyzing the god question in light of my engineering & science education. The belief of any religion was not of ultimate concern when I began my search for understanding.  In fairness I start with the ancients and compared beliefs between cultures. There are similarities where their lack of knowledge inserts "a god did it". This goes back to early recorded histories of Sumer, the Mitani, the Hittites and of course the Egyptians. This is also true in the Western Hemisphere with the Incas, Mayans and the Aztecs. It seems to be man's need to ask why along with the knowledge that life will end. The god beliefs derived from the Abraham god are no exception to this and one can see how they do the same thing if you choose to objectively look at the whole picture with all religious beliefs held out. One uses the techniques of science to exam what has been handed down as true in the Bible just as one should do with the stories of Sumer. None should be given status of validity without proof. And you know where that ultimately goes. I looked long and hard and still find nothing to back the religious beliefs that can't be explained by knowledge and education. Knowledge is power. I always say, read more, kill less.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In contrast to her earlier appeal that Jesus said clearly why he was here she hypocritically asserts that a moratorium should be in place on Jesus said it comments, that ends it she says .She seemed to go to that well herself. She agrees that most American Christians know diddy about the basic tenets of their own faith and even less about other religions. I too have seen this evident both online and in discussions with believers. She admits that she is not a leading knowledgeable expert but suggests other modern thinkers like Brian McLaren would be better suited to triumph over the dead delusionals advocating new atheism. My view on believers in America is the majority makes the claims and knows very little. That which they do know is based on the KJV, non-Catholics anyway. They have no idea about the history of the church, the origins of their sacred book, its inaccuracies, and the events of the reformation, the early church fathers, or the early beliefs of the 1st century. They will cling to literal concepts until you hand them a fossil you just removed from a rock formation. Then they begin to wriggle and squirm. You soon learn they only profess belief because mommy and daddy were Christian.

precisely.  So then what's my excuse?  There are many believers out there that acutally know a thing or two about things of relevence.

I don't know why you believe. You see the same stories that I do which I consider myths. Even if considered as allegories, then you have to explain why. As I told you, the beliefs fail from the beginning of Gen 1:1 and only get more tipsy as more is built on top. If the foundation is poor the whole structure fails. The God of Abe foundation isn't even on a good sand foundation.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In her chapter called Does God Matter she begins by questioning the why of atheists even bothering with beliefs they consider absurd nonsense. She understands that we demand concrete proof of the God but is dismissive of it. She thinks from her reading that ‘new atheists’ generally come from a non-religious environment. As I indicated in my case that is not so. This she thinks causes atheists to question or buck authority. This leads into her satire about Stenger wanting concrete proof Jesus was a real man and if so his bones need to be produced. She proceeds to explain how that would not be so as in his tomb was found empty. So far I don’t see where she answers the question of providing proof.

She was only clarifying the source for proofs from what I understand.  You can't ask for certain proofs because the Bible makes it clear that they wouldn't be there.

Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She continues in her explanation of events after the resurrection by selecting parts of Luke describing the encounter on the road to Emmaus and adding Matthew’s tomb sealing with Roman guards. This is a technique of Hollywood such as Mel Gibson when he tossed all of the Gospels into a blender to create Passion. She asserts the claim that being a Christian was a risky thing to do so if it was mythical why do it. She ends the discussion saying “using empirical data to describe a transcendent God that defies human descriptions doesn’t work. ‘Nuf said.” This makes it clear she relies on faith and sees a demand for proof as unneeded. In her words, ‘nuf said. Cap, you know how atheists view this evasion by now.

absolutely.  Which is why I take the approach I do.  Her book was more trying to discredit the ideas many atheists have brought up rather than provide tangible evidences for God.

The reason I brought it up is because I've repeatedly seen many feeble approaches that she (in my understanding) clearly shows couldn't possibly hold water on either side.

I understand that many play feeble games to discredit views. I don't see where that is needed at all. My problem with believers, especially Christians and Muslims is they don't feel they need to provide the original basis for the god belief. Islam jumps straight into the Koran and the prophet and Christianity goes to Jesus died for you and me. The problem with both is they depend on the original belief in Yahweh being in the real world and not another fantasy delusional myth. When in fact many myths are in the Hebrew version of the holy book and can be shown to derive from other cultures which were religiously based and now are discredited by all 3 belief systems. 

One does not suddenly began explaining Laplace transforms to 1st year engineering students until they know the difference between AC and DC circuits. One does not expect a 1st year engineering student to design a switch mode power supply. One would start with doing simple voltage divider networks using DC circuits and proceed down a path showing them a logical way to proceed.

Yet, Christians slam Jesus out as a true concept with little thought or understanding of where the original basis started. Most don't even care at all and can't be bothered beyond the Bible says this and that if they even have read it.

caposkia wrote:

as I've tried to explain a few times.  You can't rely on the physical alone for "proof" of God.

I know you say that. Those of us that have no perception in the world of the supernatural and consider it to be not in the real world just don't get this. As far as I can tell its self generated. I remember the feelings I had as a believer and consider them to have originated within my own creative nature based on stimulation to the environment I was constantly enveloped (religious schools, churches, constant study of the Bible).

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then claims the NAS, National Academy of Science can make no claim regarding the supernatural & whether god exists or not. That diversion burned up a few pages of content for her. On she moves to the discussion by Stenger & Dawkins about soul existence. She says Stenger suggests if it exists we should be able to measure it’s life forces such as chi (qi) and ESP & use psychics & mediums to communicate with the dead. She then satirizes this pointless discussion until she burns another page off. As this subject is in the thread on supernatural and seems to be well discussed I won’t dwell on it here. IMO, if you can’t see, measure, feel, touch, describe, or test it’s on you to prove it’s in the real world and not part of the fantasy dimension.

99% of atheists wouldn't even consider the use of the suggested approaches Stenger offered.  Therefore, what other proof would there be?  I do believe you can see the effects in the real world of spirits, though I also believe most will work harder at trying to explain it away than to surrender to the idea that it could have been a spirit.

I don't see any effects from spirits and see no need to work at discrediting them. Many things have become obvious to us in the 20th and 21st centuries that our ancestors had no clue regarding. Flight, space travel, knowledge of bacteria, viruses, machines, and electronics to mention a few. Can you picture how a person from 2000 years ago would be shocked at our world if they suddenly found themselves here? Your idea of spirits easily could have an explainable cause that just has not been completely understood, no need to attribute it to gods or supernatural origins. I maintain that one needs to be patient and more will be known, maybe not every little thing but man is very persistent in his quest for understanding. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She discusses the Christian community’s lukewarm ludicrous at times portrayal of the Jesus teachings. This is a major way that atheists get ammo to blast away. This includes the ridiculous efforts to equate men and monkeys in the past as well as televangelists that solicit cash to pay your way to god. She cites also that those who blame God for all the evils and actions of the Church over the years to realize it’s not the faith but those that deceive that are the problem. She suggests it’s up to Christians to stand up collectively and kick these charlatans to the curb. If Christians seek to be like Jesus then they must seek a life of faith that governs all of their actions. Here I always have agreed with the statement that generally one would never know what a Christian believed by the actions one sees them do. I would guess this is part of what you say makes a Christian a true believer instead of those that profess belief and burn heretics at the stake.
Again this is quite enough for this post.

yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out. 

I have told you before that I understand what a believer that is per se a true Christian would be according to the doctrine embedded in the NT. It clarifies why you don't accept the doctrines of organized beliefs as these religions do not follow that which appears to be the doctrine from my interpretation. Everyone's interpretation of the ancient writings could be false as meanings have altered through time and detail has been lost. As I indicated earlier, understanding what a Jesus believer should be according to the NT, does not make it true. It indicates only that based on the written words of unknown writers that it is what they thought and no more. The ideas again have to hold up to reality and have a solid foundation, IMO, they don't.

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Which is why Brian

Quote:
Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

It's "Fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass". "Car" geeze, if one is going to blaspheme, do it with class.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Which is

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

It's "Fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass". "Car" geeze, if one is going to blaspheme, do it with class.

OK. I admit I was lazy and didn't feel like checking the spelling for "Lamborghini". 

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

It's "Fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass". "Car" geeze, if one is going to blaspheme, do it with class.

OK. I admit I was lazy and didn't feel like checking the spelling for "Lamborghini". 

Smarty pants.

"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


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

That's the pure magic of supernatural belief. You claim that someone could fart a Lamborginni out of his ass and the believer just nods like a bovine animal.

They go on to ask about this person and whether or not they exist... never once questioning the whole magical anus. The existence of this person is yet to be proved, but their wish granting sphincter is a given.

That... is... awesome. 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

I'm kinda jellous.  Lucky bastard doesn't have to pay taxes. 

No way... Are you really that stupid? I kind of half suspect you're an atheist just pulling our collective leg, but I know people can be down right retarded...

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Just because you tell

Quote:
Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.

That makes you a fool. If I honestly believe that I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass, and you believe that I believe that, even though you know I am wrong, what kind of friend would you be allowing me to run the stop light and t-bone the mini van with the family full of kids, merely because you wanted to respect my right to believe that the light was green?

 

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:No, I've never

Balkoth wrote:

No, I've never felt like there was a supernatural presence.  What you're saying, then, basically sums up to this:

There is absolutely no physical evidence of God.  I sense a supernatural presence anyway.

Let's back up for a second.  I never asked you if you felt like there was a supernatural presence.  I've asked you if you've known someone (a human being) was (tangebly/actually/really) in the room with you, yet you did not see them or hear them.  If you haven't, there are many documented cases of this occurance.  I'm sure the research to find some of them wouldn't be hard.

I never mentioned supernatural either.  I tend not to use that word due to its connotations. 

Balkoth wrote:

Pardon me, but you *haven't* challenged your understanding.  Again, please correct me if I missed something, but what you've said seems to boil down to...

"There is absolutely no physical evidence of God.  I sense a supernatural presence anyway."

God has and can affect the physical, so I guess I wouldn't be saying that there's "no physical evidence", but God is not a physical being.  So if you mean to say that you cannot physically find God, then true, there would be no physical evidence.

Also, there's a reason I'm on this site... therefore I'll reword your statement to fit my purpose of being here... YOU *haven't* challenged my understanding.

Balkoth wrote:

And yes, many people disagree that anything supernatural exists.  That's the issue.  You obviously think you're right and that a supernatural world exists and thus disagree with us.  Why are we not sensing this supernatural world?

maybe you're not looking for it.  Just because you walked by a cat in the bushes and didn't realize it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Balkoth wrote:

As an aside, logic wise, since you're making the claim that a supernatural world exists, the burden of proof for it is technically on you.  How did you convince yourself?

Everyone keeps saying that.  If you read the topic of this forum, I never said anything about my purpose being to present you proof.  It seems that you're on here to prove to me that God does not exist.  Therefore, back to you.

I did research, saw many things that could not otherwise be explained.  I also see changes in people that are always ironically tied into God.  trends that happen around God, etc.

Balkoth wrote:

No, I mean perception.  I have not ever percieved a supernatural world.  Nor have many people, I think.  Frankly, if we could percieve the supernatural world, then it wouldn't be faith so much, would it?  It would be believing in something we had SOME kind of evidence for.  So #1 issue is that many people do not percieve a supernatural power, period.

one definition of the word could be to become aware of or know by the senses, though the #2 defintion is; "to recognize, discern, envision, or understand"  Statistics show that the majority of the world by that definition do actually "perceive" a spiritual world.

Balkoth wrote:

Issue #2 is that some people percieve multiple gods.  How do you reconcile that?

There are many explanations.  The Bible shows how many demons pretend to be gods.

Balkoth wrote:

Issue #3 is how radically the perception can differ.  And if people "understand" God differently, why do you think your understanding is correct?  If you were raised a Muslim, do you think you'd believe what you believe now?  How about if you were raised in a deist family, or even an atheist family?

Be it that I don't follow the believe I was raised under, yea, I figure that I probably would believe what I do now.  

I've already mentioned too that my belief could be wrong.  I'm willing to accept that, but we first have to get over the hurtle of a spiritual existance or not. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've already mentioned

Quote:
I've already mentioned too that my belief could be wrong.  I'm willing to accept that, but we first have to get over the hurtle of a spiritual existance or not.

That first sentance is the first step toward recovory.

Quote:
but we first have to get over the hurtle of a spiritual existance or not.

"We" don't have to get over that hurdle. YOU have to prove the claims that YOU make.

All you have to do is come up with prior data(a history of claims is not the same as a history of evedence).

Take that prior data, and come up with a hypothesis.

Build a workable model for this hypothesis.

Set up control groups to compare the input of the data into the model.

Demonstrate that process in front of independent peer reviewed sources.

Get back to us when you can do that.

 

 

 

 

"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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Balkoth

caposkia wrote:

Balkoth wrote:
As an aside, logic wise, since you're making the claim that a supernatural world exists, the burden of proof for it is technically on you.  How did you convince yourself?

Everyone keeps saying that.  If you read the topic of this forum, I never said anything about my purpose being to present you proof.  It seems that you're on here to prove to me that God does not exist.  Therefore, back to you.

We keep saying it because the most reasonable course of action is to not believe in something without evidence of its existence. Would you believe fairies just because they get mentioned a lot in ancient literature? Of course not, because it's unreasonable to believe in the existence of something without evidence for that thing's existence.

You wouldn't even have to "prove" anything. Just evidence. All we would need is evidence.

Before you break out the "but what kind of evidence would you take?" bit, I'd take anything that usually passes for evidence in a scientific context (not in a legal context). Physical is out, obviously, because you claim understanding of a non-physical being. So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

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


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:So it'll

HisWillness wrote:

So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

God decided the value of all of the mathematical constants, such as i, e, α, δ, λ, and γ. Someone had to... right?

 

 

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

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

God decided the value of all of the mathematical constants, such as i, e, α, δ, λ, and γ. Someone had to... right?

Haha! Awesome. Yes, surely "Someone" had to. The infinite number of Someones that could have possibly arrived at the universe's behaviour. Or it's just a consequence of conditions early in the big bang. Y'know, whatever.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I'll give you

Brian37 wrote:

I'll give you the same challenge I give on the claim of "spirits" as I do your claim of your deity, "poney up with some spirit sperm, or spirit DNA", then you'll have something.

It is all in your head, nothing more.

Why bother? 

an honest question.

Even if I could conjure up some of that so called "spirit DNA", it's very apparent you wouldn't believe it if you saw it anyway.  Why?  The spiritual world is only fantasy, therefore, that spirit DNA isn't really spirit DNA, it's just another...

1. fantasy thought up by the next imaginative mind

or

2. that spirit DNA isn't actually spirit DNA, it's just a less familiar DNA strand that someone is trying to pass as spirit DNA because most people wouldn't know the difference. 

conclusion:

You can't propose a challenge that you wouldn't accept the outcome of.  Also, you can't propose a challenge that has irrelevant outcomes.  e.g. car farting.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I'll give you

Brian37 wrote:

I'll give you the same challenge I give on the claim of "spirits" as I do your claim of your deity, "poney up with some spirit sperm, or spirit DNA", then you'll have something.

It is all in your head, nothing more.

Why bother? 

an honest question.

Even if I could conjure up some of that so called "spirit DNA", it's very apparent you wouldn't believe it if you saw it anyway.  Why?  The spiritual world is only fantasy, therefore, that spirit DNA isn't really spirit DNA, it's just another...

1. fantasy thought up by the next imaginative mind

or

2. that spirit DNA isn't actually spirit DNA, it's just a less familiar DNA strand that someone is trying to pass as spirit DNA because most people wouldn't know the difference. 

conclusion:

You can't propose a challenge that you wouldn't accept the outcome of. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, you

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, you wrote:

"yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out."

So, if you and the author are correct that a Christian life is one where faith in Christ permeates all actions, you have a life that is fun to talk about but is unlivable.

For a life to be totally dependent on faith would be a life of inaction. Any action you take to assist yourself would negate the faith you have.

Or do you mean that you tkae all your actions while looking over your spiritual shoulder to make sure that Christ would approve? That seems too much like the paranoia that Ilived through as a Christian - not sure if I want to go back to that again.

Then again, it could just mean that you are so secure that your actions fit Christ's pattern that you are your own Christ...

Just musing, don't mind me.

no, dont' worry.  As I think I've told you in the past, I like the way you think.

1.  It is fun, but not unlivable... though you could be reading further into it than necessary to get the point.

2. Life of inaction... it's actually quite the opposite.  Also, more actions tend to be to assist others, which in turn assists yourself.  There are a lot of Christians out there that might hold to your philosophy.  However, it's a age long battle that we have been having with those Chirstians to open their eyes a bit more. 

3. Instead of paranoia, it's actually much more relaxed.  Think of a child's life.  What worries do they have?  Basically none right? (this assuming the family has enough money to cover the basic needs of the child)  The child doesn't worry about falling off that wall he's climbing.  It's kind of the same idea.  The faith is knowing that God is watching out for you as a good parent would their child.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, you wrote:

"yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out."

So, if you and the author are correct that a Christian life is one where faith in Christ permeates all actions, you have a life that is fun to talk about but is unlivable.

For a life to be totally dependent on faith would be a life of inaction. Any action you take to assist yourself would negate the faith you have.

Or do you mean that you tkae all your actions while looking over your spiritual shoulder to make sure that Christ would approve? That seems too much like the paranoia that Ilived through as a Christian - not sure if I want to go back to that again.

Then again, it could just mean that you are so secure that your actions fit Christ's pattern that you are your own Christ...

Just musing, don't mind me.

no, dont' worry.  As I think I've told you in the past, I like the way you think.

1.  It is fun, but not unlivable... though you could be reading further into it than necessary to get the point.

2. Life of inaction... it's actually quite the opposite.  Also, more actions tend to be to assist others, which in turn assists yourself.  There are a lot of Christians out there that might hold to your philosophy.  However, it's a age long battle that we have been having with those Chirstians to open their eyes a bit more. 

3. Instead of paranoia, it's actually much more relaxed.  Think of a child's life.  What worries do they have?  Basically none right? (this assuming the family has enough money to cover the basic needs of the child)  The child doesn't worry about falling off that wall he's climbing.  It's kind of the same idea.  The faith is knowing that God is watching out for you as a good parent would their child.

 

He did a great job watching out for Calely Anthony, didn't he? I'm sure Molly Klass didn't mind being butchered so that she could be in the company of God.

If that is what you call a parent or baby sitter, I wouldn't dare leaving a innocent child in such care.

Your use of logic sucks, there is no way around it.

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Only 5000 ways of knowing god? I thought it was over 270 million just in the US. One doesn't need to use the multitude of how believers perceive god to show it's not true. That shows something else. It shows the basis of the belief is based on complications and misunderstandings not that the basis is imaginary. The imaginary part comes from the acceptance of concepts in general that have no basis in reality. This is what you call faith. You are basing your faith on written words from 2000 years ago which cannot be shown to have occurred in our time space dimension. It gets even worse when you realize that the writers 2000 years ago did the same using oral tradition and written words from either further ancient times. In the end, the beliefs comes out of the time of mists and myths which are very clearly shown in the Bible as such. It's here where you overlook what has occurred and accept the written words of unknown writers that interpreted their world in light of the available knowledge. That you choose to accept the words of these people over that which you actually see and observe is the major difference between you as a believer and those of us that question all of it.

the 5000 reference was just to Christian denominations, nothing more.

On the contrary.  I choose to accept the words of these people (the Bible writers) along with that which I actually see and observe which in my life has only further assured me that the Bible writers may be on to something. 

The difference between you and me is it seems I take the time to look.  Beyond that, you conclusion holds as much water as the opposite side.  I've heard just as much evidence supporting the Biblical scriptures in history, archeology and natural occurances that could coenside with Biblical happenings.... actually more than you've presented. 

Either way, your conclusion is premature and not well researched.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I try to be objective as I can in analyzing the god question in light of my engineering & science education. The belief of any religion was not of ultimate concern when I began my search for understanding.  In fairness I start with the ancients and compared beliefs between cultures. There are similarities where their lack of knowledge inserts "a god did it". This goes back to early recorded histories of Sumer, the Mitani, the Hittites and of course the Egyptians. This is also true in the Western Hemisphere with the Incas, Mayans and the Aztecs. It seems to be man's need to ask why along with the knowledge that life will end. The god beliefs derived from the Abraham god are no exception to this and one can see how they do the same thing if you choose to objectively look at the whole picture with all religious beliefs held out. One uses the techniques of science to exam what has been handed down as true in the Bible just as one should do with the stories of Sumer. None should be given status of validity without proof. And you know where that ultimately goes. I looked long and hard and still find nothing to back the religious beliefs that can't be explained by knowledge and education. Knowledge is power. I always say, read more, kill less.

Everyone seems to always back into that "it's only because people couldn't explain..." corner.  I never had a question that couldn't be explained and my logical conclusion was always "we don't understand yet" vs. God did it. 

All I did was task to seek out God.  Yes you actually have to look for God to find him.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know why you believe. You see the same stories that I do which I consider myths. Even if considered as allegories, then you have to explain why. As I told you, the beliefs fail from the beginning of Gen 1:1 and only get more tipsy as more is built on top. If the foundation is poor the whole structure fails. The God of Abe foundation isn't even on a good sand foundation.

As some of the books of the Bible said, if you're looking for all of the information... something to fully support every angle that you'd need to say that the Bible holds water, "not even the largest library in the world would be able to hold all the books".

The Bible is only a summary.  That's it.  Of course you can't just take the Bible and expect a meaded out history of God's creation. 

Genesis starts generally at creation, then quickly gets specifically into one family tree. 

btw, the Myians are a great example of similar stories and why they wouldn't hold water. 

Their gods (plural) which could easily be compared to the trinitarian God of Chirstians supposedly also created everything from scratch, just like Genesis.  However, after ingeniously creating a flawless world, they screwed up 3 times in making humans in a way that they could praise them for life.  Yet they made successful animals before those humans.   The only problem with the animals is they couldn't talk, so they couldn't praise the gods as the gods wanted them to.  What's wrong with this picture?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

right, and as i've said to Brian, with a claim like that, you'd need to provide evidence for your conclusion. 

this evidence isn't so much of proving to me that there's nothing more, it's proving to me that The Bible is no better than all the other mythical stories.  I just gave you an example from the Myians belief on why theirs doesn't hold a candle to the Bible.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I understand that many play feeble games to discredit views. I don't see where that is needed at all. My problem with believers, especially Christians and Muslims is they don't feel they need to provide the original basis for the god belief. Islam jumps straight into the Koran and the prophet and Christianity goes to Jesus died for you and me. The problem with both is they depend on the original belief in Yahweh being in the real world and not another fantasy delusional myth. When in fact many myths are in the Hebrew version of the holy book and can be shown to derive from other cultures which were religiously based and now are discredited by all 3 belief systems. 

One does not suddenly began explaining Laplace transforms to 1st year engineering students until they know the difference between AC and DC circuits. One does not expect a 1st year engineering student to design a switch mode power supply. One would start with doing simple voltage divider networks using DC circuits and proceed down a path showing them a logical way to proceed.

Yet, Christians slam Jesus out as a true concept with little thought or understanding of where the original basis started. Most don't even care at all and can't be bothered beyond the Bible says this and that if they even have read it.

Right, there's a reason for that.  To use your engineering example, you're not going to teach anyone about the basics of engineering if they can't even accept that engineering is possible.  (this statement being a general point to any specific type of engineering)

First you learn of the idea, then you learn the basics before you get into the intricate details about any specific form of engineering. 

For Christianity, Jesus is the idea.  The basics will come once you can accept that possibility.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know you say that. Those of us that have no perception in the world of the supernatural and consider it to be not in the real world just don't get this. As far as I can tell its self generated. I remember the feelings I had as a believer and consider them to have originated within my own creative nature based on stimulation to the environment I was constantly enveloped (religious schools, churches, constant study of the Bible).

as far as you can tell.  Though many who've read the Bible on here dont' get those same feelings.  Most have gone through religious schools and became non-believers.  My religious school experience was not anything to boast about and I didn't learn a thing about the belief I hold now. 

Most of my walk with God also was without a church.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't see any effects from spirits and see no need to work at discrediting them. Many things have become obvious to us in the 20th and 21st centuries that our ancestors had no clue regarding. Flight, space travel, knowledge of bacteria, viruses, machines, and electronics to mention a few. Can you picture how a person from 2000 years ago would be shocked at our world if they suddenly found themselves here? Your idea of spirits easily could have an explainable cause that just has not been completely understood, no need to attribute it to gods or supernatural origins. I maintain that one needs to be patient and more will be known, maybe not every little thing but man is very persistent in his quest for understanding. 

again, going back to what we don't know.... as if that's what's holding me to my belief...... hmph

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have told you before that I understand what a believer that is per se a true Christian would be according to the doctrine embedded in the NT. It clarifies why you don't accept the doctrines of organized beliefs as these religions do not follow that which appears to be the doctrine from my interpretation. Everyone's interpretation of the ancient writings could be false as meanings have altered through time and detail has been lost. As I indicated earlier, understanding what a Jesus believer should be according to the NT, does not make it true. It indicates only that based on the written words of unknown writers that it is what they thought and no more. The ideas again have to hold up to reality and have a solid foundation, IMO, they don't.

Past 1966, the research stopped being contingent upon what the predicessors had said and actually went back to as far back as they could go to find out where the churches changed what was originally said.  There's a much better understanding today than in the early 20th century. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:That's the

marcusfish wrote:

That's the pure magic of supernatural belief. You claim that someone could fart a Lamborginni out of his ass and the believer just nods like a bovine animal.

They go on to ask about this person and whether or not they exist... never once questioning the whole magical anus. The existence of this person is yet to be proved, but their wish granting sphincter is a given.

That... is... awesome. 

There's obviously more to it than that.  Brian just really really wants his poop covered car.... oh.. er.. Lamborginni.  Sorry Brian


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:He did a great

Brian37 wrote:

He did a great job watching out for Calely Anthony, didn't he? I'm sure Molly Klass didn't mind being butchered so that she could be in the company of God.

If that is what you call a parent or baby sitter, I wouldn't dare leaving a innocent child in such care.

Your use of logic sucks, there is no way around it.

yea, I saw that one coming. 

By the way, don't mock my logic until you can do better yourself.

Anyway, I"m guessing you'd raise your child in a bubble right?

No, you wouldn't let them kill themselves or get themselves in deadly situations, but that's a physical daddy's job, to protect their child physically.  God's job would be to protect you spiritually now wouldn't it.  Death isn't the end.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Before you

HisWillness wrote:

Before you break out the "but what kind of evidence would you take?" bit, I'd take anything that usually passes for evidence in a scientific context (not in a legal context). Physical is out, obviously, because you claim understanding of a non-physical being. So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

Alright, let's take this approach and see.  Ask a mathemetician about DNA and their numerical values and odds.

(no, I'm not expecting this to be the miracle answer, it's just an idea from what was presented above)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:No

spike.barnett wrote:

No way... Are you really that stupid? I kind of half suspect you're an atheist just pulling our collective leg, but I know people can be down right retarded...

oh calm down.  Here I was just merely playing to the crowd. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Just

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.

That makes you a fool. If I honestly believe that I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass, and you believe that I believe that, even though you know I am wrong, what kind of friend would you be allowing me to run the stop light and t-bone the mini van with the family full of kids, merely because you wanted to respect my right to believe that the light was green?

I said I'd respect your right to your own opinion.  I never said anything about not questioning your belief... in fact, I believe I DID suggest questioning your belief! 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Alright,

caposkia wrote:

Alright, let's take this approach and see.  Ask a mathemetician about DNA and their numerical values and odds.

What am I asking the mathematician? The numerical values and odds of what in DNA?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.

That makes you a fool. If I honestly believe that I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass, and you believe that I believe that, even though you know I am wrong, what kind of friend would you be allowing me to run the stop light and t-bone the mini van with the family full of kids, merely because you wanted to respect my right to believe that the light was green?

I said I'd respect your right to your own opinion.  I never said anything about not questioning your belief... in fact, I believe I DID suggest questioning your belief! 

I did, and that is why I am an atheist now. Maybe you can someday get to the point I am now. The stranglehold your delusion has on your brain is what is holding you back. You have the virus of "warm fuzzies".

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

He did a great job watching out for Calely Anthony, didn't he? I'm sure Molly Klass didn't mind being butchered so that she could be in the company of God.

If that is what you call a parent or baby sitter, I wouldn't dare leaving a innocent child in such care.

Your use of logic sucks, there is no way around it.

yea, I saw that one coming. 

By the way, don't mock my logic until you can do better yourself.

Anyway, I"m guessing you'd raise your child in a bubble right?

No, you wouldn't let them kill themselves or get themselves in deadly situations, but that's a physical daddy's job, to protect their child physically.  God's job would be to protect you spiritually now wouldn't it.  Death isn't the end.

Death is the end, death is the same thing as before you were born. I am sorry that you don't want to face your own finality.

I am not "mocking" anything. I am criticising your use of logic. You call it "mocking" because of your own insecurities.

Now, again, get back to us when you can show us "spirit" DNA

Quote:
I"m guessing you'd raise your child in a bubble right?

If I had the power to prevent them from being raped and butchered, most certainly 100% of the time I would stop it. What is your claimed god's excuse?

Again, I wouldn't put your god in charge of baby sitting my dog, much less a child.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If we are to go by your

If we are to go by your model(claim) for the purposes of following the logic, here are my objections.

1. "God is all powerfull" your claim, if I can safely assume.

2. "God is there to protect us"

Ok, then why the failure to protect all kids 100% of the time from such nastyness and horror?

Now you say that "death" isnt the end.

SO? What are you suggesting? That your claimed god watches a kid get butt fucked, watches him/her get their throat slit, and watches them get dumped like garbage, just so they can hang out with god in heaven?

Would you take that kind of hazing just to get into a fraturnity?

I can see that one now, "Hey Cap, all you have to do to get into our frat is to allow us to gang rape you and slit your throat, that way you can be a member of Alpha Beta". Still feel like joining?

What choice would a kid have, much less an adult?

Again, you are so desperate to ignor reality because of your delusional warm fuzzie feelings that you fail to see that both good and bad, are not a result of Superman vs Kriptonite, much less God vs Satan.

We can both agree, beyond the issue of the existance of a god, that the thought of a child suffering in such a way is horrible. The only difference is that when I hear of it happening I simply say, "That is one sick fuck", whereas you try to incorperate an fictional super hero who seems selective, by your account, with no explination other than "I can do what I want".

I am sorry, that path of logic is not good enough for me to hold such an absurd position.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: it's very apparent

Quote:
it's very apparent you wouldn't believe it if you saw it anyway.

O contrare, people used to believe that getting metal to fly like a bird was impossible. Now go about doing your homework and find me some "spirit DNA" I am sure that shouldn't be a problem for someone who knows how planes fly. You do know how planes fly, right?

I'll give you a clue, it isn't a hamster spinning the wheel under the cockpit.

"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


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

HisWillness wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

God decided the value of all of the mathematical constants, such as i, e, α, δ, λ, and γ. Someone had to... right?

Haha! Awesome. Yes, surely "Someone" had to. The infinite number of Someones that could have possibly arrived at the universe's behaviour. Or it's just a consequence of conditions early in the big bang. Y'know, whatever.

It's a science conspiracy to make you believe those values just are. There's no way Pi could just be, it's irrational...

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

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


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

caposkia wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

No way... Are you really that stupid? I kind of half suspect you're an atheist just pulling our collective leg, but I know people can be down right retarded...

oh calm down.  Here I was just merely playing to the crowd. 

Glad to hear it. You can't always tell, especially in text.

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

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