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:

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.

I realize what 5000 was referencing. I suggested that instead there were about 270 million ways of supposedly knowing god in the US, one for each alleged Christian. 

As many interpret the stories of the Bible writers in many ways it is extremely difficult to base one's foundation on the thinly supported stories in the Bible. That there is contrary information especially in the creation, exodus, invasion of Canaan, Palestine in general, observable science as compared to the ancient writers of the Bible is more than enough to question the validity of every piece of information contained within.

In one little paragraph posted on an Internet forum it is virtually impossible to convey the amount of time and research that I have done. I have spent many years doing so as both a believer and a non-believer. I have 30 some versions of Bibles, dozens of history books, access to  libraries at several Jesuit Universities as I have a graduate degree from one and I have spent countless hours there. In addition I have reams of links, downloads, articles and have written hundreds of pages documenting my research. Just how is it you'd like me to convey the amount of time that I have put into looking? Just how would you like this documented to show you how well researched  my position is?

As to your claim there is just as much research supported by history, archeology and natural occurrences you are certainly welcome to provide such proof or links to it. Perhaps this would make an excellent new topic on your part.

caposkia wrote:

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.

I have many questions that can't be explained, so since you apparently don't does that mean you have all the answers? Or is your answer God did it when you don't know?

I don't quite grasp what you are saying in the part I set in bold type.

By the same logic you use to accept the Bible myths such as Genesis' creation the Sumerian version is just as acceptable and is several thousand years older. Explain why it shouldn't be held to be the original version and the Genesis account a derived version.

caposkia wrote:

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?

I do understand your position as a Christian believer. You base much on the understanding of the NT and the supposed words of Jesus. As I told you earlier for Jesus to have relevance Judaism must be originally based on a real true foundation. The claims in the NT are only perceptions, claims, and beliefs documented by those who concluded that Jesus was the messiah. Many stories exist throughout history claiming supernatural events as real. The problem is the information comes without proof it even occurred in the real world. A book written today about Harry Potter could be found in 2000 years after we successfully destroy life as we know it and send it back to the stone age. Eventually man could rediscover it's past and people might conclude Harry's adventures were real.

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

Look how easily you dismiss the Mayans. 

If you want we can start a forum and start at the beginning of the Bible and go chapter by chapter discussing how each part has proof or is mythical. This could take about 2 years and have thousands of posts. I personally have already done this over about 10 years while researching as I strove to understand.

caposkia wrote:

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.

If someone has stacked blocks together as a 4 year old or dug in the dirt to play they have the realization that engineering is possible.

As to Christianity, the idea is first off there is such a thing as a God at all and he cared so much that he sent his son Jesus to save us. Jesus is not the idea but part of the complexity. The part you miss is the god concept must first be shown as basic understanding. When Christians present the Jesus concept as the idea first it is much like taking an advanced circuit analysis class with no understanding of basic electricity. They shown Jesus as the solution but rarely explain why any solution is even required beyond to save you from your sins. If you don't believe, the concept of sin is meaningless as is the solution, Jesus.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For Christianity,

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

"POOF, GOD DID IT"

Yea, I think I got the basics, and that is a pretty crappy starting point.

"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
Brian37 wrote:Quote:For

Brian37 wrote:

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

"POOF, GOD DID IT"

Yea, I think I got the basics, and that is a pretty crappy starting point.

That reminds me of the episode of the The Simpsons in which the schools were required to teach creation. All of the answers on Lisa's test were "God did it." I lol so hard when they make religious jokes. I've noticed it a lot in that genre, i.e. The Simpsons, Futurama, and Family Guy. I guess it's more socially acceptable when cartoon people say it...

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
I'd like to contribute more

I'd like to contribute more than humor to this topic, but I don't feel like reading 16 pages of what would likely consist largely of unsubstantiated claims and completely one sided pwnage.

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: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I'd like

spike.barnett wrote:

I'd like to contribute more than humor to this topic, but I don't feel like reading 16 pages of what would likely consist largely of unsubstantiated claims and completely one sided pwnage.

Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.

My point to Cap is that Occham's Razor takes care of this problem as well as god claims quite simply.

If you want to believe in those things so badly, your brain can delude itself with intense feelings that can cause yout o see what you want to see. It is a false placebo. Once Cap realizes this cap will stop seeing "spirits".

It is an in their heads.

16 pages, that is right. It is a tag team effort to save Cap's brain from itself. The deconstructionists take on the word by word detail, while I attack the arguments from a simple "attack the poof logic".

I hold out hope for Cap because very few if any theist sticks arround in a thread, much less the site, without at least learning something new. Cap, if anything is learning that we are not pushovers.

"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
HisWillness wrote:What am I

HisWillness wrote:

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

That could go in a lot of directions... it's why I left it so general.

er... let's see.. uh... odds of repetition or successful reproduction.  numerical values of information within one strand.  Compare that to the combined numberical odds of a certain group of strands reproducing to work together and reproducing successfully.  The effect of such a strand grouping in behavior, outward appearance, etc.  Historocity of such a strand and likelyhood of it forming from its former self into what it is today and what it could form into, etc. Stuff like that.

Those are some ideas of direction.  I'm generally trying to focus on the numerical value of information.  Quantity and quality.


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

caposkia wrote:

 

Brian Brian Brain....

Does tunnel vision mean anything to you?  (in reference to your previous few posts)

Brian37 wrote:

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.

yea... er... safely assume??? HUH???

Brian37 wrote:

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?

Was that God's choice or another persons... 

You can protect your kid from ever getting butt raped if you force them to never leave your side and keep them on a 24 hour survalence... IN ohter words, your kid will have no life and no freedom (no free will)

Brian37 wrote:

Now you say that "death" isnt the end.

er... yea... wasn't that a given from the belief I've been supporting?

Brian37 wrote:

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?

yea, that's what it takes to get into heaven.  You figured out the big dark secret of Christianity.

Brian37 wrote:

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

no (makes no relevence to the point of the conversation.. because you obviously think that butt raping is your ticket in.... )

Brian37 wrote:

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?

what choice does a kid have to get raped?  Probably little if any... What choice does that adult have to rape the kid?  Probably could walk away anytime they chose to. 

Brian37 wrote:

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.

man, how long was it before you forgot that fuzzies aren't my thing?  YOu like talking in circles don't you.

Brian37 wrote:

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.

You seem to think that God will save people from physical harm.  Maybe in some cases, I can't say he's never done that, however, he also promised not to control anyone's free will.  Therefore, if you choose to butt rape a kid, that was your choice and your choice alone.  You have the freedom to choose that action or not to.  Most of us sane people would choose to beat the living snot out of such a person.  You can't blame God for the choices of people. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I recall posting in this

I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:O contrare,

Brian37 wrote:

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.

Damn!  That means my gas free plane won't work!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

bbrhemm... excuse me.  Sorry about that.

The problem with spirit DNA and the reason why I know you won't accept it is because just by the specific thing you're looking for, you're looking for something physical. 

I think we can both agree that DNA is what makes up PHYSICAL BEINGS and therefore should logically not be applied to spiritual beings.  However, even if there was such a thing, I'd show it to you, you'd tell me it's smoke and mirrors. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

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.

Damn!  That means my gas free plane won't work!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

bbrhemm... excuse me.  Sorry about that.

The problem with spirit DNA and the reason why I know you won't accept it is because just by the specific thing you're looking for, you're looking for something physical. 

I think we can both agree that DNA is what makes up PHYSICAL BEINGS and therefore should logically not be applied to spiritual beings.  However, even if there was such a thing, I'd show it to you, you'd tell me it's smoke and mirrors. 

 

Cap, you are so close to being an atheist it makes my dick itch!

You have this knee jerk reaction that if an atheist rejects superstition that somehow they cant comprehend emotion and that we claim that we are all unemotional robots.

If DNA only applies to physical beings then it cannot be applied to claims of Osirus or Vishnu.

Since science cannot be applied to supernatural claims, then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass, unless you think magic can naturally explain that claim?

 

"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 wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I realize what 5000 was referencing. I suggested that instead there were about 270 million ways of supposedly knowing god in the US, one for each alleged Christian. 

ah, sorry.  I was tired when I replied to that.  didn't click with me.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As many interpret the stories of the Bible writers in many ways it is extremely difficult to base one's foundation on the thinly supported stories in the Bible. That there is contrary information especially in the creation, exodus, invasion of Canaan, Palestine in general, observable science as compared to the ancient writers of the Bible is more than enough to question the validity of every piece of information contained within.

I've probably heard some of those "contradictions".  Maybe not all.  So far, everything that I've heard has been either taken out of context, or if actually well researched which I assume you have done, it was concluded only based on lack of information from the Bible.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In one little paragraph posted on an Internet forum it is virtually impossible to convey the amount of time and research that I have done. I have spent many years doing so as both a believer and a non-believer. I have 30 some versions of Bibles, dozens of history books, access to  libraries at several Jesuit Universities as I have a graduate degree from one and I have spent countless hours there. In addition I have reams of links, downloads, articles and have written hundreds of pages documenting my research. Just how is it you'd like me to convey the amount of time that I have put into looking? Just how would you like this documented to show you how well researched  my position is?

well then, maybe you could answer many questions I've had as well!  That's awesome you're so well versed. 

A serious question:  Are you well versed in the Biblical languages as well.. e.g. Ancient Hebrew and Coyne' Greek? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to your claim there is just as much research supported by history, archeology and natural occurrences you are certainly welcome to provide such proof or links to it. Perhaps this would make an excellent new topic on your part.

See my "science Vs. Religion" forum.  If it hasn't been brought up in there, let me know the topic.

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.

In my research, that seem to be the case too.  My conclusion however isn't that God's not real, it's that people are not real.  (not in the literal sense for those of you who don't get a metaphor)  Most people don't understand what they're following.  or many times why...

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have many questions that can't be explained, so since you apparently don't does that mean you have all the answers? Or is your answer God did it when you don't know?

Niether. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't quite grasp what you are saying in the part I set in bold type.

I think I ran 2 sentences together there.  My apolgies.  When I said I never had a question that couldn't be explained, I was simply squashing the "God did it" excuse people are coming up with.  Granted I don't know everything. 

To claim God did it, you have to have coherent reasoning behind that claim.  Can't just say it becasue you don't know.

The other part, I accept the idea that for many things, we just "don't know yet."  That again is not any defense against God.  The acceptance of God only better clarifies your acceptance of not knowing everything.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

By the same logic you use to accept the Bible myths such as Genesis' creation the Sumerian version is just as acceptable and is several thousand years older. Explain why it shouldn't be held to be the original version and the Genesis account a derived version.

Be it that I'm not familiar with the Sumerian version, it very well could be.  Many people will thump the Bible and say nothing outside of that book can be right.  My take is the Bible wasn't put together as a book until... I think it was somewhere around 1204.... not sure....  Anyway, though the specific "Genesis" account from that perspective is taken from the oldest manuscripts archeology can find, it doesn't mean another perspective of the same story's not out there. 

This of course assuming the stories can be paralleled.  I again am not familiar with it. 

I can't dismiss anything I haven't researched myself.

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.

I guess then we'd have to go into a discussion of how the story fails.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do understand your position as a Christian believer. You base much on the understanding of the NT and the supposed words of Jesus. As I told you earlier for Jesus to have relevance Judaism must be originally based on a real true foundation. The claims in the NT are only perceptions, claims, and beliefs documented by those who concluded that Jesus was the messiah. Many stories exist throughout history claiming supernatural events as real. The problem is the information comes without proof it even occurred in the real world. A book written today about Harry Potter could be found in 2000 years after we successfully destroy life as we know it and send it back to the stone age. Eventually man could rediscover it's past and people might conclude Harry's adventures were real.

True about the Harry Potter example, however, the information in those books may be irrelevent to today, whereas Biblical writings and knowlege can be used in everyday life. 

now I'm waiting for the erronius out-of-context claims about how we should force people into slavery and beat our wives... It's ok, I'm expecting it.  (not necessarily from you.  I think you're smarter than that)

In your research, you must have come across the Jesus Character as actually existing in history.  The question then comes down to whether he actually did all the Bible claims he did or not. 

 

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.

depending on how you compare it.  So far, my comparisons have shown more validity in the Bible than any other following. 

Let's think logically for a moment.  If my belief was based so blatently on nothing substantial, then the debates wouldn't even need to take place.  There would be no arguement to whether God existed or not. 

Not that I support the "creationist" movement, but there's a reason why creationism is called a theory just as evolution is. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Look how easily you dismiss the Mayans. 

If you want we can start a forum and start at the beginning of the Bible and go chapter by chapter discussing how each part has proof or is mythical. This could take about 2 years and have thousands of posts. I personally have already done this over about 10 years while researching as I strove to understand.

that would be fun.  You've seriously caught my interest.  We might not want to set a goal to run through the whole Bible, but focus on a chapter, then if we feel like continuing, pick another.  Chronicles can get quite boring. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If someone has stacked blocks together as a 4 year old or dug in the dirt to play they have the realization that engineering is possible.

As to Christianity, the idea is first off there is such a thing as a God at all and he cared so much that he sent his son Jesus to save us. Jesus is not the idea but part of the complexity. The part you miss is the god concept must first be shown as basic understanding. When Christians present the Jesus concept as the idea first it is much like taking an advanced circuit analysis class with no understanding of basic electricity. They shown Jesus as the solution but rarely explain why any solution is even required beyond to save you from your sins. If you don't believe, the concept of sin is meaningless as is the solution, Jesus.

I completely agree with you.  You're right.  I think that's why I haven't put Jesus as my topic for discussion. 

From a Christian perspective though, it's not just a god, it's The God who cared so much for the world, that he sent his son to die so that we may live... Why did he do that and who is this supposed God?  Ah, now that is the question. 

I guess from my perspective, it's kind of the trailer teaser for a movie.  It'll show you the best parts to peak your attention.  So you go view it to see what it's all about. 

I know with this crowd, presenting Jesus isn't going to work, so I haven't.  I've presented the idea of a spiritual world.  It doesn't even have to do with any specific following, just an idea of spirits. 

As I've mentioned to you, most people who "follow" don't understand why they do or what it's all about... at least so much as to be a teacher of the art.  It's like taking a first year student and asking him to teach an advanced Engineering course.  The students won't get the information they need. 

What they're suppose to do is introduce you to the idea.  if you're interested enough in it, then they're supposed to take you to someone who can answer all your questions.  A legitimate pastor or reverend should be able to do that.  If they don't even know why they're in it, then they shouldn't be out there telling you about it in the first place. 

 


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

Brian37 wrote:

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

"POOF, GOD DID IT"

Yea, I think I got the basics, and that is a pretty crappy starting point.

wait... haven't I seen you before???!  yea! you were on the Staples commercial weren't you! Yea!!! *click* "now that was easy". 

hah! that was awesome!!! uh... can I have your autograph?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I'd like

spike.barnett wrote:

I'd like to contribute more than humor to this topic, but I don't feel like reading 16 pages of what would likely consist largely of unsubstantiated claims and completely one sided pwnage.

nah, I'll give you a breif summary.  It's simply 16 pages of me arguing with people about how they've been ignoring the topic of the forum...

I'm past that now.  Now I'm just humoring the masses until I get a serious post as a few have done by now.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.

Diversion tactics again! wow.  I give you credit man.  You can find diversions where none exist, yet you can't find God... hmmm

Everything that I said had no intentions of diversions.  Your lack of focus on the topic has been a good diversion indeed.  I'm guessing you have a bit of ADD. 


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

Vastet wrote:

I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.


 

 

naw, you didn't miss much, it's just 15 pages of mostly  nonsense.  If you have something worth while to talk about, I'm open to it at this point. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, you are

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, you are so close to being an atheist it makes my dick itch!

uh... are you sure she was a virgin?

Brian37 wrote:

You have this knee jerk reaction that if an atheist rejects superstition that somehow they cant comprehend emotion and that we claim that we are all unemotional robots.

uh... yea.  That's what i said....

Brian37 wrote:

If DNA only applies to physical beings then it cannot be applied to claims of Osirus or Vishnu.

Since science cannot be applied to supernatural claims, then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass, unless you think magic can naturally explain that claim?

magic can uh.. naturally explain something huh...

let's stay on the spiritual. 

As far as your Lamborghini theory, many Biblical happenings have been tied to real natural happenings as an explanation.  They just happened in an ironically appropriate sequence and amazing timing.  e.g. parting of the red sea. 

So instead of something that wouldn't logically happen without fairly effectively killing you in the process, why not try to start saving up for it?  Ya just might get that Lamborghini after all. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.

Diversion tactics again! wow.  I give you credit man.  You can find diversions where none exist, yet you can't find God... hmmm

Everything that I said had no intentions of diversions.  Your lack of focus on the topic has been a good diversion indeed.  I'm guessing you have a bit of ADD. 

Do spirits exist and where is your peer reviewed evidence. "Oprah/WWE/FAUX NEWS/ Jerry Springer count as much as AL JaZeer and "Weekly World News".

Fighting over what god is right is like fighting over whether Luke Sky Walker is real vs Captain Kirk.

"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
Vastet wrote:I recall

Vastet wrote:

I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.

I just double checked.  As far as I can tell, there was nothing you needed to respond to and no reponse to your last post.  Page 9 if your curious.  At this point, anything relevent and worth talking about.  Otherwise, IT's been fun.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lets cut throught the

Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.

The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,

I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.

Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category  as Xena Warrior Princess,  or Batman.

It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.

My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.

 

"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:

As many interpret the stories of the Bible writers in many ways it is extremely difficult to base one's foundation on the thinly supported stories in the Bible. That there is contrary information especially in the creation, exodus, invasion of Canaan, Palestine in general, observable science as compared to the ancient writers of the Bible is more than enough to question the validity of every piece of information contained within.

I've probably heard some of those "contradictions".  Maybe not all.  So far, everything that I've heard has been either taken out of context, or if actually well researched which I assume you have done, it was concluded only based on lack of information from the Bible.

I have noted that upon occasion you take exception to general views perpetrated by believers. In other cases you accept some of what I would consider to be poorly supported interpretations from ancient times. Perhaps upon further research you might grasp why atheists are so critical of such acceptance.

 

caposkia wrote:

A serious question:  Are you well versed in the Biblical languages as well.. e.g. Ancient Hebrew and Coyne' Greek?

 

My second language is Spanish and I didn't have the patience at the time to learn others. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to your claim there is just as much research supported by history, archeology and natural occurrences you are certainly welcome to provide such proof or links to it. Perhaps this would make an excellent new topic on your part.

See my "science Vs. Religion" forum.  If it hasn't been brought up in there, let me know the topic.

OK.

caposkia wrote:

In my research, that seem to be the case too.  My conclusion however isn't that God's not real, it's that people are not real.  (not in the literal sense for those of you who don't get a metaphor)  Most people don't understand what they're following.  or many times why...

I certainly agree that many people are completely clueless why they follow certain beliefs. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't quite grasp what you are saying in the part I set in bold type.

I think I ran 2 sentences together there.  My apolgies.  When I said I never had a question that couldn't be explained, I was simply squashing the "God did it" excuse people are coming up with.  Granted I don't know everything. 

To claim God did it, you have to have coherent reasoning behind that claim.  Can't just say it becasue you don't know.

The other part, I accept the idea that for many things, we just "don't know yet."  That again is not any defense against God.  The acceptance of God only better clarifies your acceptance of not knowing everything.

You know what position we take, why add a god to explain anything at all as it just increases or moves the problem.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

By the same logic you use to accept the Bible myths such as Genesis' creation the Sumerian version is just as acceptable and is several thousand years older. Explain why it shouldn't be held to be the original version and the Genesis account a derived version.

Be it that I'm not familiar with the Sumerian version, it very well could be.  Many people will thump the Bible and say nothing outside of that book can be right.  My take is the Bible wasn't put together as a book until... I think it was somewhere around 1204.... not sure....  Anyway, though the specific "Genesis" account from that perspective is taken from the oldest manuscripts archeology can find, it doesn't mean another perspective of the same story's not out there. 

This of course assuming the stories can be paralleled.  I again am not familiar with it. 

I can't dismiss anything I haven't researched myself.

This would be a good area for you to research as it might help you see your beliefs in a new light. If so, you might get a glimpse of why we consider the Bible to be based on legends and myths and very thin on actual history.

You can find much on ancient Iraq and the Sumerians at the following on-line site, called etcsl. see here. It is but a place to start, your local book store should also have a good selection in the ancient history section.

caposkia wrote:

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.

I guess then we'd have to go into a discussion of how the story fails.

Exactly.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do understand your position as a Christian believer. You base much on the understanding of the NT and the supposed words of Jesus. As I told you earlier for Jesus to have relevance Judaism must be originally based on a real true foundation. The claims in the NT are only perceptions, claims, and beliefs documented by those who concluded that Jesus was the messiah. Many stories exist throughout history claiming supernatural events as real. The problem is the information comes without proof it even occurred in the real world. A book written today about Harry Potter could be found in 2000 years after we successfully destroy life as we know it and send it back to the stone age. Eventually man could rediscover it's past and people might conclude Harry's adventures were real.

True about the Harry Potter example, however, the information in those books may be irrelevant to today, whereas Biblical writings and knowlege can be used in everyday life. 

now I'm waiting for the erronius out-of-context claims about how we should force people into slavery and beat our wives... It's ok, I'm expecting it.  (not necessarily from you.  I think you're smarter than that)

In your research, you must have come across the Jesus Character as actually existing in history.  The question then comes down to whether he actually did all the Bible claims he did or not. 

 

There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physcian make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Look how easily you dismiss the Mayans. 

If you want we can start a forum and start at the beginning of the Bible and go chapter by chapter discussing how each part has proof or is mythical. This could take about 2 years and have thousands of posts. I personally have already done this over about 10 years while researching as I strove to understand.

that would be fun.  You've seriously caught my interest.  We might not want to set a goal to run through the whole Bible, but focus on a chapter, then if we feel like continuing, pick another.  Chronicles can get quite boring.

Sure, where would you like to start? At the beginning? I have actually analyzed both Chronicles and Kings in my research efforts. After a while it gets to be like this: King ABCD lived 20 years and did evil in the sight of the lord and he died. He had xyz sons who also were evil in the sight of the lord. It can be boring but if you look real hard there are some interesting details to be found.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If someone has stacked blocks together as a 4 year old or dug in the dirt to play they have the realization that engineering is possible.

As to Christianity, the idea is first off there is such a thing as a God at all and he cared so much that he sent his son Jesus to save us. Jesus is not the idea but part of the complexity. The part you miss is the god concept must first be shown as basic understanding. When Christians present the Jesus concept as the idea first it is much like taking an advanced circuit analysis class with no understanding of basic electricity. They shown Jesus as the solution but rarely explain why any solution is even required beyond to save you from your sins. If you don't believe, the concept of sin is meaningless as is the solution, Jesus.

I completely agree with you.  You're right.  I think that's why I haven't put Jesus as my topic for discussion. 

From a Christian perspective though, it's not just a god, it's The God who cared so much for the world, that he sent his son to die so that we may live... Why did he do that and who is this supposed God?  Ah, now that is the question. 

I guess from my perspective, it's kind of the trailer teaser for a movie.  It'll show you the best parts to peak your attention.  So you go view it to see what it's all about. 

I know with this crowd, presenting Jesus isn't going to work, so I haven't.  I've presented the idea of a spiritual world.  It doesn't even have to do with any specific following, just an idea of spirits. 

As I've mentioned to you, most people who "follow" don't understand why they do or what it's all about... at least so much as to be a teacher of the art.  It's like taking a first year student and asking him to teach an advanced Engineering course.  The students won't get the information they need. 

What they're suppose to do is introduce you to the idea.  if you're interested enough in it, then they're supposed to take you to someone who can answer all your questions.  A legitimate pastor or reverend should be able to do that.  If they don't even know why they're in it, then they shouldn't be out there telling you about it in the first place. 

As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't  and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis.  I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.

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

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Cap,This is the 3rd

Cap,

This is the 3rd installment on the book beginning with the chapter "All Faithful aren't Fools"

She discusses the 'bright' view of the world that all people are either atheists or faith talking Neanderthals. She says Dawkins and others are only willing to see the dark side of the countless varieties of religion. Instead of considering each and weighing their mixed record and arguing that overall the world would be better off without religion we dismiss them out of hand. She says for these secularists religion represents a black & white bogeyman and warns that we should be careful lest an imaginary god comes out suddenly and scares the living bejesus out of us. She is obviously playing to her religious audience here. She claims that 'new atheists' depict all Christians as bumbling idiots like Roger Corman movies. Dawkins she explained used the Edgardo Mortara abduction by Catholics to show how evil the church was by kidnapping a Jew from a loving family to force him to be raised as Catholic. This event as well as others such as the Spanish Inquisition should serve as a warning to evangelists on how not to interpret the gospel of Matthew that commands to preach to all nations. These stories also show what dangers can occur when a theocracy is in place. When religious leaders dismiss violence done in the name of God with, sorry we won't do that again she says the entire Christian community should rise up against the perpetrators and go after them with gusto. The thing is we don't have to look very far to find many events and actions by believers that are truly evil and corrupt. Since the god is the judge not man this has been used both ways over history. As for example during the Crusades when they took the position that God could sort out those they killed. It's a rare occasion when the believers are so liberal that they allow disparate views to be observed when they are in control. This more than anything is what Dawkins and most of us try to get across to believers and Becky doesn't seem to get it.

She has such high standards yet we both know this is not what has occurred in the past and continues to be done today. I know many condemn Phelps for his pickets at military funerals but I wonder what if they were gay activists’ funerals. What of the violence done over abortion? The author's intent is to get it across to the believers that actions of violence in the name of the god only show that the believers doing so are not what she considers a true Christian. She says both sides are to blame for atrocities done throughout the years. She says atheists see no connection to the violence in the 20th century while the believers conveniently claim Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were enemies of religion and have no connection to them. She says, "this conveniently forgets the Crusades, the Inquisition, and much else." Perhaps they both have commonality in that these states were controlled in one case by despots that were only out to promote themselves, wait a second that's true of both. In the case of the Church, the despots called popes were in control of the beliefs which were propagated to insure adherence to their direct rule. All actions were done in what was considered to be God's will. Hence St Ambrose and St. Augustine determined that torture and force were in line with God's command. I would assume Garrison would see these 2 as evil persons or maybe only misdirected. It is however their interpretations that were used in justifying murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus the Lamb of God on occasions such as Crusades and Inquisition. John Chyrsodom another wonderful individual incited crowds in his services such that they would leave and kill Jews and burn synagogues. Lest we forget the wonderful actions of King David. He showed how being either his friend or ally was likely to shorten one's life span on many occasions. As to Stalin and Hitler I see little to differentiate either from Innocent II or Julius the soldier pope. Julius did more of his own killing personally than they did however. I however am aware of your take on individual Christians when they depart from the way of belief into areas not exactly per the teaching of Jesus. Becky too sees it your way as she says the believers stood by doing little during the holocaust, Bosnia, and Rwanda for example. She also is against the giving of Bibles instead of food and help as several mainline Christian charities seem to do such as after the tsunami.

She next examines how New Atheists use the fringe elements of Christianity to smear all believers. As for example the New Destiny’s Hell House or Fred Phelps who pickets funerals of US servicemen. Then there’s Coulter and Robertson with the extremist views going as far as claiming John Edwards is a fag or 9/11 was caused by decadent America falling away from God.She doesn't seem to understand that 'new atheism' smears Christianity in general for the purpose of causing believers to rethink their positions. She gets the point that believers don't speak up when extremist Christians perpetrate atrocities yet she herself has sat by mute. Unlike her, atheists can be judgmental and not wait for God to pass his judgment on others. When the believers fail to rein in the fanatics they should expect to be held accountable as a perceived member of the class. Many of us are tolerant of believers provided they grasp where the lines are drawn. When believers decide to impose their ideas on others and violate personal liberties (at least in the US where supposedly we have such) it results in much more ammo to be fired at them. It seems that many haven't grasped what freedom of religion actually means which is why atheists are so vocal in attacking believers.

 

 


 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


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

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

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

That could go in a lot of directions... it's why I left it so general.

er... let's see.. uh... odds of repetition or successful reproduction.  numerical values of information within one strand.  Compare that to the combined numberical odds of a certain group of strands reproducing to work together and reproducing successfully.  The effect of such a strand grouping in behavior, outward appearance, etc.  Historocity of such a strand and likelyhood of it forming from its former self into what it is today and what it could form into, etc. Stuff like that.

Those are some ideas of direction.  I'm generally trying to focus on the numerical value of information.  Quantity and quality.

Have you read deludedgod's treatment of the subject? Life is chemistry. The activity of being a living creature is an aggregate of chemical reactions that happen all the time. In that context, the odds of life arising are pretty good, given the behaviour of carbon, and its prevalence in our environment. Add to that energy inputs like the sun, and the chemical reactions that make up life are pretty likely. Especially given a few billion years to play out.

I'm not on the cutting edge of abiogenesis, but several types of initial conditions have been simulated with environments that are hypothesized to be the initial conditions of life, and the basic building blocks of life have been produced in those conditions. If that's the case, then several existing conditions could have produced the building blocks of life, and given time, life itself results from a causal chain of chemical reactions. The odds are quite high, given the variety of reactions available in nature. Life could have started any number of ways, and continues by virtue of the behaviour of chemistry. We are an extension of the behaviour of chemistry.

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:Lets cut

Brian37 wrote:

Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.

The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,

I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.

Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category  as Xena Warrior Princess,  or Batman.

It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.

My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.

 

Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....

The above claim holds as much water as your statement.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.

The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,

I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.

Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category  as Xena Warrior Princess,  or Batman.

It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.

My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.

 

Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....

The above claim holds as much water as your statement.

Nobody is in control, every single human born will eventually die. Nor do I have control over all 6 billion people.

Atoms decay, that is nature. People die, and that too is nature. No magical fantastical claims of super heros vs super villians to state the obvious.

Of course I don't have control, but that does not mean their is a magica Luke Skywaker "force" "controling anything or that disimbodied beings knock up girls, or that you'll get 72 virgins in an after life. BTW, in case you didn't know, positive and negitive charges in the atmosphere cause lighting, and not Thor.

"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 wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have noted that upon occasion you take exception to general views perpetrated by believers. In other cases you accept some of what I would consider to be poorly supported interpretations from ancient times. Perhaps upon further research you might grasp why atheists are so critical of such acceptance.

I think I do understand why atheists are so critical.  Probably for the same reason I am. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You know what position we take, why add a god to explain anything at all as it just increases or moves the problem.

precisely

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This would be a good area for you to research as it might help you see your beliefs in a new light. If so, you might get a glimpse of why we consider the Bible to be based on legends and myths and very thin on actual history.

You can find much on ancient Iraq and the Sumerians at the following on-line site, called etcsl. see here. It is but a place to start, your local book store should also have a good selection in the ancient history section.

I'll look into it

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physcian make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.

As for the Code of Hammurabi, it seems to me that if a physician made a large incision in a patient that ends up killing him, or cuts out someone's eye by trying to remove a tumor, then they probably shouldn't have been working as a surgeon anyway.  To cut off their hands would prevent them from hurting or killing someone else. 

I'm not defending the story, just critiquing it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sure, where would you like to start? At the beginning? I have actually analyzed both Chronicles and Kings in my research efforts. After a while it gets to be like this: King ABCD lived 20 years and did evil in the sight of the lord and he died. He had xyz sons who also were evil in the sight of the lord. It can be boring but if you look real hard there are some interesting details to be found.

Oh I know.  I've read through Chronicles.  There are some interesting facts amidst the pages.  It's boring as a readthrough for my ADHD mind. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't  and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis.  I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.

Understood.  I guess I'd question the source you're expecting a believer to present you with?  Is it physical? 

What would an "audit trail with logical construct" presentation need to entail for you to consider its evidence? 

Obviously I'm going to try my best to explain to you the reason why I believe in the best way I am able to.  Yes, faith plays a part in it, though you must understand that it's not blind, but has basis.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.

The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,

I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.

Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category  as Xena Warrior Princess,  or Batman.

It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.

My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.

 

Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....

The above claim holds as much water as your statement.

Cap,

Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?

It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.

"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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Cap,

This is the 3rd installment on the book beginning with the chapter "All Faithful aren't Fools"....

In response to your third installment, I'll just make a breif statement and see if it progresses.  It generally seems that you agree with her point of view.  Understand that though bigger examples are used, it comes down to what "freedom of religion" is about and how you're not suppose to force it upon others, even just by voice. 

 


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

HisWillness wrote:

Have you read deludedgod's treatment of the subject? Life is chemistry. The activity of being a living creature is an aggregate of chemical reactions that happen all the time. In that context, the odds of life arising are pretty good, given the behaviour of carbon, and its prevalence in our environment. Add to that energy inputs like the sun, and the chemical reactions that make up life are pretty likely. Especially given a few billion years to play out.

I'm not on the cutting edge of abiogenesis, but several types of initial conditions have been simulated with environments that are hypothesized to be the initial conditions of life, and the basic building blocks of life have been produced in those conditions. If that's the case, then several existing conditions could have produced the building blocks of life, and given time, life itself results from a causal chain of chemical reactions. The odds are quite high, given the variety of reactions available in nature. Life could have started any number of ways, and continues by virtue of the behaviour of chemistry. We are an extension of the behaviour of chemistry.

I don't think I've read that.  You seem to take in assumption that the environment was ideal for all kinds of life to exist.  Did you consider those odds as well?  It all had to come into play.  Then the odds of life as single celled organisms becoming intelligent enough to understand self and purpose. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Nobody is in

Brian37 wrote:

Nobody is in control, every single human born will eventually die. Nor do I have control over all 6 billion people.

Atoms decay, that is nature. People die, and that too is nature. No magical fantastical claims of super heros vs super villians to state the obvious.

Of course I don't have control, but that does not mean their is a magica Luke Skywaker "force" "controling anything or that disimbodied beings knock up girls, or that you'll get 72 virgins in an after life. BTW, in case you didn't know, positive and negitive charges in the atmosphere cause lighting, and not Thor.

I'm glad you see my point.  Try using actual support next time. Eye-wink


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap,

Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?

It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.

no

Again, it's really the opposite.  To accept that God is real is to accept a greater responsibilty for our own actions. 

It's ironic.  I haven't expressed this on here yet, but I laugh when people tell me I'm living a fantasy because the fantasy is to say there is no God. That way there's no accountability for your actions unless a law is broken.  Even then, you're "technically" not accountable unless you get caught.  With God, all of your actions, whether against your town/state/countries law or not, you are still held accountable  for. 


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

caposkia wrote:
You seem to take in assumption that the environment was ideal for all kinds of life to exist.

No, no, and no. Certain conditions that existed on earth (and could exist on any similar planet) brought chemical bonds that naturally occur together in greater number. That's the hypothesis. Is it possible? Yes, says geology. Is it probable? Yes, say the scientists who simulated those conditions. Amino acids spontaneously organizing by chemical bonds (okay, I'm oversimplifying, but if you won't read deludedgod's treatment, I have to be brief) is reproduced without much effort. Carbon just happens to act that way.

caposkia wrote:
Did you consider those odds as well?  It all had to come into play.

And it did. The fact that the earth was probably just like the way we reproduce it in the laboratory gives us a "probably" to the odds that life started that way.

caposkia wrote:
Then the odds of life as single celled organisms becoming intelligent enough to understand self and purpose.

I'm not sure we understand ourselves or why we insist on purpose, so it's possible that we haven't become intelligent enough.

[edit] That didn't really answer your question. This does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap,

Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?

It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.

no

Again, it's really the opposite.  To accept that God is real is to accept a greater responsibilty for our own actions. 

It's ironic.  I haven't expressed this on here yet, but I laugh when people tell me I'm living a fantasy because the fantasy is to say there is no God. That way there's no accountability for your actions unless a law is broken.  Even then, you're "technically" not accountable unless you get caught.  With God, all of your actions, whether against your town/state/countries law or not, you are still held accountable  for. 

Not really.

You have the threat of God sending you to hell unless you ask forgiveness of your sins. Forgiveness absolves you from responsibilty until you sin again - ask for forgiveness again and you're free (lather, rinse, repeat).

How is that accepting responsibility?

In the secular world we have things like not wanting to harm society, law enforcement and prison to keep the majority of people from doing such things. You can ask for forgiveness and be accepted but you will still do time for your actions. None of this "You asked for forgiveness? Why then, you're free to go!" that comes from Yahweh.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think I do

Quote:
I think I do understand why atheists are so critical.  Probably for the same reason I am.

No you don't understand.

You ARE as critical as we are to as many beliefs, with the exception that we are critical of one more than you are.

 

"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:

There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.

As for the Code of Hammurabi, it seems to me that if a physician made a large incision in a patient that ends up killing him, or cuts out someone's eye by trying to remove a tumor, then they probably shouldn't have been working as a surgeon anyway.  To cut off their hands would prevent them from hurting or killing someone else. 

I'm not defending the story, just critiquing it.

My point here was there were many strange ways ancient people dealt with issues. Cutting off hands, killing the builder of a house if it fell down and killed the occupants and more. In light of some of Hammurabi much of the archaic ideas of justice in the OT are similarly strange to us. The problem being no one advocates implementing Hammurabi's laws such as cutting off a surgeon's hands when they screw up yet many do suggest implementation of the OT's equally bizarre methods.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't  and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis.  I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.

Understood.  I guess I'd question the source you're expecting a believer to present you with?  Is it physical? 

What would an "audit trail with logical construct" presentation need to entail for you to consider its evidence? 

Obviously I'm going to try my best to explain to you the reason why I believe in the best way I am able to.  Yes, faith plays a part in it, though you must understand that it's not blind, but has basis.

If a human can perceive something even with tools whether electronic or mathematical it is physical. 

Are you at all familiar with finance or accounting audits?

One must be able to follow the path through the presentation and understand where all of the information originated and why. Justification is required when departing from generally accepted procedures. This does not mean such justification will be accepted, only that it was the basis for the method utilized.

____________________________________________________________
"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
HisWillness wrote:No, no,

HisWillness wrote:

No, no, and no. Certain conditions that existed on earth (and could exist on any similar planet) brought chemical bonds that naturally occur together in greater number. That's the hypothesis. Is it possible? Yes, says geology. Is it probable? Yes, say the scientists who simulated those conditions. Amino acids spontaneously organizing by chemical bonds (okay, I'm oversimplifying, but if you won't read deludedgod's treatment, I have to be brief) is reproduced without much effort. Carbon just happens to act that way.

caposkia wrote:
Did you consider those odds as well?  It all had to come into play.

And it did. The fact that the earth was probably just like the way we reproduce it in the laboratory gives us a "probably" to the odds that life started that way.

Here in lies the problem.  The issue is not that the earth has been found to have the "right chemical bonds" to create life from nothing.  It's more about the appropriate ingredients first of all being there in the right combination to begin with, then being there in the right quantity to create and sustain that life. 

You yourself state that this "could exist on any other planet" yet we haven't found another planet with similar size and distance from its sun to have such a setup. Any planet for that matter.  What are the odds of us finding a planet to have the perfect ingredients to start life such as Earth did?  To figure that out, you'd need to take the odds of each individual Chemical being present on each planet.  combine that with the odds of each Chemical having the right quantity and location on the planet as well as the right size to create the right atmospheric conditions on that planet and the right distance from a star so as to not freeze or fry the newly formable lifeforms.    When you take all of that into consideration, what are those odds?

P.S.  If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it.  The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab?  Probably, but what are the odds? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You have the

jcgadfly wrote:

You have the threat of God sending you to hell unless you ask forgiveness of your sins. Forgiveness absolves you from responsibilty until you sin again - ask for forgiveness again and you're free (lather, rinse, repeat).

How is that accepting responsibility?

well no... that's what dispensationalists want you to believe.  The choice is yours.  It's either you want to be with God or you don't.  Hell isn't what legalistic churches make it out to be.  God isn't "hanging sinners over hellfire".  Simply put, Hell cannot be explained as anything more than "separation from God". 

The Catholics make you want to believe that you're free to do whatever you want as long as you keep going to confession and saying those prayers over and over again. 

The reality of it is you need to accept responsibility for your actions before you can accept what Christ did for you.  If you can't accept responsibility for your actions, then it's basically saying you don't need Jesus and therefore have no reason to follow him. 

Not to sound like an evangelist, but the truth of the following of Christ is, in order to accept what Jesus did for you in your heart and follow him, you have to admit that you sin.  You also have to admit that you sin so much that you yourself could not make up for it by any means.  That was his whole purpose. There could be no amount of fine you could pay to repay for your sin or work that you could do.  Many people can't handle that kind of responsibility.  Could you?

jcgadfly wrote:

In the secular world we have things like not wanting to harm society, law enforcement and prison to keep the majority of people from doing such things. You can ask for forgiveness and be accepted but you will still do time for your actions. None of this "You asked for forgiveness? Why then, you're free to go!" that comes from Yahweh.

That's the difference, the teaching is Jesus took your sin upon himself.

to compare.  It's like your brother took the hit for you.  You went out there and killed someone, but your brother confessed for you and said he did it.  Therefore, you're scott free and your brother went to jail.  He did that because he loved you more than anything else, including his own freedom. 

Someone still "went to jail" on your behalf.  Justice was still served, it's just that someone else who loved you beyond anything else took your place.  All he wants from you in return, is to follow his example and tell others that he can and did do the same for them. 

I know that sounded very preachy... but did that answer your question?  At least as to why in the Christian belief?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You ARE as

Brian37 wrote:

You ARE as critical as we are to as many beliefs, with the exception that we are critical of one more than you are.

 

not true.  I'm just as critical of your belief as you are of mine. 


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point here was there were many strange ways ancient people dealt with issues. Cutting off hands, killing the builder of a house if it fell down and killed the occupants and more. In light of some of Hammurabi much of the archaic ideas of justice in the OT are similarly strange to us. The problem being no one advocates implementing Hammurabi's laws such as cutting off a surgeon's hands when they screw up yet many do suggest implementation of the OT's equally bizarre methods.

I understood your point.  The point was in perspective of the story I see their logic.  However, yes, there were some very unusual happenings in ancient times.  However, there are a lot more "followthroughs" with religious laws than just Christianity.  Even worse though is the misrepresentation of those laws. 

As far as the Christian teaching, it says, "it is better to cut off... than to go to hell"  The point there is that the punishment is much worse for the sin than it would be to lose that body part.  Nowhere does it say everyone who sins with that body part must cut it off or they will go to hell.  Taking it into context, it was putting into perspective how serious God takes sin and how important Jesus' mission on Earth was. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If a human can perceive something even with tools whether electronic or mathematical it is physical. 

True, tools can only measure the physical because that's what they're designed to do. 

Just like gravity, they can measure the affects on the physical, but not necessarily the cause.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Are you at all familiar with finance or accounting audits?

One must be able to follow the path through the presentation and understand where all of the information originated and why. Justification is required when departing from generally accepted procedures. This does not mean such justification will be accepted, only that it was the basis for the method utilized.

that department is definitely NOT my expertise.  However, it sounds like it's simply going back to the age old debate of origin.  In this case, both sides have a case and beyond creationists, logical thinking minds tie it very will into science on both sides.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.

Diversion tactics again! wow.  I give you credit man.  You can find diversions where none exist, yet you can't find God... hmmm

Everything that I said had no intentions of diversions.  Your lack of focus on the topic has been a good diversion indeed.  I'm guessing you have a bit of ADD. 

Not being aware of what one is doing to their own mind is typical of delusional people.

Just because I wont address the OP doesn't mean you can easily fool me in the fact that you cannot, nor ever will be able to provide evidence for magical births or magical deaths of Jesus, much less evidence for an "all powerful god" by any label.

You seem to forget I already know your end goal and seem to think you are dealing with a gullible person who is easly fooled by smoke and mirrors tactics.

SO if you are not distracting me, then FOCUS yourself and provide your "universal" peer reviewed evidence that your personal claim of a deity exists, beyond mere "words dont mean what they mean".

I am already ahead of you, which you don't want to face.

Here is the bottom line skipping through all the spin, Apologetics, pseudo science, "personal experiance". You have no evidence other than a history of claims rooted, not in evidence through scientific method, but rooted in a history of ignorant tradition, then try to pass it off in the same typical fassion I have seen countless times, not just from you, but countless others as well.

Stop fooling yourself that you invented sliced bread and did so through an invisable friend wispering in your ear. If you think you are the first, or the only one to claim they got it right, you are a fool.

"Words don't mean what they mean"

If I had a nickle for every time a Christian, Muslim or Jew or even people like you who advocate a "personal claim", constitutes evidence, I would make Bill Gates look like a vagavond.

Your claim is not like my sphinter. The difference is that I can prove that my sphincter exists. When you can replicate your god claim like I can produce evidence of my own sphincter, then you will have something, otherwise my postion on your personal claim will remain in the same catigory of all other naked assertions.

 

 

 

"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
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You have the threat of God sending you to hell unless you ask forgiveness of your sins. Forgiveness absolves you from responsibilty until you sin again - ask for forgiveness again and you're free (lather, rinse, repeat).

How is that accepting responsibility?

well no... that's what dispensationalists want you to believe.  The choice is yours.  It's either you want to be with God or you don't.  Hell isn't what legalistic churches make it out to be.  God isn't "hanging sinners over hellfire".  Simply put, Hell cannot be explained as anything more than "separation from God". 

The Catholics make you want to believe that you're free to do whatever you want as long as you keep going to confession and saying those prayers over and over again. 

The reality of it is you need to accept responsibility for your actions before you can accept what Christ did for you.  If you can't accept responsibility for your actions, then it's basically saying you don't need Jesus and therefore have no reason to follow him. 

Not to sound like an evangelist, but the truth of the following of Christ is, in order to accept what Jesus did for you in your heart and follow him, you have to admit that you sin.  You also have to admit that you sin so much that you yourself could not make up for it by any means.  That was his whole purpose. There could be no amount of fine you could pay to repay for your sin or work that you could do.  Many people can't handle that kind of responsibility.  Could you?

jcgadfly wrote:

In the secular world we have things like not wanting to harm society, law enforcement and prison to keep the majority of people from doing such things. You can ask for forgiveness and be accepted but you will still do time for your actions. None of this "You asked for forgiveness? Why then, you're free to go!" that comes from Yahweh.

That's the difference, the teaching is Jesus took your sin upon himself.

to compare.  It's like your brother took the hit for you.  You went out there and killed someone, but your brother confessed for you and said he did it.  Therefore, you're scott free and your brother went to jail.  He did that because he loved you more than anything else, including his own freedom. 

Someone still "went to jail" on your behalf.  Justice was still served, it's just that someone else who loved you beyond anything else took your place.  All he wants from you in return, is to follow his example and tell others that he can and did do the same for them. 

I know that sounded very preachy... but did that answer your question?  At least as to why in the Christian belief?

1. All you have to do is want to? Don't have to live like Jesus or any of that stuff? Don't have to follow the Ten Commandments? Just have to believe really hard? If it was that easy wouldn't everyone be doing it? (I won't get into the fact that this view is Pauline and really has nothing to do with Jesus - we'll just agree to disagree there.)

2. There are problems with your analogy. I haven't killed anyone. My only "crime" is that I don't kiss Yahweh's tush. Hardly equivalent acts.

The other problem is that if my brother confessed to a crime I committed he would still be in jail. Jesus did a three day weekend and went back to being God. My brother in this story sacrificed his freedom - Jesus sacrificed nada.

"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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:P.S.  If you

caposkia wrote:

P.S.  If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it.  The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab?  Probably, but what are the odds? 

Oh, I don't know ... probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. So odds are actually pretty good that life is going to pop up somewhere in that vast expanse. Chances are, it already has elsewhere, too.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Crucifiction and

The Crucifiction and Salvation story is a nasty, primitive, immoral idea that appeals to the most primitive aspects of our minds. It ultimately links back to the primitive idea of blood sacrifice to appease the angry gods or whatever 'powers' are imagined to govern the world.

Treating 'sin' as something that can be 'transferred' like a monetary debt is a nonsense.

Accepting punishment for someone else's wrong-doings is both pointless and dishonest, especially if the 'person' taking on the punishment is not even apparently going to suffer the full force of the punishment, in this  case, real and permanent death. Justice is certainly not served, that is a perversion of the very idea of justice.

If the punishment is seen to be unjust, that is the issue, and it is not really being served by deflecting it to someone else.

If one is comparing the punishment for 'sin' to this situation, it only makes any sort of sense if God's punishment (Hell?) is fundamentally unjust. I of course agree that the concept of Hell as punishment is fundamentally an ultimately evil and unjust concept, as would be a being that would set up such a system.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:caposkia

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:

P.S.  If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it.  The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab?  Probably, but what are the odds? 

Oh, I don't know ... probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. So odds are actually pretty good that life is going to pop up somewhere in that vast expanse. Chances are, it already has elsewhere, too.

And virgin births via disimbodied beings on those planets are just as likely as the ones humans claim on this one.

Cap is so desperate willing to resort to life on other planets being proof of Jesus. Why not convert to Sceintology?

"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
Brian37 wrote:HisWillness

Brian37 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:

P.S.  If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it.  The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab?  Probably, but what are the odds? 

Oh, I don't know ... probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. So odds are actually pretty good that life is going to pop up somewhere in that vast expanse. Chances are, it already has elsewhere, too.

And virgin births via disimbodied beings on those planets are just as likely as the ones humans claim on this one.

Cap is so desperate willing to resort to life on other planets being proof of Jesus. Why not convert to Sceintology?

...or Raelianism...or Mormonism

"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 the 3rd installment on the book beginning with the chapter "All Faithful aren't Fools"....

In response to your third installment, I'll just make a breif statement and see if it progresses.  It generally seems that you agree with her point of view.  Understand that though bigger examples are used, it comes down to what "freedom of religion" is about and how you're not suppose to force it upon others, even just by voice. 

 

I agree with her POV that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It would seem that consideration and courtesy should warrant everyone has such basic rights to believe that which they choose. It is when this line is crossed that issues occur regardless if we are speaking of religion or any other idea personally held by individuals. This includes every victimless crime for which governments impose penalties upon it's citizens.   I see no difference between religion dominating a society's values or a common consensus doing so, both are evil when attempting to control the free exercise of individual rights. 

I pointed out specifically Becky misses the point why 'new atheists' are so vocal, so clearly in that respect I do not agree with her POV. 

Perhaps we have reached the point in this discussion where you should point out the sections of this book that you consider to be of the most importance in expressing your POV for your beliefs or ideas.

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

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


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point here was there were many strange ways ancient people dealt with issues. Cutting off hands, killing the builder of a house if it fell down and killed the occupants and more. In light of some of Hammurabi much of the archaic ideas of justice in the OT are similarly strange to us. The problem being no one advocates implementing Hammurabi's laws such as cutting off a surgeon's hands when they screw up yet many do suggest implementation of the OT's equally bizarre methods.

I understood your point.  The point was in perspective of the story I see their logic.  However, yes, there were some very unusual happenings in ancient times.  However, there are a lot more "followthroughs" with religious laws than just Christianity.  Even worse though is the misrepresentation of those laws. 

As far as the Christian teaching, it says, "it is better to cut off... than to go to hell"  The point there is that the punishment is much worse for the sin than it would be to lose that body part.  Nowhere does it say everyone who sins with that body part must cut it off or they will go to hell.  Taking it into context, it was putting into perspective how serious God takes sin and how important Jesus' mission on Earth was.

Case in point is the quote you made here regarding the removal of offending body parts which illustrates the problems of literal interpretation of archaic writings. This particular reference is a form of early psychiatry in a way describing taking an activity to excess. Did this writer seriously mean that such offenders should pluck out their eye or cut off a body part? Most likely it was but a metaphor or an analogy to express how such excess behavior is detrimental to one's long term goals. In this case, the goal was to be one of the saved not the damned. However many believers consider that it is literal because to be damned for sinning is far worse. Jews seem to value their body parts unlike Christians as described in the NT as it was their duty to the god to maintain and preserve it as they were born a pure soul and could return it in such condition to the god.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If a human can perceive something even with tools whether electronic or mathematical it is physical. 

True, tools can only measure the physical because that's what they're designed to do. 

Just like gravity, they can measure the affects on the physical, but not necessarily the cause.

Gravity can be explained and understood by tools both mathematical and physical through measurements, so this is a poor analogy in describing the inability to measure the spiritual aspects of a god or his supposed realm outside our reality or time space dimension. If a god exists that has some sort of relationship with the physical universe then it should be measurable in some way. Theists generally skirt this by claiming he is outside of our ability to perceive. If so, you shouldn't have any knowledge of the god at all. Since theists think they have such knowledge of the god they must also have some sort of physical evidence if not the entire concept is completely illusion or self created. You can't have this both ways.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Are you at all familiar with finance or accounting audits?

One must be able to follow the path through the presentation and understand where all of the information originated and why. Justification is required when departing from generally accepted procedures. This does not mean such justification will be accepted, only that it was the basis for the method utilized.

that department is definitely NOT my expertise.  However, it sounds like it's simply going back to the age old debate of origin.  In this case, both sides have a case and beyond creationists, logical thinking minds tie it very will into science on both sides.

No it's not necessary to go to the point of origin to audit, one can do so in the middle so it is not the age old issue of debate of origin. As the beginning is obscured or unknown one begins in the middle of the path and follows through logically. It may be by doing so one can interpret data points earlier,  though accuracy will deteriorate as one does. When one uses such methods one can look at multiple paths to gain understanding of the overall. When considering ancient Israel for example one must also look seriously at occurrence elsewhere in the world at the same time period. Stories existing in ancient Babylonian legends and in Canaanite as well are connected and reflected in Bible books such as in Psalms and the leviathan or twisty serpent. This is Marduk crushing Tiamat or Kingu in Babylon and is found in Psalms 74:13-14. These are pieces which can be used to follow an audit trail to gain understanding of the whole.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:

P.S.  If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it.  The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab?  Probably, but what are the odds? 

Oh, I don't know ... probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. So odds are actually pretty good that life is going to pop up somewhere in that vast expanse. Chances are, it already has elsewhere, too.

And virgin births via disimbodied beings on those planets are just as likely as the ones humans claim on this one.

Cap is so desperate willing to resort to life on other planets being proof of Jesus. Why not convert to Sceintology?

...or Raelianism...or Mormonism

Well actually archeologists dug up a time capsle oustide Salt Lake which had secrets to the allien's technology, both are actually the same which the Mormans didn't want the public to know.

The alienshad deposited BOTH the Mormons and Reilians with different powers as separate clans. I think the Mormons felt slighted because the time capsule had a diary in it saying how pissed the Mormon community was being stuck with magical underwear whereas the Reilians were given their modern technology because the aliens had been watching reruns of "Lost In Space" and took those primitive predictions and improved on them and sent the modern technology to them. I guess the Aliens were disappointed in the Mormons and moved on, but BOTH are from the same planet, urANUS. It is all in the time capsule. It is now on display at the Creationism Museum, next to the Dino/caveman display.

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the likelihood of

Regarding the likelihood of conditions being within the range appropriate for the emergence of life on at least one planet in the universe, it would be staggeringly unlikely that there would be no suitable planet among the estimated 100's of billions of planets that are probably out there.

This figure is based on the fact that we have already located hundreds of planets within our local neighbourhood, and how we can only detect those which meet certain restrictions in regard to the orientation of their orbit with respect to our line of sight to their star, are large enough and/or close enough to us to detect, etc. We have already identified some which are likely to be rocky worlds no more than twice the mass of earth, and some whose surface temperature is likely to be in a survivable range.

We have detected organic molecules central to life as we know it, such as amino acids, on meteorites, so it is likely that the precursors substances for life are readily produced by natural processes.

Given these observations, the idea that it is unlikely that there would be any planet in the entire universe suitable for life without special intervention is the truly absurd notion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Not being

Brian37 wrote:

Not being aware of what one is doing to their own mind is typical of delusional people.

round 4

Brian37 wrote:

Just because I wont address the OP doesn't mean you can easily fool me in the fact that you cannot, nor ever will be able to provide evidence for magical births or magical deaths of Jesus, much less evidence for an "all powerful god" by any label.

You keep thinking I'm trying to fool you.  Again, no tactics.  I can't show you anything you don't want to see.

Brian37 wrote:

You seem to forget I already know your end goal and seem to think you are dealing with a gullible person who is easly fooled by smoke and mirrors tactics.

ow! did I call it?!!! huh!!! Smoke and mirrors?!  MAN I'm good!

(in case you forgot, I told you even if I could show you a "spirit DNA" you'd tell me it was smoke and mirrors) 

Brian37 wrote:

SO if you are not distracting me, then FOCUS yourself and provide your "universal" peer reviewed evidence that your personal claim of a deity exists, beyond mere "words dont mean what they mean".

if you want me to elaborate on the "words don't mean what they mean" then just ask.  If you knew the Hebrew or Coyne' Greek, you'd understand what I was saying.

no, I'm not ignoring your challenge for "peer reviewed evidence", but that goes back to what you'll accept.  I'm pretty clear on the fact that anything less than farting a car for you wouldn't be enough.  Therefore, my peer reviewed evidence wouldn't be sufficient.

Brian37 wrote:

I am already ahead of you, which you don't want to face.

yea, you took a leap with "spirit DNA" and "car farting".  Way beyond me there.

Brian37 wrote:

Here is the bottom line skipping through all the spin, Apologetics, pseudo science, "personal experiance". You have no evidence other than a history of claims rooted, not in evidence through scientific method, but rooted in a history of ignorant tradition, then try to pass it off in the same typical fassion I have seen countless times, not just from you, but countless others as well.

I'm sure you've heard it before.  So after all this time, with all the evidence you have presented me... hehe... brhem... sorry. uh... why do I still believe?  Don't give me fear, delusion, or other.  I've had a very open mind.

Brian37 wrote:

Stop fooling yourself that you invented sliced bread and did so through an invisable friend wispering in your ear. If you think you are the first, or the only one to claim they got it right, you are a fool.

Alright, fine! Maybe I didn't invent sliced bread... but I did invent the technique!!!!!

You are a fool to still think I think I'm the only one who got it right after I've repeatedly and blatently told you strait out that I'm not the only one.  I learned from others of many different walks.

Brian37 wrote:

"Words don't mean what they mean"

If I had a nickle for every time a Christian, Muslim or Jew or even people like you who advocate a "personal claim", constitutes evidence, I would make Bill Gates look like a vagavond.

constants make a difference.

Brian37 wrote:

Your claim is not like my sphinter. The difference is that I can prove that my sphincter exists. When you can replicate your god claim like I can produce evidence of my own sphincter, then you will have something, otherwise my postion on your personal claim will remain in the same catigory of all other naked assertions.

I'm gonna take your word on the fact that your sphincter exists.  There's no reason for you to prove that to me.  And as for your other "naked" assertions, let's just leave them out of this forum. 

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. All you

jcgadfly wrote:

1. All you have to do is want to? Don't have to live like Jesus or any of that stuff? Don't have to follow the Ten Commandments? Just have to believe really hard? If it was that easy wouldn't everyone be doing it? (I won't get into the fact that this view is Pauline and really has nothing to do with Jesus - we'll just agree to disagree there.)

I... don't believe that's what I said.  To follow Christ is to strive to be like Jesus. 

It's building a relationship, not clicking your heals together.  It takes time

jcgadfly wrote:

2. There are problems with your analogy. I haven't killed anyone. My only "crime" is that I don't kiss Yahweh's tush. Hardly equivalent acts.

1. Can you claim to have kept all of only the 10 commandments?

2.  Have you hated anyone before?

Disclaimer:  I'm going to word this in a different way because I was humored with the wording, however the statement is written in the Bible.

To hate someone is like murder.  - the biblical part.  The addon part - It means you want to kill them and the only thing stopping you is a good opportunity! 

That would obviously mean that you'd truly hate someone, not just a eh... dislike. 

jcgadfly wrote:

The other problem is that if my brother confessed to a crime I committed he would still be in jail. Jesus did a three day weekend and went back to being God. My brother in this story sacrificed his freedom - Jesus sacrificed nada.

That's where you see that Jesus IS the authority.  He paid for your sin with the ultimate sacrifice, DEATH.  If your Brother went to jail in your place for you killing someone, in the right state, he'd be fried.  Techinically if he's dead he's not in jail anymore is he. 

Now if he had done that for you and he was the ultimate authority, then of course he could write it in the books as "time served".  In the terms of God, Jesus was the authority and the fact that he overcame death is to show that death first of all isn't the end, it is a consequence and that all had been done for you so that you have nothing left to owe. 

Many people see it as, well if he's alive again, then he didn't sacrifice anything... Ask anyone who's even been close to death and I think they'd disagree with you.  The fact that he actually had to die and be dead for 3 days is a sacrifice indeed.  This doesn't include the excessive torture he went through in his life.