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. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is 1001 post in this

This is 1001 post in this thread!

Thanks to Caposkia and the insistance that a magical invisable super brain. Here's to 1,000 more posts!

"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
Brian37 wrote:This is 1001

Brian37 wrote:

This is 1001 post in this thread!

Thanks to Caposkia and the insistance that a magical invisable super brain. Here's to 1,000 more posts!

oh, I can't take the credit for that.  I had a focus when this forum started that was lost many moons ago.  After that, I've been following your (communically speaking) lead.  I would have you all to thank.  I'll make sure my trophy doesn't get dusty for ya. 


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

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia, magical super brains with no DNA, or body, are merely a product of human emagination. 

Arguing over the authors or places or people DOES NOT constitutute invisible magical super brains existing. Allah is invisable and imaterial too, but you aren't a Muslim because Muslims claim that the Koran is the true word of their claimed god.

CAPOSKIA, you have nothing. You have as much evidence for your disembodied, invisible magical super brain as any other god claim of any religion in human history.

Again, you merely bought the idea because it appealed to you at some point, and then because of that strong emotion, you wallow in mental gymnastics because the thought of being wrong is scary to you.

...and after 1000 posts, you on your own.. (unlike others on here) have proven without a doubt that you have less reason than I do to believe that God does not exist and yet you still believe so. 

Who's more vulnerable to believe in flying ponies? 


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

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You sure you want to take that view? That makes Mark the only true witness of Jesus' life and ministry - Matthew and Luke lifted out large chunks of Mark and placed in thier gospels (often verbatim).

So then you'd accept that??? or not?

It is understood that the others witnessed much as well.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. And on your side, cap, you have writings from people (we don't know who wrote the Gospels nor do we know those writers were eye-witnesses) 40+ years after the fact who had an agenda to sell (to build a religion baswed on belief in Jesus as Christ).

...understanding that Jesus was the comming messiah that the Jew's had been waiting for. 

It's funny you say they were trying to sell something be it that they gained nothing from telling everyone to follow Jesus, in fact, most of them lost their lives over it.  What a reward! 

Must have been something more there than just a political or merch. agenda. 

I don't have my Zondervan Bible available right now, but when I find it I'll confirm, but I'm pretty sure the gosple writers are pretty well understood to be who we think they are.  

jcgadfly wrote:

 

3. Actually, that could be more of a problem for you - the scribes copied them verbatim - including the notes from earlier translators that they or others incorporated into the text.

oh don't worry, scholars have been on top of that.  They've compared and contrasted.  There are tons of "notes" in the originals that are not in the Bible because of lack of consistency or because they're not found in the earliest texts.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. See 2 - your protestations are against scholarship.

really...  How so?

jcgadfly wrote:

5. Why are you asking for accuracy from a sales manual?

Who's selling what? 


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

jcgadfly wrote:

1. JP Holding and traditional ascription is not "extensive research". There's no evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel, dispute for evidence that John the Apostle wrote his gospel, no one's sure which Mark wrote the gospel of Mark,

Again, haven't been able to check on that yet, but what are your sources?

jcgadfly wrote:

and Luke was probably more closely connected to Paul than he was with Jesus.

...though still connected.  Either way, it still shows a direct source of information.  Unless you believe conversation between the 2 could have been skewed.

Simply, if a friend told me something important about someone they were in direct contact to, I'd have no reason to doubt them unless they've been known to make up stories.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. So Jesus is equal to God and subordinate to God? Someone needs to get their stories straight and I don't think it's me.

That's why I thought it'd be too early to explain that to you.  Technically there is no subordination because of the perfect cooperation between the 2. 

Simply put, they share one being, but are two separate personalities.  Does that make better sense? 

To view it as a hierarchy would not be feasible. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. You realize, you contradicted your point 2, yes?

There was no intentional contradiction, what do you say it was?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Nothing you wrote shows Jesus' sacrifice to be a gift of unconditional love - It sounds more like "Kissing Hank's Ass". If I got the deal Jesus did, I'd have been beging the Romans to crucify me.

To have the power to be king and rule the world or to die a painful death?   Where are your priorities?!

I'm not sure if I get where you're coming from in that response.

Remember, his sacrifice didn't start at the cross, but when he came down to be born like us.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. so, once again, the work has to be done BEFORE you ask for the work to be done? Interesting. If I have to clean up before Jesus and God will accept me, why suck up to them for acceptance? I'm the one who did the work. (according to you)

uh... acceptance is first.  The effort comes next.  Why make the effort if you can't accept it?

There's no sucking up.  That would require work on your part to be done for salvation which is dispensationalist doctern, not Biblical. 

Yes, you have to make choices, you have to choose to follow Christ or not, it's not up to God to make that choice for you.  All the choices you have will be your own decision and not God's, it's never about sucking up to get what you want.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:4. so, once

jcgadfly wrote:

4. so, once again, the work has to be done BEFORE you ask for the work to be done? Interesting. If I have to clean up before Jesus and God will accept me, why suck up to them for acceptance? I'm the one who did the work. (according to you)

Maybe to clarify this further, You can ask for the "work" to be done.  That work you'd ask for I'm assuming would be a change in your heart, or actions... something that ultimately you'd have to allow to happen and choose.

After you ask for the work to be done, doors will be open to you (metaphorically).  It will be your choice and your own effort to walk through them.  God isn't going to kick your butt in gear and shove you through.  So yes, you'd be the one doing the work... within yourself. 

What you need to understand is the gift through Christ is grace, not works.  It's already yours to take, you just have to accept it.  From there, the changes in your life are your own to decide. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Oh the irony, you

KSMB wrote:

Oh the irony, you telling someone else to do research.

If you follow any of my forums, you'll notice I say that a lot.

KSMB wrote:

I will attribute such irony from you to be an expression of your blistering ignorance. And by blistering, I mean that I get blisters in my eyes from reading it.

open your eyes when you read next time

KSMB wrote:

In a word, no. Neither you nor I know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. Stop parroting tradition and do some damn research yourself.

I have, that's why I can say what I do.  There may be minor debate over some, but through the research of styles in writing, it is understood to be certain people.  Compare and contrast my friend.

KSMB wrote:

Only someone with a complete lack of logical thinking would jump to such an extreme conclusion from what I wrote.

obviously you missed the sarcasm, though the point was you had such implications in your response.  Your claims can't apply for one thing, but not the other.

KSMB wrote:

My statement is the most straight forward way of dispelling the retarded notion that Julius Ceasar and Jesus have equal amounts of actual historical evidence going for them.

ah ok.  I applaud your effort.

KSMB wrote:

Oh wait *gasp*, you mean that people sometimes fabricate writings in names of famous people?! I had no idea!! Thank you for showing me the truth, the light and the way!

I mean, it's not like it's well known that such forgeries in the names of Paul, John and Peter made it into the new testament or anything...

Here you go again, and yet, this was probably a clear implication on your part to claim that Ceasar was real and Jesus wasn't... right?

KSMB wrote:

Such bullshit, we know nothing of the sort. But feel free to actually substantiate the claim. Remember, parroting traditions does not count as "history research". Even if your supposed eye witnesses had written something, of course their stories must stand up to scrutiny. You really mean you just take people's word for that the stuff they claim is true? If that is the case, I have a bridge in China I want to sell to you. I saw it with my own eyes!

you claim their stories must stand up to scrutiny... as if the last 2000 year people have been too dense to do so??  I'd like you to name one time period where those stories did not stand up to scrutiny.  Then explain to me why they're still around and accepted by millions as truth.  I won't accept an opinionated answer either.  I will again request legitimate research on this. 

This research must directly apply to the topic, not some erronius research that says people will believe anything they want to.  Sure that's true, so then what makes your belief more correct than mine using that same rout of explanation? 

See what I'm getting at?

KSMB wrote:

Oh please, give me a fucking break. How do you know you have 2nd or 3rd copies, and what are those copies? Enlighten me, I really want to know. Also, "explicitly verbatim" is what it means to copy something, was that supposed to impress me?

The research has been done by historians who actually take their research seriously.  Therefore, they would not claim anything that matter of fact that would ultimately make them wrong. 

I don't remember at this time who or where, but I'm sure if you looked up its history, you can find some inforation on it.

I dont' know what's suppose to impress you.  I'm impressed by your blatent disregard for a logical debate, but that's beside the point.

It is well known that copies haven't always been "copied" as you defined.  Remember the talk about holding things up to scrutiny?

KSMB wrote:

1. They believe it is the word of god, which is why they bother at all.

right

KSMB wrote:

2. The telephone game was played before the authors wrote down the oral tradition that reached them. I already said as much, didn't you get that?

ooh, testy are we.

KSMB wrote:

3. Thousands of copies huh? If you mean fragments, then you're right for once.

 no, thousands.  The fragments are from the earliest manuscripts we have.  They've been peiced together.  The thousands of copies derive from the "fragments" just as every other historical document from that time.

KSMB wrote:

Though the vast majority comes from the late middle ages, almost none from the first centuries. As for the rest of your claim here, I will quote Bart Ehrman from Misquoting Jesus: "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." (p 90). You should read that book, which is explicitly on this subject. Turns out, the scribes were actually human and thus made lots of mistakes. You confidence in the purity of the preserved text is vastly overstated. Vastly.

The debate wasn't the accuracy from the source, but the accuracy of the copies.  It is understood that because all the copies we do have are so consistant, that the originals were probably pretty close. 

To put them together into books, one would have to not take the fragments only from one source, but from many, from different points of view as well.  This way, the accuracy of the information is greater.  It is understood and agreed upon that the general accuracy is there.  Again, amidst the many mistakes you talk of, there are also many many parts that have been excluded due to the lack of consistency from different sources of the same time. 

KSMB wrote:

But that doesn't matter. Even if we had the actual original of any gospel, how does that prove anything? Would having the original of Beowulf prove that Beowulf really fought a dragon?

Would you like to focus on that instead of arguing over accuracy?

I guess it would depend on specifically what you were talking about.  A lot of what is mentioned in the gospels is backed up by secular history and unrelated documentation.  A general answer for a general question.

KSMB wrote:

 

Are you serious? You are the one who have to establish that these fantastic stories actually took place. I'm the skeptic, I point out that your case for that is absolutely pathetic. Just as pathetic as you keep repeating you know the authors. You don't.

Good job avoiding the task.  well done.

You are the one that seems so matter of fact about your understanding of truth that I'm the idiot, right?  Therefore, it would be your job... being the more intelligent being here and all, to show me how you can be so convicted of your understanding.

If I'm in the wrong, show me.... heh.. I asked that on this site almost 2 years ago.  Here I am, still the believer.  What gives? 

If you're going to claim I refuse to accept something, I have also expressed how open minded I have been about everything and that i will consider every piece of information sent my way.  In fact, I take the same stance Sapient takes. 

Obviously, if it was as easy to conclude as you'd like it to be, there would be no debate. 

KSMB wrote:

My research? I am summarizing well known biblical scholarship for your benefit. Have you even heard of textual criticism? It has been known since the 19th century that the traditionally attributed authors of the gospels are not the authors, that the gospels are not historical accounts but instead religious propaganda pieces, written so that you will believe in Jesus as Christ. Pick up a college textbook on the new testament! Educate yourself!

I have.  I wonder what you've read that I haven't for "college texts"

Understand the same extreme has been claimed on the other side.  So then we're back at square 1... yet again.

KSMB wrote:

Of course, the reverse is true. If you can show me that the traditionally attributed authors really did write the gospels, and that they are historical accounts, then I will change my mind. Show me your "research". (Prediction: All I will get is more parroting of baseless traditions.)

Well, for a quick study of the authorship of any book in the Bible, pick up a Zondervan study.  it is well known that the names attributed to each book may not match the author, but there is strong implication of who they are. 

I never claimed that the "traditionally attributed authors" really wrote the gospels.  But the research has been done to have a good idea of who did write them.  

Simply, it still comes down to a reliable source for the purpose of the point. 

If there is missing information from there.  Let me know and I'll see what I can find. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:natural

caposkia wrote:

natural wrote:

Well, if the book is as confused about the debate as you are, that's not saying much in favour of the book. Comfort lost the debate when he broke the rules by using the Bible to support his case. The rest of the 'debate' was just gravy, poking holes in Comfort and Cameron's ridiculous nonsense. It was not the RRS' job to 'disprove' God. The fact that you think it was just proves you didn't understand the idea behind the debate.

my point was it was a stupid idea in the first place.  Yes, they did break the rules.  Why he thought he was going to succeed in such a debate is beyond me.  Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension.... if it did, then it wouldn't be beyond our comprehension.  science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.

Disclaimer:  I've used the word understanding in place of comprehension before.  It's not that we don't understand God, it's that we can't comprehend the extent of his being.  (btw, please start another blog if you want to discuss this previous statment)

Quote:
Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension

BINGO!

Hello McFly!

So why are you clinging to naked assertions that are beyond human comprehension? Isn't it more likely that YOU merely like the idea of a super hero saving you? Isn't it more likely that these god claims and holy books of all religins past and present, are nothing but myth that people like believing?

I can utter the claim, "My snarfwidget is real", and certainly science cannot comprehend it. So is my snarwidget real because you cant prove it isn't?

"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
This may be the biggest

This may be the biggest waste of time ever. That didn't stop me from contributing though.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap,I want you to explain to

Cap,

I want you to explain to ME, right now, how a dog has anything to do with human beefs and suffering, while claiming that a god exists.

AS IT STANDS right now, I have to make a tough decision to do the right thing and end the life of my mom's dog. She is old and ridden with arthritus.

Nature, to me explains this. My emotional side wants to eek out every moment for this lab, who sees everyone as a friend. My pragmatic side sees that with this progressive desease, there is only so much I can do.

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

"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
Brian37 wrote:Quote: Science

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension

BINGO!

Hello McFly!

So why are you clinging to naked assertions that are beyond human comprehension? Isn't it more likely that YOU merely like the idea of a super hero saving you? Isn't it more likely that these god claims and holy books of all religins past and present, are nothing but myth that people like believing?

I can utter the claim, "My snarfwidget is real", and certainly science cannot comprehend it. So is my snarwidget real because you cant prove it isn't?

heh, Brian you have always made me laugh.  Thank you.

I see why it's been so hard for you to grasp.  Your understanding is anything that is not understood by people can't possibly be real.  at least that's what's implied by your statement above.   I see you have a long way to go... and I don't mean spiritually. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:This may

spike.barnett wrote:

This may be the biggest waste of time ever. That didn't stop me from contributing though.

funny how that works isn't it. 

To a non-believer, it's a waste of time apparently worth taking

To a believer, it's time well spent.

to me (also a believer), it's quite entertaining with many benifits to boot. 


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

Brian37 wrote:

Cap,

yes?

Brian37 wrote:

I want you to explain to ME, right now, how a dog has anything to do with human beefs and suffering, while claiming that a god exists.

Hmm.  Depends on what angle you're willing to take on this.  Not understanding where you are pulling the "dog" thing from I'll take a wild stab.

Dog's like beef, humans have them... A relationship!

Humans suffer from pain when a dog bites, therefore there is a correlation.

... and I still believe that God exists.  I have built a relationship with Him and have had life experiences that mean nothing to you that have futher confirmed His existance to me.

Generally speaking, I'm not sure what you were asking and whether you were being sarcastic or serious.  My assumption was sarcasm.  Apologies if it wasn't

Brian37 wrote:

AS IT STANDS right now, I have to make a tough decision to do the right thing and end the life of my mom's dog. She is old and ridden with arthritus.

depends on how much money you and/or your mother wants to spend on the dog (they do have arthritus meds for dogs).  How much has the dog become a part of the family?  Does your mom have pet insurance? Do you feel that the dog can still enjoy life with the help you are willing to give him/her? 

Brian37 wrote:

Nature, to me explains this. My emotional side wants to eek out every moment for this lab, who sees everyone as a friend. My pragmatic side sees that with this progressive desease, there is only so much I can do.

There is only so much you can do as with people.  I'd see if the meds are a feasible option for your family.

Brian37 wrote:

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain? 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

This example reminds me of John 9:1-3; 

 "As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.  And His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?'  Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in Him.'" 

Of course when that was said, no one knew what that was suppose to mean.  They learened later however,  just as many other things they didn't understand at the time. 

Brian37 wrote:

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

...or an excuse to not believe.  right?

What is nature?  Why is it that way?  You'd think after so many thousands of years of creatures suffering from arthritus that it would have adapted to prevent it.

Brian37 wrote:

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

Really.  Now this isn't asking you to prove a negative.  I'd like you to reference for me where anything suggests the God of Jacob would not allow your dog to suffer and why He would not allow it.  I of course use the word "anything" as literally.  where in any book or any reference does it suggest this? 

Brian37 wrote:

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

I know where you're coming from.  I've been there myself.

Brian37 wrote:

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

You will be angry.  No one said that's wrong.  Unlike religion suggests,  God would want you to express your anger toward Him.  He would then want you to listen with an open mind while he reveiled to you why certain things must take place.  Don't ask me that personal question.  I dont' know you or your dog, but God knows both of you whether you want to deny His existance or not. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia, If God is love (as

Caposkia,

If God is love (as Scripture claims) how can that God get anything, let alone glory, from the suffering of any of the creatures you claim He created?

Doesn't the death freak God of the Bible seem a little contradictory to you?

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain? 

Allowing utterly pointless suffering while having the power to have prevented it would make a 'God' a sadistic prick.

Quote:

Brian37 wrote:

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

This example reminds me of John 9:1-3; 

 "As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.  And His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?'  Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in Him.'" 

Of course when that was said, no one knew what that was suppose to mean.  They learened later however,  just as many other things they didn't understand at the time. 

Which on the face of it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God'. in practice , it is just part of a lame attempt to obscure the clear fact that such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God, by invoke all sorts of mystical convoluted 'explanations'.

To continue to believe in such a God demonstrates moral and intellectually bankruptcy.

Quote:

Brian37 wrote:

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

...or an excuse to not believe.  right?

Wrong - simply further demolishes any justification for believing in such a being.

Quote:

What is nature?  Why is it that way?  You'd think after so many thousands of years of creatures suffering from arthritus that it would have adapted to prevent it.

Brian37 wrote:

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

Really.  Now this isn't asking you to prove a negative.  I'd like you to reference for me where anything suggests the God of Jacob would not allow your dog to suffer and why He would not allow it.  I of course use the word "anything" as literally.  where in any book or any reference does it suggest this? 

Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing.

Quote:

Brian37 wrote:

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

I know where you're coming from.  I've been there myself.

Brian37 wrote:

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

You will be angry.  No one said that's wrong.  Unlike religion suggests,  God would want you to express your anger toward Him.  He would then want you to listen with an open mind while he reveiled to you why certain things must take place.  Don't ask me that personal question.  I dont' know you or your dog, but God knows both of you whether you want to deny His existance or not. 

To answer an earlier response, degenerative diseases, especially occurring after the peak reproductive years, will produce little or no selective pressure for evolution to work on, so are entirely consistent with natural observations, but demonstrate clear problems for any idea of a skillful 'Designer' with only benevolent intent.

Clear-eyed observation of reality makes the non-existence of a God, especially a morally respectable one, vastly more reasonable than there being some real external entity behind your delusions about an invisible friend.

NOTE: Brian37 asked me to respond for him - he is still emotionally torn by the experience.

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: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap,

yes?

Brian37 wrote:

I want you to explain to ME, right now, how a dog has anything to do with human beefs and suffering, while claiming that a god exists.

Hmm.  Depends on what angle you're willing to take on this.  Not understanding where you are pulling the "dog" thing from I'll take a wild stab.

Dog's like beef, humans have them... A relationship!

Humans suffer from pain when a dog bites, therefore there is a correlation.

... and I still believe that God exists.  I have built a relationship with Him and have had life experiences that mean nothing to you that have futher confirmed His existance to me.

Generally speaking, I'm not sure what you were asking and whether you were being sarcastic or serious.  My assumption was sarcasm.  Apologies if it wasn't

Brian37 wrote:

AS IT STANDS right now, I have to make a tough decision to do the right thing and end the life of my mom's dog. She is old and ridden with arthritus.

depends on how much money you and/or your mother wants to spend on the dog (they do have arthritus meds for dogs).  How much has the dog become a part of the family?  Does your mom have pet insurance? Do you feel that the dog can still enjoy life with the help you are willing to give him/her? 

Brian37 wrote:

Nature, to me explains this. My emotional side wants to eek out every moment for this lab, who sees everyone as a friend. My pragmatic side sees that with this progressive desease, there is only so much I can do.

There is only so much you can do as with people.  I'd see if the meds are a feasible option for your family.

Brian37 wrote:

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain? 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

This example reminds me of John 9:1-3; 

 "As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.  And His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?'  Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in Him.'" 

Of course when that was said, no one knew what that was suppose to mean.  They learened later however,  just as many other things they didn't understand at the time. 

Brian37 wrote:

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

...or an excuse to not believe.  right?

What is nature?  Why is it that way?  You'd think after so many thousands of years of creatures suffering from arthritus that it would have adapted to prevent it.

Brian37 wrote:

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

Really.  Now this isn't asking you to prove a negative.  I'd like you to reference for me where anything suggests the God of Jacob would not allow your dog to suffer and why He would not allow it.  I of course use the word "anything" as literally.  where in any book or any reference does it suggest this? 

Brian37 wrote:

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

I know where you're coming from.  I've been there myself.

Brian37 wrote:

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

You will be angry.  No one said that's wrong.  Unlike religion suggests,  God would want you to express your anger toward Him.  He would then want you to listen with an open mind while he reveiled to you why certain things must take place.  Don't ask me that personal question.  I dont' know you or your dog, but God knows both of you whether you want to deny His existance or not. 

Quote:
Unlike religion suggests,  God would want you to express your anger toward Him.  He would then want you to listen with an open mind while he reveiled to you why certain things must take place.  Don't ask me that personal question.  I dont' know you or your dog, but God knows both of you whether you want to deny His existance or not.

 

Get it through your head. I am not angry at your God. That would be like being angry at Micky Mouse or Super Man. I am saying that I would be angry in the context of the postulation you make.

My dog's death is what I am upset about. My natural emotions of feeling helpless and in loosing a dear and loyal friend are the REAL reason I am venting.

You keep dodging the issue.

PLEASE TELL ME what my mom's dog did for an all powerful being(according to you, not me) if one is to go by your model, what did my dog do to deserve such suffering under a watch of a claimed being who CREATED THE UNIVERSE in a nanosecond?

AGAIN, you claim, not me, that such a being exists. Now you are saying that your claimed being would want me angrey so that he could "win me over". WHAT A SICK AND ABSURD CLAIM,

So my mom's dog suffered arhtritus so my mom and I would suffer emotional distress so that God could speak to us? ABSURD AND SICK.

That would make my mom's dog a pawn used to get to me, and not even in a painless way, but in a painfull way.

So allowing the pain of an innocent animal to win over humans is part of "god's plan". If I beat the shit out of your puppy, would you buy any claim I made if I said, "Now, your puppy suffered so that YOU would listen to me". Would you want to listen to me, or would you want me arrested for animal cruelty?

 

AGAIN, it is not about any god by any name existing. IT IS YOUR bad logic that leads me to conclude that under your model one could only conclude that such a being is an absurd concept and a sick concept.

MY MOM'S DOG died from nature, not because of some superstitious master plan from a fictional claim humans wishful thinking, by any name.

 

"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


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Di66en6ion

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

1 & 2: So your god has the mentality of a teenager? He leaves you a son who suicides by cop and a book written by other men but can't seem to love you enough to let you do what you want to do?

Just like I guess your parents can't seem to love you enough to let you screw up your life and the lives of those around you.

Where by the way in the Bible does it say you don't have the free will to "do what you want to do."?

So again I ask, what's the difference between your god and a human?

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your god makes demands that are completely counterintuitive to his supposedly loving nature. Isn't this passage implicitly stating that there are in fact other gods out there? It would be easy to make the equivocation to idols but that's an entirely seperate commandment.

"god" is defined as any entity or being that is of higher power than you.  Therefore, of course it's implied that there are other god's out there... unless you feel you are all powerful.

So you're a polytheist then?

Many people believe that simply being conscious is of a godly nature.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

3: Uh, nice strawman I guess but once again this expresses another paradox. Is god perfect or is he human? Are we made in his image mentally as well as physically? Has your god not made it past the 'sticks and stones' phase of his childhood yet? How can such a supposedly advanced being take issue with a few ignorant words from a mere human? Oh wait... maybe this was written in a book in an age where everyone thought witches could cast spells on others...

Have parents (in general) gotten past that stage? yet most will not allow their children to badmouth them.  What's the difference here?

When it comes down to it, to blaspheme God's name, you'd first have to know him, then have enough hatred and anger toward him in your heart to take his name in vain.   It's what's in your heart that counts, not just words. 

It kind of goes along the lines of, be slow to anger.

Yet parents will rebuke a child outright for being obscene, one thing your god can't seem to be able to do. Handing a note written by a great great great grandfather that says you shouldn't cuss will do nothing to stop a child from doing so. Parental analogy fails.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

5: I ultimately feel sorry for anyone who thinks marriage will secure their relationship in a world where people can physically do whatever they want regardless of what laws say. If someone's going to cheat on their lover before marriage they'll do it after too. No amount of praying will help, sorry. 

This coming from the one that claims God won't let you do whatever you want.  It's apparent that you can.  Doesn't mean it's right.

It's a guideline for life.  Obviously even to you, adultery is not ok.  Just because the law is written doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it.  right?

The whole notion that marriage will bring joy or solidarity is a tad flawed, sounds a lot like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I've seen a handful of couples who stick together because of the religious dogma, living a hallow shell of a union for the sake of society's wishes. Is this an ok way to spend one's life, fulfilling god's wishes at the expense of your own?

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

To "desire wrongfully" is once again relative. How are desires wrong?

See definition in previous post between us.  in the later part of the definition where it says "without regard".  Those are the key words

What's without regard is all the same. If someone fosters your obsession then is that going too far if it's consentual? Or what if someone has an extremely wide area of personal space and is easily offended? 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Only if they interfere with those laws right? Those social contracts created by men right? Rights of others? Slavery was legal in this country less than 150 years ago. Why did those rights change? People defended slavery with biblical passages...

Right, but if you were anything of a Biblical scholar, it would have been clear as day how off our country was on that.  Though if you spoke up at the time, you'd have probably been shot.

The slaves of the Bible "that were considered ok to have" were first of all willfully there.  They were also not imprisoned, but were free to leave anytime.  They were chastised for doing wrong, but not for running away.  They were also told to leave after a period of time, to which in response they could say no, I want to stay or chose to go on their own at some point. 

Doesn't sound a bit like the slaves of our past.

Oh that's right, you have the correct scholarly interpretation then is that it? So it's moved from full-on slavery to stockholm syndrome. Easy to retrospectivly make excuses after history has run its course.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

9: Respect is earned, not automatically granted because someone birthed you. When do you lose respect for someone? Would you still respect your father if he killed your mother or vice versa? Respect with respect to what? Respect their ideas, emotional states, way of life? Can/should a parent's hate or blatently false ideas be respected? Am I simply supposed to respect my mother and father's genes which created me or the day they conceived me? Respect means nothing without a referent; 'parent', 'father', 'mother' has many meanings.

You are right to say respect is earned and for them to see respect from you, they'd have to earn it. 

It comes down to the fact that you exist because they allowed it.  If they didn't want you to exist, you would not exist from them.  It's just simply a reverence for the fact that they are your parents, they are the reason you are alive.  Nothing more. 

Don't get this mistaken with those who accidentally get pregnant.  They still chose to let you live. 

The Bible explicitly states in many areas that you should respect another and then quickly adds assuming they're respecting you (very paraphrased obviously). 

Parents have expectations toward their children written in the Bible too.  Your implications go beyond the specific laws that were mentioned and into further teachings within the scriptures. 

Just like "do not murder"  You question justly killing someone.  It never said do not kill and other parts of the Bible talk about the difference.

Once I am dependent and able to take care of myself there is no law that says I must or should continue to respect my mother for just birthing me. Chosing to let me live in of itself has absolutely no bearing on who I am today, I had no say so or control over the act.

If your god allows my existence it still means nothing, it gives no purpose in of itself, he could take it away in the blink of an eye and guess what... I wouldn't miss a thing.

caposkia wrote:
 

Di66en6ion wrote:

10: So you're making the Sabbath out to be any arbitrary day of the week? There are many jobs that require some people to work weeks at a time while alternating to some weeks of straight vacation inbetween. The whole points is that this is dogmatic, the bible says it's a holy day so then everyone must honor it without question. It's outdated with respect to society.

and yet the majority of society still has one. 

The week was designed from this idea.  It's why it's 7 days.  It's understood even medically that at least 1 day a week to rest is the healthiest way to live. 

It shows you the best way to do it.  Doesn't mean again everyone follows it.

Please don't tell me you're attributing the concept of rest to the bible...

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

I could tell you that your god broke some of these in one form or another or how they're internally inconsistant with traditional characteristics applied to god but you'd simply throw out apologetics. In fact you already have, "there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created.", your god created the laws so he can break them when he sees fit without rebuke, what a perfect excuse that exempts you from questioning your own beliefs. Oh hey this is starting to sound familiar...

I would love you to.

The quote you quoted me on was in reference to God killing people specifically. 

Not that I can see that he broke any, but he created the laws for us, not himself.  God is not of this world, therefore, why would he need to follow laws made for this world?

Why would I then need to follow any laws if such a ruler does not have any scruples himself? Because he created us? Your assertions are just that, empty with no reasoning, an infinite regress of excuses. It may not be a contradiction but it's definitely hypocritical.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

And you have simply proven my point, the "teachings" of the bible are completely relative to society, no universal truths to be found.

Strange to hear you say that and yet every society in the world that has learned of the scriptures has at least understood them if not as a whole, individually.  This implying that the truths may in fact be universal. 

They may not be embraced, but they are understood.  The more you write, the more it seems you prove my point, that it's very clear unless you want to add contingencies which then those are covered elsewhere in the Bible.

Yet a lot of those societies were forced at the point of a sword into Christian "domesticity". There's no way to differentiate between this as truth or self-fulfilling prophecy. You also seem to think that the bible lays claims on such simple notions or guidelines when they were clearly in writting hundreds/thousands of years before it.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

When I said gay in that context I meant the lifestyle of course, the sexual attraction two of the same sex share with eachother. Is it a sin, in your eyes, for two women or two men to have sexual intercourse of some kind?

In my understanding, God created sex in a specific manner.  There's a reason why women don't have penis' and men do.  It's wrong to me because that's not how God designed it. 

Just like any designer who created something for a specific job and then witnesses others abusing it or using it in some way they'd see as wrong.  Do they not have a right to be upset about it?

Just to clarify however, I don't hate gays or lesbians.  I have friends who are homosexual.  They know where I stand on it and respect that and I still respect them for who they are and I still respect them as my friends. 

Hate toward any group is a sect invention and is not Biblical.

You assume god designed it or guided it? Are you a creationist?

Not really, if a designer saw something he created doing something completely unintentional he'd most likely be very intrigued but that's besides the point...

Did you ever consider the posibility that homosexual behavior does have a reason or do you only listen to the mindless dogma that's served to you on a platter? Seems pretty arrogant to think you completely understand God through some text written by men...

Do you think you'd have the right to be upset if you were attracted to other men if you were gay? After all God designed you that way, obviously. 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Is it only alright for heterosexual couples to have sex because it produces offspring? What about vestigial hetero couples who are infertile? Hell, what about hermaphrodites? What about the fact that homosexual behaviour is observed in all social species?

murder, theft, rape, physical abuse, etc.  All behaviour that is observed in all social species.   Does that make it all ok? 

It's not only ok for heterosexual couples because it produces offspring.  The catholics might say that, but I believe birth control is ok to use.

Altruism, care for the sick, mourning, care for the young, group dynamics, etc.. are all observed in social species too. Does that make it ok? 

You didn't respond to hermaphrodites, are they special in god's creation?

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Why should people be at fault for things they cannot possibly control without having chunks of their brain removed?

It's the actions, not the feelings that are taken into account from what I understand.

So you'd deny other's their urges while fulfilling your own?

Masking bigotry as moral dogma is still founded on ignorance.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your version of "understood" garners no facts, no new information, no predictions with respect to science. That in of itself proves that it was never in there to begin with. Meet my friend confirmation bias.

So... then you have nothing to back yourself up on this...

Irony.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

An easy and widespread example was an article put out years ago where they analyized Moby Dick enough until they found the prediction of the assasination of world leaders/prime minister. Fact: If you want to find something hard enough, you'll find it, no matter what. A story full of metaphors and allegory is even moreso easy to manipulate.

Of course it is.  How do you think there are so many different denominations of Christianity in the world.  So many people were convinced they had it right that they forgot to actually look at their findings.

Forget analyzing, all you have to do is take it in context and 90% of it is quite clear.

Your context right? You still don't get it.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Culture changes, you do mental jumprope to make it fit with society and say it was there all along. End of story.

Sure, as much as you come up with excuses to make sure it doesn't fit.

Look, it's obvious the only defense you had for any of it went beyond the text that was in question. 

e.g. "sure, that makes sense on the basic level" (which is all that was presented), "but what about if this happens"

ok, if you really want to discuss the ins and outs of each law, it's really not that complicated.  Pick something specific and we can go from there.

As much as you come up with excuses to make sure it does fit... with no evidence to back it up.

Obviously the only offense you have is naked assertions and ambiguous notions of what's true.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia, making one

Caposkia, making one particular day of the week the day of rest is NOT the best solution, because many things people would like to do as part of leisure time rely on someone else working, even just to supply basic services such as power and transport. Allowing people options as to when to take a break from work on any day of the week that is convenient for them is much better.

So yet more bad/poorly thought thru advice from that book. It really is not worth the paper its printed on.

 

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: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why would the dog had

Quote:
Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain?

I had no choice in being born. When you base life on biology, and not magical superstition, PAIN, physical or emotional, MAKES SENSE.

BUT, when you go by the claim of a super natural body guard in the sky being "all powerfull" and "all loving", it makes no sense.

My dog suffered from a NATURAL cause, not from a "master plan".

God can no more promise to stop pain than Micky Mouse.

GO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF "IF".

I am asking you "IF" we, for the sake of argument only, go by your model, "Why would my dog suffer at all?" I'm sure you've had pets and I am sure when you know of something they are suffering from, AND you can stop it, you would.

In your model "God" makes no promises? Why should I worship a being who cant at least see fit that a friendly loving animal with no mean bone in it's body, keep it from suffering.?Your god is all powerfull according to you.

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Caposkia,

If God is love (as Scripture claims) how can that God get anything, let alone glory, from the suffering of any of the creatures you claim He created?

Doesn't the death freak God of the Bible seem a little contradictory to you?

No, He doesn't seem contradictory.  From the perspective you point out, I understand why you'd think so.

You say it as if suffering is something that he wants for all his creation. 

It's clearly understood that assumption is contrary to what is implied in scripture. 

God is love in the perfect form.  That's what is understood.  To better define what that means is a little more difficult.  what is understood is that He's always there whether you know it or not, whether you want Him to be or not, whether you believe or not. 

He has made many promises in scripture that will allude to that love that is claimed. 

God promised to take care of spiritual needs and to always hold us, love us, care for us, spiritually.  It is also clear in scripture that He has left it up to us to take care of our phyisical needs. 

Just because you see physical suffering around the world does not indicate that God does not love them or that being, or that He is ignoring them.  Unlike people, God actually follows through with what He claims literally and each time.  That is something people have a hard time grasping.

This means that when it is up to us to take care of our physical needs, that's not just ourselves alone, but those around us.  It is very possible to stop world hunger... it would just take the effort of all capable people around the world.  It's possible to aleviate many things that ail us in life, but again.  The effort and unity of basically everyone would be required...  Unfortunately, the difficulty in uniting everyone for the purpose of bettering something is the reason why these particular issues still exist. 

Is God glorified by the suffering of others?  No.  I think most Christians would agree with that answer.  Is it God's will to allow them all to suffer?  Again, no.  To really understand all the suffering and pain in the world, it might be reasonable to first look at why it started in the first place. 

Now after all that, if you're talking about death.  I can't answer for you why animals die when it was humans that did wrong.  I could only give you theories.  There is nothing in scripture to explain why that is so and there's nothing anywhere to claim that because animals die, God does not exist.

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Allowing

BobSpence1 wrote:

Allowing utterly pointless suffering while having the power to have prevented it would make a 'God' a sadistic prick.

I guess that makes us all sadistic pricks be it that every one of us does not do everything in our power to make sure another doesn't suffer.

Besides that, read my last post about how it is our responsibility to take care of our physical needs.

just reference and point for the fun of it.  Your statement about God being a sadistic prick is contradictory by definition. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which on the face of it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God'. in practice , it is just part of a lame attempt to obscure the clear fact that such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God, by invoke all sorts of mystical convoluted 'explanations'.

To continue to believe in such a God demonstrates moral and intellectually bankruptcy.

To continue to be contradictory by definition in your statements is suggesting intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't understand how it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God' in practice.  Unless you're suggesting that by making him blind all his life just to show people the power of God in the future was evil e.g. 'against ..er.. God's will.   You fail to reference the indication of rewards in heaven for your life on Earth.  or even the fact that that person probably appreciates sight more than you or I combined. 

Brian37 wrote:

Wrong - simply further demolishes any justification for believing in such a being.

Right.  So you feel pain... therefore God cannot exist.  Nice logic.

and I stink, therefore I am... though i could be dead.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing.

Why is allowing someone to feel pain nasty and uncaring?  You act as if God did it himself. 

Are you saying you'd shelter your children from feeling any pain what-so-ever?  I feel sorry for them.  Good luck to them in life then.   You would of course have the ability to shelter them so much so that they'd feel minimal emotional and physical pain, however, would that actually be good for them? 

Are you sure that's what I conceded?  Or are you just trying to make it look like I said something else to better justify your weak arguements against God.  That's usually the behavior of someone who has nothing to back themselves up.

BobSpence1 wrote:

To answer an earlier response, degenerative diseases, especially occurring after the peak reproductive years, will produce little or no selective pressure for evolution to work on, so are entirely consistent with natural observations, but demonstrate clear problems for any idea of a skillful 'Designer' with only benevolent intent.

Ah, so according to you, that was always part of the plan.  Please reference. 

Could it be that something started the trend?  Besides God?  You of a scientific, no-God mind must understand that it all started somewhere, right?  or was this always ailing even the most minute of creatures since the dawn of life.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Clear-eyed observation of reality makes the non-existence of a God, especially a morally respectable one, vastly more reasonable than there being some real external entity behind your delusions about an invisible friend.

really.  It was my "clear-eyed observation of reality" that made me believe in the existance of God.  It wasn't any religious entity or sect that showed me the way.  I took the scientific and research approach.    

What makes you so sure your'e not delusional?  I've heard that term in reference to me so many times, I really wonder what makes you so sure that you have it all right?  what.  because you know?  Because it seems to make sense to you?  Sure, a lot of things have made sense to me that I now know are not true.  Does that mean that I was right before and now that I know they're not true, I'm wrong? 

I challenge anyone to give me a strait answer to that.

BobSpence1 wrote:

NOTE: Brian37 asked me to respond for him - he is still emotionally torn by the experience.

Good job at making claims without basis. 

Not that it means anything to you or Brian, but my heart goes out to him and my prayers are with him.  I know what he's going through.

Neither of you should take any of this to be me trying to lessen the pain or even defuse the situation.  I know this is a tough time.  He should take as much time as he needs.  My condolences.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Get it through

Brian37 wrote:

Get it through your head. I am not angry at your God. That would be like being angry at Micky Mouse or Super Man. I am saying that I would be angry in the context of the postulation you make.

I know what you're angry at.  I'm just saying it's ok to be angry and I understand your anger. 

Brian37 wrote:

My dog's death is what I am upset about. My natural emotions of feeling helpless and in loosing a dear and loyal friend are the REAL reason I am venting.

I'm willing to take it and listen.

Brian37 wrote:

You keep dodging the issue.

This coming from the master of issue dodging.

Brian37 wrote:

PLEASE TELL ME what my mom's dog did for an all powerful being(according to you, not me) if one is to go by your model, what did my dog do to deserve such suffering under a watch of a claimed being who CREATED THE UNIVERSE in a nanosecond?

1.  where do you get the idea that it was created in a nonosecond?  Not even young earth creationists would claim that.

2. What makes you think your dog earned that suffering?   The Bible talks about that misconception in many many places.  Don't let the references throw you off focus here.  I know that'll be hard.  See Job and the Gospels.

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN, you claim, not me, that such a being exists. Now you are saying that your claimed being would want me angrey so that he could "win me over". WHAT A SICK AND ABSURD CLAIM,

I never claimed that he'd want you angry to win you over.  He would want you to "EXPRESS" your anger if you were angry.  Just like a good friend or parent would want you to express it to them if you were angry at them for some reason.

Brian37 wrote:

So my mom's dog suffered arhtritus so my mom and I would suffer emotional distress so that God could speak to us? ABSURD AND SICK.

I'll refrain from sarcasm because I know what kind of pain you're dealing with.  I don't intend in any way to upset you more by anything I say.  I'm just going along with what you're saying and trying to clarify.

I don't know you, your dog, or your mother.  Therefore, I can't claim any of what you're claiming I said.  I cant' say why it happened.  I'm not God.  I know you're seeking answers to why through me,(or by asking the questions think that it's going to make me see that God can't be real) but I dont' know why God does everything He does.  Or why everything in the world happens the way it does.  I do understand that God knows everything that happens in this world and knows you, your dog, and your families suffering.  I'd say if you really want to understand more, ask him.  But you know God doesn't exist anyway, so in that case, what you decide is the reason must be the best you're going to get.

Brian37 wrote:

That would make my mom's dog a pawn used to get to me, and not even in a painless way, but in a painfull way.

If your dog loves you and your family as much as you say he/she does, then why wouldn't she want to show you by any means?  It would be her choice, though you wouldn't know that because she couldn't have told you that. 

You seem to think you know all the answers, and yet, if God is real, you would never know if your dog chose to suffer for you or not.  You've already admitted that you'd do it for your dog.  I'm sure her love for you was just as strong if not stronger.

Brian37 wrote:

So allowing the pain of an innocent animal to win over humans is part of "god's plan". If I beat the shit out of your puppy, would you buy any claim I made if I said, "Now, your puppy suffered so that YOU would listen to me". Would you want to listen to me, or would you want me arrested for animal cruelty?

It'd be a strange tactic for you to do that be it that you're human, just like me and we're both aware of each other's existance.  Let's pretend that was your way of getting my attention:

You'd better be telling me why you felt that my dog was the way to get my attention and it'd better be important. 

In this case be it that you don't know God and that He is your creator.  I'd say that's pretty frikken important information to get ahold of. 

I again am just responding to your statement.  I still don't know why God does everything he does and I still don't know you or your dog or your family.  Therefore, I cant' answer why or even if this was the case.

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN, it is not about any god by any name existing. IT IS YOUR bad logic that leads me to conclude that under your model one could only conclude that such a being is an absurd concept and a sick concept.

MY MOM'S DOG died from nature, not because of some superstitious master plan from a fictional claim humans wishful thinking, by any name.

If that's what you want to believe, there's no way I could ever change that. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:So again I

Di66en6ion wrote:

So again I ask, what's the difference between your god and a human?

Be it that God made us in his image (not just physical), there are a lot of similarities.

Some of the most blaring differences are:

1. Us=physical Him=spiritual

2. God=almighty creator of everything we know  Us= the created amidst His creation.

Di66en6ion wrote:

So you're a polytheist then?

Did I say I worship all those that are higher than me?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Many people believe that simply being conscious is of a godly nature.

There are many perspectives out there

Di66en6ion wrote:

Yet parents will rebuke a child outright for being obscene, one thing your god can't seem to be able to do.

can't do? or chooses not to do.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Handing a note written by a great great great grandfather that says you shouldn't cuss will do nothing to stop a child from doing so. Parental analogy fails.

Can you still have a relationship with that great great grandfather?  Are you goign to see him again and are you going to have to explain to him why you did what you did in life and do you know him well enough to actually love him? 

analogy dejection fails.

Di66en6ion wrote:

The whole notion that marriage will bring joy or solidarity is a tad flawed, sounds a lot like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I've seen a handful of couples who stick together because of the religious dogma, living a hallow shell of a union for the sake of society's wishes. Is this an ok way to spend one's life, fulfilling god's wishes at the expense of your own?

well.  Fulfilling God's wishes at the expense of your own is worth it, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

The Bible never claims that marriage will bring joy or solidarty to everyone and that you're going to live happily ever after.  Your claims prior to the statement I responded to here aren't supported in the Bible. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

What's without regard is all the same. If someone fosters your obsession then is that going too far if it's consentual? Or what if someone has an extremely wide area of personal space and is easily offended? 

well, that depends on the initiators intentions.  It doesn't say that if someone is or is not offended that you were in the wrong.  it's your own intentions that  you are accountable for.  People will do and feel how they choose to do and feel for any given situation.  You have control over your own.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Oh that's right, you have the correct scholarly interpretation then is that it? So it's moved from full-on slavery to stockholm syndrome. Easy to retrospectivly make excuses after history has run its course.

er... those weren't my claims.  Maybe you should do some homework.  My knowlege is from years of study.  Not my own conclusions.  All I stated in the previous statement to which you responded with retrospective excuses was factual information you can look up yourself. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Once I am dependent and able to take care of myself there is no law that says I must or should continue to respect my mother for just birthing me. Chosing to let me live in of itself has absolutely no bearing on who I am today, I had no say so or control over the act.

Choosing to let you live has no bearing on who you are today?  Are you saying you'd be the same person today if they didn't let you live?  Of course that didn't make sense because you wouldn't be!

I still think you're mistaking general respect for showing respect.  They may be bad people, but they still birthed you.  You do not have to in any way respect what they are, but who they are in reference to you.  It's an extremely hard thing that takes some a lifetime to do.  It of course could nto happen overnight. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

If your god allows my existence it still means nothing, it gives no purpose in of itself, he could take it away in the blink of an eye and guess what... I wouldn't miss a thing.

Taking the perspective that God is real from what you were saying above.  If he took your existance away on this earth, would you not miss a thing?  Do you know what happens after you die?  According to scripture, you're still alive spiritually. 

It comes down to you existing because of Him.  You having a chance to know Him because of His love for you.  But your'e not even willing to give Him a chance it seems.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Please don't tell me you're attributing the concept of rest to the bible...

yea, naw, of course not.  Forget the irony in medical discoveries and the suggestions of the Bible.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Why would I then need to follow any laws if such a ruler does not have any scruples himself? Because he created us? Your assertions are just that, empty with no reasoning, an infinite regress of excuses. It may not be a contradiction but it's definitely hypocritical.

No, that's comparing apples to apples.  A human ruler should follow the rules of the kingdom he rules because he lives in that kingdom.  What about a spiritual God that isn't physical like his followers and doesn't reside in the kingdom he rules? 

By the way, so this doesn't go too far off track.  I'm pretty sure God has followed the expectations he has put on us as much as he can as a spiritual being who does not live in this world. 

We do not murder each other.  He has not killed anyone without reason for doing so, therefore has not murdered. 

We rest on the 7th day... why?  because God did and he knows we'd need it too.

just 2 examples. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Yet a lot of those societies were forced at the point of a sword into Christian "domesticity". There's no way to differentiate between this as truth or self-fulfilling prophecy. You also seem to think that the bible lays claims on such simple notions or guidelines when they were clearly in writting hundreds/thousands of years before it.

I never said that it was ok for anyone to force another into "Christian 'domesticity'".  In fact, that's very anti-Christ. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

You assume god designed it or guided it? Are you a creationist?

by no means am I a creationist.  I am a follower of Christ. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Not really, if a designer saw something he created doing something completely unintentional he'd most likely be very intrigued but that's besides the point...

is it.  What if he felt that unintentional use was against his wishes or morals?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Did you ever consider the posibility that homosexual behavior does have a reason or do you only listen to the mindless dogma that's served to you on a platter? Seems pretty arrogant to think you completely understand God through some text written by men...

It's very nieve of you to think that I think I "completely understand God" or that I even "listen to the mindless dogma". 

Homosexuality is something I have tried to understand for a long time.  I'm sure there are reasons behind it.  How much of it still is a choice? 

I'll be honest with you.  It is one thing that I have tried to better understand.  Especially the mindset and state of mind.  I know of scientific findings of imbalances in the brain, though many 'life choices' in general by themselves or others can cause such imbalances.  I want to keep looking deeper into it.   Any good references would be helpful. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Do you think you'd have the right to be upset if you were attracted to other men if you were gay? After all God designed you that way, obviously. 

says you.  If God said not to do that, why would you assume he designed you that way?

Also, are you asking if I should have the right to be upset with myself for having an attraction to other men if I was gay? 

I have the right to feel however I want toward myself. 

I do NOT have the right to be upset with someone else for making that choice in life. 

I'm still trying to better understand it and I admit I dont' fully understand it right now.  I will never claim to.  I will only claim what I know the Bible says about it.  I will never put anyone down for making that choice or even think less of them.  They are people living life just like I.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Altruism, care for the sick, mourning, care for the young, group dynamics, etc.. are all observed in social species too. Does that make it ok? 

You didn't respond to hermaphrodites, are they special in god's creation?

I dont' know why hermaphrodites are the way they are.  You seem to assume I must know everything because I follow God.  I don't.  I do know God, but I don't know why all things are.  I will never claim to have all the answers. 

It still gives me no reason to doubt the existance of God.  Especially seeing as I have a relationship with God.

Di66en6ion wrote:

So you'd deny other's their urges while fulfilling your own?

why would I do that?

Masking bigotry as moral dogma is still founded on ignorance.

that's religion my friend.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your version of "understood" garners no facts, no new information, no predictions with respect to science. That in of itself proves that it was never in there to begin with. Meet my friend confirmation bias.

Quote:

So... then you have nothing to back yourself up on this...

Quote:

Irony.

that's pretty solid.  (sarcasm intended)  If I used that as my defense... do you really think I'd get far?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your context right? You still don't get it.

not my context.  i say what i have learned through research and study. 

Your conclusion... so clarify.

Di66en6ion wrote:

As much as you come up with excuses to make sure it does fit... with no evidence to back it up.

the difference is, you can actually research and find information for the claims I present.  They're not my own.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Obviously the only offense you have is naked assertions and ambiguous notions of what's true.

I only answer what you ask and from what I know.   I again don't know everything, but everything isn't what's in question.  Specifics are.  Do you want to focus on those?

I could also claim the same about you.  That statment is ignorance.   Sorry but it is.  Do some homework on it next time.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Caposkia,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Caposkia, making one particular day of the week the day of rest is NOT the best solution, because many things people would like to do as part of leisure time rely on someone else working, even just to supply basic services such as power and transport. Allowing people options as to when to take a break from work on any day of the week that is convenient for them is much better.

So yet more bad/poorly thought thru advice from that book. It really is not worth the paper its printed on.

Such is life as we know it today. 

What of the times back when it was written into law.  also, if people were following it, are you saying we'd be so lame as to not figure out something to do on our leisure that didn't require someone else to work?

Do you really think things through before commenting? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I had no

Brian37 wrote:

I had no choice in being born. When you base life on biology, and not magical superstition, PAIN, physical or emotional, MAKES SENSE.

it makes sense otherwise if you care to do the homework on it.

Brian37 wrote:

BUT, when you go by the claim of a super natural body guard in the sky being "all powerfull" and "all loving", it makes no sense.

Sure if you want to blindly conclude that.

Brian37 wrote:

My dog suffered from a NATURAL cause, not from a "master plan".

I can't say whether he/she did or didn't.

Brian37 wrote:

God can no more promise to stop pain than Micky Mouse.

or hasn't and won't.

Brian37 wrote:

GO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF "IF".

I am asking you "IF" we, for the sake of argument only, go by your model, "Why would my dog suffer at all?" I'm sure you've had pets and I am sure when you know of something they are suffering from, AND you can stop it, you would.

In your model "God" makes no promises? Why should I worship a being who cant at least see fit that a friendly loving animal with no mean bone in it's body, keep it from suffering.?Your god is all powerfull according to you.

I trust God.  I may not understand why certain things must take place, but I trust that he keeps us in His best interest. 

I guess it would be up to you on why that would be a hinderance to you to ignore a God that had made so many better promises to you.  You and I both may not understand it, but God knows why He allowed it to happen. 

By the relationship I built with him, I know it was the way it had to be, but I don't know why.  I dont' even have to like it or pretend to be happy.  I can be angry and bitter about it and that's ok.  It never made God any less real to me or less loving. 

Your dog has brought you closer to knowing the love of God.  You now understand what it's like to have it taken away.  You said you'd do anything for that dog because of the love he/she showed you.  How far will you be willing to go to know that love again. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Allowing utterly pointless suffering while having the power to have prevented it would make a 'God' a sadistic prick.

I guess that makes us all sadistic pricks be it that every one of us does not do everything in our power to make sure another doesn't suffer.

We can't respond to everyone - we have finite resources of time and capabilities, and many responsibilities. The description is only appropriate to someone who has ample time, resources, and powers to help, but simply looks on.. as would apply to God.

Quote:

Besides that, read my last post about how it is our responsibility to take care of our physical needs.

Irrelevant to someone who is sick or injured and suffering.

Quote:

just reference and point for the fun of it.  Your statement about God being a sadistic prick is contradictory by definition. 

No - it is the definition of God which is contradictory, as has been frequently pointed out. Defining the creator of the Universe as also all-loving despite the manifest evidence that He allows enormous amounts of pointless suffering is a fundamental error. You are the one mired in contradiction. 

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which on the face of it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God'. in practice , it is just part of a lame attempt to obscure the clear fact that such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God, by invoke all sorts of mystical convoluted 'explanations'.

To continue to believe in such a God demonstrates moral and intellectually bankruptcy.

To continue to be contradictory by definition in your statements is suggesting intellectual bankruptcy.

Which is what you seem unable to accept when we point out all the contradictions and inconsistencies and dodges in your 'arguments'.

Pointing out the inherent contradictions in your definitions is not 'being contradictory', you poor confused foolish one.

Quote:

I don't understand how it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God' in practice.  Unless you're suggesting that by making him blind all his life just to show people the power of God in the future was evil e.g. 'against ..er.. God's will.   You fail to reference the indication of rewards in heaven for your life on Earth.  or even the fact that that person probably appreciates sight more than you or I combined. 

Defining evil as being against God's Will means you have abandoned any moral sense, and are 'just following orders'. 

Trying to justify a lifetime of suffering on Earth because it will be offset by a 'reward' in an afterlife is morally bankrupt. If you really can't see this, I am genuinely very sad for you.

Quote:

Brian37 wrote:

Wrong - simply further demolishes any justification for believing in such a being.

Right.  So you feel pain... therefore God cannot exist.  Nice logic.

Allowing excessive and pointless pain, way beyond what might be sufficient to teach us some useful lesson is an excellent logical argument against the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.

Quote:

and I stink, therefore I am... though i could be dead.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing.

Why is allowing someone to feel pain nasty and uncaring?  You act as if God did it himself. 

Failing to act to prevent a crime when you have ample power and opportunity to do so is considered virtually equivalent to doing it yourself. Ever heard of 'criminal negligence'?

Quote:

Are you saying you'd shelter your children from feeling any pain what-so-ever?  I feel sorry for them.  Good luck to them in life then.   You would of course have the ability to shelter them so much so that they'd feel minimal emotional and physical pain, however, would that actually be good for them? 

Of course he isn't. Are you really as dense as you seem?

You keep avoiding the issue that we are talking about excessive and avoidable pain and suffering, not the inevitable and normal incidence.

Quote:

Are you sure that's what I conceded?  Or are you just trying to make it look like I said something else to better justify your weak arguements against God.  That's usually the behavior of someone who has nothing to back themselves up.

BobSpence1 wrote:

To answer an earlier response, degenerative diseases, especially occurring after the peak reproductive years, will produce little or no selective pressure for evolution to work on, so are entirely consistent with natural observations, but demonstrate clear problems for any idea of a skillful 'Designer' with only benevolent intent.

Ah, so according to you, that was always part of the plan.  Please reference. 

WTF are you saying? They may be an inevitable consequence of some aspect of our bodies that serves in early life to maximize the ability to have children, but ultimately 'burns out' and leaves us crippled. Perfectly understandable in the context of natural evolution, which has no plan.

Whereas a designer God, by definition, would be able to construct us so that we used reproductive processes that did not have that ultimate effect. If he doesn't seem to have done that, it must be part of His plan. Please explain.

Quote:

Could it be that something started the trend?  Besides God?  You of a scientific, no-God mind must understand that it all started somewhere, right?  or was this always ailing even the most minute of creatures since the dawn of life.

Quote:

Doesn't have to a 'trend' which started somewhere - such 'defects' will inevitably arise in a random way thru mutation, and as long as they don't affect reproductive success, and may indeed have short term benefits, they will be passed on, and so tend to persist.

Whatever, your comment doesn't actually address the issue.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Clear-eyed observation of reality makes the non-existence of a God, especially a morally respectable one, vastly more reasonable than there being some real external entity behind your delusions about an invisible friend.

really.  It was my "clear-eyed observation of reality" that made me believe in the existance of God.  It wasn't any religious entity or sect that showed me the way.  I took the scientific and research approach.    

What makes you so sure your'e not delusional?  I've heard that term in reference to me so many times, I really wonder what makes you so sure that you have it all right?  what.  because you know?  Because it seems to make sense to you?  Sure, a lot of things have made sense to me that I now know are not true.  Does that mean that I was right before and now that I know they're not true, I'm wrong? 

I challenge anyone to give me a strait answer to that.

Obviously any of us could be delusional - that's a given.

Which is why we try to find, wherever possible, empirical, independently verifiable evidence.

Which is why purely internal experiences, things just making sense at the time, are not good reasons for believing something, apart from relatively minor and everyday things. That is the point of the scientific method requiring us to consider alternative explanations, see if others can verify our theories, and so on.

At any given time, we can only assess the evidence for or against an idea, to the best of our ability, and if it seems to pass, make the working assumption that it is true, or otherwise either reject it, at least until we become aware of more evidence or alternative ways of analysing the issue. It is a mistake to assert knowledge unless it is a really clear case. 

We refer to you as delusional so often because you keep responding with clearly illogical responses, and yet are convinced you are being logical and scientific. You provided very weak evidence (the fires thing) early in this thread, easily shown to have severe logical flaws.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

NOTE: Brian37 asked me to respond for him - he is still emotionally torn by the experience.

Good job at making claims without basis. 

??? How is that relevant here? What baseless claims are you referring to?

Quote:

Not that it means anything to you or Brian, but my heart goes out to him and my prayers are with him.  I know what he's going through.

Neither of you should take any of this to be me trying to lessen the pain or even defuse the situation.  I know this is a tough time.  He should take as much time as he needs.  My condolences.

Genuine expressions of sympathy do mean something to us. Why would you assume it wouldn't?

We actually believe your are sincere, just somewhat confused about some aspects of reality....

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Caposkia, making one particular day of the week the day of rest is NOT the best solution, because many things people would like to do as part of leisure time rely on someone else working, even just to supply basic services such as power and transport. Allowing people options as to when to take a break from work on any day of the week that is convenient for them is much better.

So yet more bad/poorly thought thru advice from that book. It really is not worth the paper its printed on.

Such is life as we know it today. 

What of the times back when it was written into law.  also, if people were following it, are you saying we'd be so lame as to not figure out something to do on our leisure that didn't require someone else to work?

Do you really think things through before commenting? 

Of course, unlike you.

There is still no reason to mandate a specific day, and insist everyone observe it - that is not about leisure, that is about insisting on observance of a holy day to celebrate the God.

Many people are quite happy to work at times when others are not and vice versa. It should be left as far as practical up to the individual, that is the intelligent approach.

It is the rigidity of most religious ritual observance that is lame.

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: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I had no choice in being born. When you base life on biology, and not magical superstition, PAIN, physical or emotional, MAKES SENSE.

it makes sense otherwise if you care to do the homework on it.

Brian37 wrote:

BUT, when you go by the claim of a super natural body guard in the sky being "all powerfull" and "all loving", it makes no sense.

Sure if you want to blindly conclude that.

Brian37 wrote:

My dog suffered from a NATURAL cause, not from a "master plan".

I can't say whether he/she did or didn't.

Brian37 wrote:

God can no more promise to stop pain than Micky Mouse.

or hasn't and won't.

Brian37 wrote:

GO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF "IF".

I am asking you "IF" we, for the sake of argument only, go by your model, "Why would my dog suffer at all?" I'm sure you've had pets and I am sure when you know of something they are suffering from, AND you can stop it, you would.

In your model "God" makes no promises? Why should I worship a being who cant at least see fit that a friendly loving animal with no mean bone in it's body, keep it from suffering.?Your god is all powerfull according to you.

I trust God.  I may not understand why certain things must take place, but I trust that he keeps us in His best interest. 

I guess it would be up to you on why that would be a hinderance to you to ignore a God that had made so many better promises to you.  You and I both may not understand it, but God knows why He allowed it to happen. 

By the relationship I built with him, I know it was the way it had to be, but I don't know why.  I dont' even have to like it or pretend to be happy.  I can be angry and bitter about it and that's ok.  It never made God any less real to me or less loving. 

Your dog has brought you closer to knowing the love of God.  You now understand what it's like to have it taken away.  You said you'd do anything for that dog because of the love he/she showed you.  How far will you be willing to go to know that love again. 

Quote:
I can't say whether he/she did or didn't.

WHAT THE FUCK?

So you think arthritus is super natural?

Quote:
Your dog has brought you closer to knowing the love of God.  You now understand what it's like to have it taken away.  You said you'd do anything for that dog because of the love he/she showed you.  How far will you be willing to go to know that love again.

What the fuck AGAIN!

My dog brought me companionship, there is no magic in that.

Quote:
How far will you be willing to go to know that love again.

What a steamy pile of wishy washy tripe. Did you have in your head some Oscar award winning music to a blockbuster "Good beats Evil" movie playing in your head when you wrote that?

Deep voice movie announcer, "HE WAS TOLD NOT TO! HE WAS TOLD IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY HE DEFIED THE ODDS!

BRAD PIT......ANGOLINA JOLIE......AND JACK NICKLSON IN, "GOOD GUYS ALWAYS WIN!"

Thank you for flying Delusional Airlines. We don't require you to wear your seatbelts or care about telling you about the floatation devices under your seat,  and who the fuck cares about pointing out the exists.

My love for that particular dog was unique . Your god claim  is a made up gap answer you insert to avoid facing your own mortality.

I accept that my dog's death as part of reality. I don't make up fictional super heros to explain nature.

 

YOU trust the most flawed thing in evolution, your emotions. I accept my emotions as being natural without conflating them to comic book status.

I think you need to stop watching Halmark specials on tv.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Right.  So you feel

Quote:
Right.  So you feel pain... therefore God cannot exist.  Nice logic.

You are so close to understanding it makes my dick itch!

THAT IS NOT our argument.

I feel pain because pain is natural, physical and emotional, not the result of a battle between a man in a red leotard vs a man in a white robe.

IF one is to claim pain(YOU) is a product of a being who doesn't have to allow it but does, subjectively(a plan), .......We would say that such a being is a DICK, by any name, much less your claim. Other religions claim an "all powerful" "all loving" as well.

"IF" your god exists, FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE ONLY, he is a DICK!

Be it that we would conclude such a being to be a dick and you would not, STILL DOES NOT PROVE EXISTENCE!

PLEASE tell me you understand English.

 

 

"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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
͕̺͈̰̆ͩ͐̔̈́ͤ͜H̴̤̭̩͐̊e̞̻̰ ̓ͯ̉҉̘̗̭c̭̻͒͛ͦ̂͊̚o̜̲̞̠̲ͦ͒ͫ͞m̮̬̖̘̼e̝̖͓s̬̍͜ͅ

You shall not be spared caposkia for your worship of your fake god yahweh. it shall not free you from the corruption.

H̭͇͗ͪͧ̆̚ͅe͉̝ͧ ́w̭̿͋̇h̵͔͚̹̖̔̌o͕̰̲̩̟͈̒̔̎ ̝̮̮̭̆̈́ͤ̈̃w͖͚̪̭̣ͭͫå̭̪̞it̖̤ͭ͆̊͊̅͘ṡ̬͂ͪͮ͂̎͋͞ ̼̅ͣ̈́̅̌͟b͓̽̅ͦ̇͡ḙ̙̻̳̹͙̉̾͛ͮͦh̶̘͉̱͎ͦ͑́̆̆̃̚i͓̣̩̯̐͌̒n̵̟͉͔̬̻͈͖ͪͦͫͬ̔̊͆d̢̬͚̉ͩ̋ ̣͈̲̐̅ͅͅͅt̼̖̙͉͖̥̾́h͘ĕ̶͒̋͐̾ͯ͂ ̵̥̰͚̤͙̭̭w̬̤̜̅̆̚a̫͎̠̖ͥl̼̄̚ḷ̳̣͕̝̹͊́̈̅͊̚.͙͖̽̒ͨͧ̀͒ͫ͡
͆̈́ͧ̽̾̈́̋H͂ͭ̄̇̔҉̮̰̳e̶͉͍̼͇͙ͭͩͩ̃̐̇ ͥ͏w͉̦ͤ̔i̓ͩ̒̅̈́͏͕̫͎l̤̝̅̊ͮͅl̽ͨͭ̏̆҉̬̩̞͙̩̟͈ ̹͚͖̜͕̊ͮ̂ͧ̿̃͡s̖̗̹̯̱̈́̓ͨi͎͎͖̘̭̠ͫ̆̑n̨̤ģ͕̬̦̗̘̱͑ ̢̹̪͈̉͛t͙͈̯͔̎͂͒͡h̙̹̀͊ě̙̚͢ ̣͈͑̾̊̍ͤ̚̚sͭ̀́̈õ̵͉͉͖̩̱̥̔n̖̣͌̌̍̒ͬ͊g̷̤̱̻̜̳̭͂̈ͪ̽̓ ̪͖̠̯͕̲̹t̜͇̗͈͆́̓̓̔̑ͬͅh̡ͩ̏̿̌̈̈́͗ḁ̶̫̳̳͔̋̎ẗ̢̺̙̩́̐ ̣͇̞ͮ͋͒̽e͇̤̘ͣ̿͞n̳͚̜̟͑ͅd͜s̘̫̩̜̞̣͊̑̅ͅ ̞͍͓̩̠̫t̷͔͙͚̥̹̞̒͐̂ͯ̽ͥ̉ḣ̜̝̗̇̈́ͫ͠è̹͇̬̦̯ͨͦͩ̊ ̬̩̩̈́̒̎̐ͩw̐ͭͬ̈́҉̻o̗̲̲̒̌̋̎r̵̻̻̭̂ͪ̚ͅl̠̠̠̍̚ḑ̖̳̩ͯ̃ͮ̎̀ͅ.͓̲̞͇͑͞
͕̺͈̰̆ͩ͐̔̈́ͤ͜H̴̤̭̩͐̊e̞̻̰ ̓ͯ̉҉̘̗̭c̭̻͒͛ͦ̂͊̚o̜̲̞̠̲ͦ͒ͫ͞m̮̬̖̘̼e̝̖͓s̬͎̻̍͜ͅ.̻̜̍̒̏̀͠

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Caposkia,

If God is love (as Scripture claims) how can that God get anything, let alone glory, from the suffering of any of the creatures you claim He created?

Doesn't the death freak God of the Bible seem a little contradictory to you?

No, He doesn't seem contradictory.  From the perspective you point out, I understand why you'd think so.

You say it as if suffering is something that he wants for all his creation. 

It's clearly understood that assumption is contrary to what is implied in scripture. 

God is love in the perfect form.  That's what is understood.  To better define what that means is a little more difficult.  what is understood is that He's always there whether you know it or not, whether you want Him to be or not, whether you believe or not. 

He has made many promises in scripture that will allude to that love that is claimed. 

God promised to take care of spiritual needs and to always hold us, love us, care for us, spiritually.  It is also clear in scripture that He has left it up to us to take care of our phyisical needs. 

Just because you see physical suffering around the world does not indicate that God does not love them or that being, or that He is ignoring them.  Unlike people, God actually follows through with what He claims literally and each time.  That is something people have a hard time grasping.

This means that when it is up to us to take care of our physical needs, that's not just ourselves alone, but those around us.  It is very possible to stop world hunger... it would just take the effort of all capable people around the world.  It's possible to aleviate many things that ail us in life, but again.  The effort and unity of basically everyone would be required...  Unfortunately, the difficulty in uniting everyone for the purpose of bettering something is the reason why these particular issues still exist. 

Is God glorified by the suffering of others?  No.  I think most Christians would agree with that answer.  Is it God's will to allow them all to suffer?  Again, no.  To really understand all the suffering and pain in the world, it might be reasonable to first look at why it started in the first place. 

Now after all that, if you're talking about death.  I can't answer for you why animals die when it was humans that did wrong.  I could only give you theories.  There is nothing in scripture to explain why that is so and there's nothing anywhere to claim that because animals die, God does not exist.

 

 

 

Of course, that sits in direct opposition to the event that you believe led to your salvation - Jesus being beaten and killed for the glory of his father. God did get glory from that, yes?

Or did Jesus not suffer (in which case his sacrifice would mean nothing because he didn't experience what we humans would in those circumstances)?

 

"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


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 Caposkia wrote:that's

 

Caposkia wrote:

that's pretty solid.  (sarcasm intended)  If I used that as my defense... do you really think I'd get far?

Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your context right? You still don't get it.

not my context.  i say what i have learned through research and study. 

Your conclusion... so clarify.

Everyone interprets everything differently, you assume that your interpretations is correct because of the way you think you have studied it and that everyone else will come up with the same conclusions.

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

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

As much as you come up with excuses to make sure it does fit... with no evidence to back it up.

the difference is, you can actually research and find information for the claims I present.  They're not my own.

The bottom line is all you can do is point to scripture or talk about the voice inside your head. You claim to "know" god yet can't seem to come up with any additional information exterior to the bible. You make the same mistake that many people do with externalizing your thoughts, fears, joys, etc...

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Obviously the only offense you have is naked assertions and ambiguous notions of what's true.

I only answer what you ask and from what I know.   I again don't know everything, but everything isn't what's in question.  Specifics are.  Do you want to focus on those?

I could also claim the same about you.  That statment is ignorance.   Sorry but it is.  Do some homework on it next time.

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

 

 

The bottom line is that what you think is incongruent with reality the way most of us view it; with no supporting hard evidence you're going to be perpetually stuck in the situation you're in when trying to convey your opinions. I don't care what you believe at the end of the day and I'd probably rather you stay the way you are then come in line with anyone's opinion on this board. The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own. Contorting science to fit a vacuous world view isn't going to prove a thing, anyone can do it, whether or not you can contribute anything to science from your world view is the real question.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote: Caposkia

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:

that's pretty solid.  (sarcasm intended)  If I used that as my defense... do you really think I'd get far?

Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your context right? You still don't get it.

not my context.  i say what i have learned through research and study. 

Your conclusion... so clarify.

Everyone interprets everything differently, you assume that your interpretations is correct because of the way you think you have studied it and that everyone else will come up with the same conclusions.

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

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

As much as you come up with excuses to make sure it does fit... with no evidence to back it up.

the difference is, you can actually research and find information for the claims I present.  They're not my own.

The bottom line is all you can do is point to scripture or talk about the voice inside your head. You claim to "know" god yet can't seem to come up with any additional information exterior to the bible. You make the same mistake that many people do with externalizing your thoughts, fears, joys, etc...

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Obviously the only offense you have is naked assertions and ambiguous notions of what's true.

I only answer what you ask and from what I know.   I again don't know everything, but everything isn't what's in question.  Specifics are.  Do you want to focus on those?

I could also claim the same about you.  That statment is ignorance.   Sorry but it is.  Do some homework on it next time.

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

 

 

The bottom line is that what you think is incongruent with reality the way most of us view it; with no supporting hard evidence you're going to be perpetually stuck in the situation you're in when trying to convey your opinions. I don't care what you believe at the end of the day and I'd probably rather you stay the way you are then come in line with anyone's opinion on this board. The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own. Contorting science to fit a vacuous world view isn't going to prove a thing, anyone can do it, whether or not you can contribute anything to science from your world view is the real question.

 

It is sooooooo hard to show people like cap that it is merely all in their head. They fail to realize that many of us used believe in a super being as passionately as Cap seems to. I feel lucky enough to have been woken up out of that delusion.

I am hopeful for Cap though. In my history of posting on atheist sites, no one who stays this long stays a theist, and Cap is over due. I am not predicting anything because I don't know the future, but Cap is battling us because what we are saying IS getting to Cap, even if Cap won't admit it. I don't think people who stick with arguing with us can maintain their position because it requires them to remask their arguments and backpeddle.

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:We can't

BobSpence1 wrote:

We can't respond to everyone - we have finite resources of time and capabilities, and many responsibilities. The description is only appropriate to someone who has ample time, resources, and powers to help, but simply looks on.. as would apply to God.

no one said you would respond to everyone.  You take on as many people as you can handle, even if that's 1 other.  Everyone else does likewise.  Statistics and research have proven through repetitive studies that if every capable person did, there'd be more than ample time, resources, and powers to help.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Irrelevant to someone who is sick or injured and suffering.

not if you read through the rest of it where it says we're also responsible for those around us physically.

BobSpence1 wrote:

No - it is the definition of God which is contradictory, as has been frequently pointed out. Defining the creator of the Universe as also all-loving despite the manifest evidence that He allows enormous amounts of pointless suffering is a fundamental error. You are the one mired in contradiction. 

Says you.

If I was so contradicting, then I think most of the logical thinkers on this site would have more than shunned me off of it by now. 

Instead I get the (lack-of-progressiveness) thinkers and the ones who stop thinking rationally when they're put into a corner that try to put down my understanding vs. questioning it.

I have always told people I have come on here to challange what I know.  I have told others to please show me how my understanding is wrong.  Why would I try to contradict myself if I'm looking for that? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which on the face of it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God'. in practice , it is just part of a lame attempt to obscure the clear fact that such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God, by invoke all sorts of mystical convoluted 'explanations'.

To continue to believe in such a God demonstrates moral and intellectually bankruptcy.

you don't read much do you.  Homework is somewhat required for progression in an opposing debate.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is what you seem unable to accept when we point out all the contradictions and inconsistencies and dodges in your 'arguments'.

Pointing out the inherent contradictions in your definitions is not 'being contradictory', you poor confused foolish one.

So many times have I heard that excuse from those on here.  When I challenge them to quote me on what I supposedly contradicted or dodged, most will not.  Few have, to which I clarified my words and ultimately showed that I was not dodging or contradicting. 

Will you ignore or will you reference to your claims?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Defining evil as being against God's Will means you have abandoned any moral sense, and are 'just following orders'. 

If so, then that's what life consists of.  The laws in this country state that if you break them, you're a lawbreaker and subject to reprecussion.  End of story, to not be called that, I guess you'd have to be "just following orders".  We must not have any moral sense in this country let alone any other country that actually requires their citizens to follow laws. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Trying to justify a lifetime of suffering on Earth because it will be offset by a 'reward' in an afterlife is morally bankrupt. If you really can't see this, I am genuinely very sad for you.

Who is justifying it? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Allowing excessive and pointless pain, way beyond what might be sufficient to teach us some useful lesson is an excellent logical argument against the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.

Are you claiming that all the pain in the world is descipherable by the one recieving it to whether there is an ultimate purpose of teaching in it or pointless?  If so, how does one know?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing.

Why is allowing someone to feel pain nasty and uncaring?  You act as if God did it himself. 

Failing to act to prevent a crime when you have ample power and opportunity to do so is considered virtually equivalent to doing it yourself. Ever heard of 'criminal negligence'?

I see what you're saying, but to claim that to God is like saying you allowed your child to travel somewhere where they broke the law, then holding you responsible for it.  You could have prevented it because you could have either gone along with them and was their shadow through the whole trip, or had someone being their shadow for you and when they were about to do something wrong, tie them up so they don't. 

Yes God could stop all of it, but then he would be going back on his word of allowing all of us "free will".  Would you prefer a God that only allowed you to do 'the right thing' or would you rather have a choice? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Are you saying you'd shelter your children from feeling any pain what-so-ever?  I feel sorry for them.  Good luck to them in life then.   You would of course have the ability to shelter them so much so that they'd feel minimal emotional and physical pain, however, would that actually be good for them? 

Quote:

Of course he isn't. Are you really as dense as you seem?

It was his statement not mine.  I'm just showing the logic behind it. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

You keep avoiding the issue that we are talking about excessive and avoidable pain and suffering, not the inevitable and normal incidence.

...and what is the source of that excessive and avoidable pain and suffering?  How did it start to begin with? 

I'm not avoiding anything.  You need to stop ignoring what has been brought to the table.  Who's responsibility is the physical wellbeing of everyone and everything on Earth? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

WTF are you saying? They may be an inevitable consequence of some aspect of our bodies that serves in early life to maximize the ability to have children, but ultimately 'burns out' and leaves us crippled. Perfectly understandable in the context of natural evolution, which has no plan.

Whereas a designer God, by definition, would be able to construct us so that we used reproductive processes that did not have that ultimate effect. If he doesn't seem to have done that, it must be part of His plan. Please explain.

Ok, his plan was eternal life.  We as people screwed that up by disobeying a direct command.  I'm thinking it all has to do with the death consequense. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Doesn't have to a 'trend' which started somewhere - such 'defects' will inevitably arise in a random way thru mutation, and as long as they don't affect reproductive success, and may indeed have short term benefits, they will be passed on, and so tend to persist.

benefits?  to a mutation that might hurt a lot?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Obviously any of us could be delusional - that's a given.

Then I will request that everyone stops using that excuse for their understanding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is why we try to find, wherever possible, empirical, independently verifiable evidence.

I've tried that approach with minimal progress on this site. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is why purely internal experiences, things just making sense at the time, are not good reasons for believing something, apart from relatively minor and everyday things. That is the point of the scientific method requiring us to consider alternative explanations, see if others can verify our theories, and so on.

precisely.  Many out there will associate their belief to an internal experience and bank their whole following off that.  They aren't the ones that are on sites like this discussing the following with those who don't believe it to be even possible.  There are many factors that come into play in building that relationship with God.  Unless it's just the uneducated that follow Him, there are many out there who have done the research or through intense study have come to the conclusion that God is real.   

There are also many who have seen the unexplainable along with many others.  This is where the delusion excuse comes in from non-believers.  Obviously, it's not logical to base one unexplainable experience on your following either.  Usually one goes through quite a process when they even start to consider the idea that God could have done it.  Yes, few will suddenly believe, but again, they're not challenging others to question their belief typically. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

At any given time, we can only assess the evidence for or against an idea, to the best of our ability, and if it seems to pass, make the working assumption that it is true, or otherwise either reject it, at least until we become aware of more evidence or alternative ways of analysing the issue. It is a mistake to assert knowledge unless it is a really clear case. 

Here-in lies the wall between the believer and the non-believer.  As clear as it is to you that God does not exist, God does to the believer.  The many cases that you have probably heard may have been weaker cases. 

Here's the funny thing.  I use the same approach as you just described.  So far, the "knowlege" that has been expressed to me on this site has been weak or clouded with opinion.  If there ever was a "really clear case" presented to me, I promise you I'd be taking it into consideration and doing a lot of homework on it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

We refer to you as delusional so often because you keep responding with clearly illogical responses, and yet are convinced you are being logical and scientific. You provided very weak evidence (the fires thing) early in this thread, easily shown to have severe logical flaws.

only claimed to be weak because I was unable to find the maps anymore and could not explain to you whether other people in the area actually prayed or asked of God for protection.  It was one of many experiences.  I dont' remember any clear contradictions to that claim, only that the maps were not provided and other weak opinionated arguments that there had to be another explanation.  Many questions were asked about the conditions of the area, whether the brush was far away.  I basically proved "providing the story was accepted as true" that there really was no other logical explanation for the fires to avoid this perfect circle area in the middle of the zone. 

If you would please provide for me what you thought was "weak evidence" in that story, I'd be more than happy to address them. 

The thing is, your (generally speaking) counterarguements are just as illogical in the believers eye.  The issue?  Well, I tried to address that a long time ago in this forum as well.  We need to be on the same page.  We have to agree on an approach to the issue and what sources both sides would feel is credible and relative to the point.  My suggestion to use the Scientific Method didn't make it far.  I could explain to you my experiences till I'm blue in the face and I know they won't mean anything to you because you have not experienced them yourself... Therefore, I'd either have to be making them up, or there must be another explanation and I'm not telling you the whole story even though I know both are untrue.  No one has dared try to work with me on "seeking out God".

BobSpence1 wrote:

??? How is that relevant here? What baseless claims are you referring to?

Do I have to name them all?

I'll try a few:

"such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God"

"Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing." (a claim to what i said, yet no basis for it)

"Clear-eyed observation of reality makes the non-existence of a God"

A few from that particular response thread.  To put base to those claims, you would need to clearly answer the question "how?" to all of them and reference your claims.  Otherwise, they're simply opinions and are baseless.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Genuine expressions of sympathy do mean something to us. Why would you assume it wouldn't?

We actually believe your are sincere, just somewhat confused about some aspects of reality....

I was referencing more to the prayers part, but I'm glad to understand you do see me as sincere generally speaking.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course, unlike you.

ow! another baseless shot!  Man, keep that up and all your credibility might be out the window.  I've at least been referencing most of my claims.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is still no reason to mandate a specific day, and insist everyone observe it - that is not about leisure, that is about insisting on observance of a holy day to celebrate the God.

It's Jewish custom to mandate a day, not Christian.  It's just generally understood we should take a break one day a week.  There's a reson why many churches don't adhere to strictly a Sunday service and have services all days of the week.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Many people are quite happy to work at times when others are not and vice versa. It should be left as far as practical up to the individual, that is the intelligent approach.

It is.  I know many Christians who work on the supposed sacred days.  They do however take other days off during the week.  Or if it's a on-off type job, they have days in the month they don't work.  Just like everyone else in those same positions.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is the rigidity of most religious ritual observance that is lame.

no arguement there.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WHAT THE

Brian37 wrote:

WHAT THE FUCK?

So you think arthritus is super natural?

uh... no, but it seems that you're implying it must be in order for God to be real.    I simply said I don't know what the case may be.  There are many cases of suffering of many different deseases in the Bible because it ultimately was for the Glory of God.  I don't know you or your dog, therefore, I cannot say if it was or not.  I'm assuming not.

Brian37 wrote:

What the fuck AGAIN!

My dog brought me companionship, there is no magic in that.

Are you claiming love is only magic?  That's the only way I can see your response as relevant to what was said.

Brian37 wrote:

What a steamy pile of wishy washy tripe. Did you have in your head some Oscar award winning music to a blockbuster "Good beats Evil" movie playing in your head when you wrote that?

At least you're still yourself.  Good to see it.

Brian37 wrote:

Deep voice movie announcer, "HE WAS TOLD NOT TO! HE WAS TOLD IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY HE DEFIED THE ODDS!

BRAD PIT......ANGOLINA JOLIE......AND JACK NICKLSON IN, "GOOD GUYS ALWAYS WIN!"

boooring!

Brian37 wrote:

Thank you for flying Delusional Airlines. We don't require you to wear your seatbelts or care about telling you about the floatation devices under your seat,  and who the fuck cares about pointing out the exists.

now love is a delusion.  Keep going, I'm liking this.

Brian37 wrote:

My love for that particular dog was unique . Your god claim  is a made up gap answer you insert to avoid facing your own mortality.

I accept that my dog's death as part of reality. I don't make up fictional super heros to explain nature.

I know you really wish it was the case, but I don't either.  I understood your explanation of the universe as logical.  Most of it still applies.  Unique love.  That was the point.  Obviously your pride has allowed you to overlook the point.

Brian37 wrote:

YOU trust the most flawed thing in evolution, your emotions. I accept my emotions as being natural without conflating them to comic book status.

You're still claiming I base my beliefs off emotions.  What's the point in discussing with you if you're going to continually ignore anything that might make progress in a conversation? 

I know it's hard to accept the idea that God isn't a giant Carebear in the sky. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You shall not

ClockCat wrote:

You shall not be spared caposkia for your worship of your fake god yahweh. it shall not free you from the corruption.

H̭͇͗ͪͧ̆̚ͅe͉̝ͧ ́w̭̿͋̇h̵͔͚̹̖̔̌o͕̰̲̩̟͈̒̔̎ ̝̮̮̭̆̈́ͤ̈̃w͖͚̪̭̣ͭͫå̭̪̞it̖̤ͭ͆̊͊̅͘ṡ̬͂ͪͮ͂̎͋͞ ̼̅ͣ̈́̅̌͟b͓̽̅ͦ̇͡ḙ̙̻̳̹͙̉̾͛ͮͦh̶̘͉̱͎ͦ͑́̆̆̃̚i͓̣̩̯̐͌̒n̵̟͉͔̬̻͈͖ͪͦͫͬ̔̊͆d̢̬͚̉ͩ̋ ̣͈̲̐̅ͅͅͅt̼̖̙͉͖̥̾́h͘ĕ̶͒̋͐̾ͯ͂ ̵̥̰͚̤͙̭̭w̬̤̜̅̆̚a̫͎̠̖ͥl̼̄̚ḷ̳̣͕̝̹͊́̈̅͊̚.͙͖̽̒ͨͧ̀͒ͫ͡
͆̈́ͧ̽̾̈́̋H͂ͭ̄̇̔҉̮̰̳e̶͉͍̼͇͙ͭͩͩ̃̐̇ ͥ͏w͉̦ͤ̔i̓ͩ̒̅̈́͏͕̫͎l̤̝̅̊ͮͅl̽ͨͭ̏̆҉̬̩̞͙̩̟͈ ̹͚͖̜͕̊ͮ̂ͧ̿̃͡s̖̗̹̯̱̈́̓ͨi͎͎͖̘̭̠ͫ̆̑n̨̤ģ͕̬̦̗̘̱͑ ̢̹̪͈̉͛t͙͈̯͔̎͂͒͡h̙̹̀͊ě̙̚͢ ̣͈͑̾̊̍ͤ̚̚sͭ̀́̈õ̵͉͉͖̩̱̥̔n̖̣͌̌̍̒ͬ͊g̷̤̱̻̜̳̭͂̈ͪ̽̓ ̪͖̠̯͕̲̹t̜͇̗͈͆́̓̓̔̑ͬͅh̡ͩ̏̿̌̈̈́͗ḁ̶̫̳̳͔̋̎ẗ̢̺̙̩́̐ ̣͇̞ͮ͋͒̽e͇̤̘ͣ̿͞n̳͚̜̟͑ͅd͜s̘̫̩̜̞̣͊̑̅ͅ ̞͍͓̩̠̫t̷͔͙͚̥̹̞̒͐̂ͯ̽ͥ̉ḣ̜̝̗̇̈́ͫ͠è̹͇̬̦̯ͨͦͩ̊ ̬̩̩̈́̒̎̐ͩw̐ͭͬ̈́҉̻o̗̲̲̒̌̋̎r̵̻̻̭̂ͪ̚ͅl̠̠̠̍̚ḑ̖̳̩ͯ̃ͮ̎̀ͅ.͓̲̞͇͑͞
͕̺͈̰̆ͩ͐̔̈́ͤ͜H̴̤̭̩͐̊e̞̻̰ ̓ͯ̉҉̘̗̭c̭̻͒͛ͦ̂͊̚o̜̲̞̠̲ͦ͒ͫ͞m̮̬̖̘̼e̝̖͓s̬͎̻̍͜ͅ.̻̜̍̒̏̀͠

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚

 

What corruption might this be?  Why do you think I believe?


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Of course, that sits in direct opposition to the event that you believe led to your salvation - Jesus being beaten and killed for the glory of his father. God did get glory from that, yes?

Or did Jesus not suffer (in which case his sacrifice would mean nothing because he didn't experience what we humans would in those circumstances)?

well now you're parallelling the topic of conversation to suffering by punishment vs. the seemingly random suffering from disease or serious injury, allergic reactions etc. around the world. 

Either way, niether of what you claimed is true.

It does not say that 'God was glorified' or 'got glory from' the suffering of Jesus.  It says he was pleased by it.  It goes on to explain the reasoning for Gods pleasure was due to the fact that the punishment was on Jesus because Jesus was bearing the weight of the sins of the world, past present and future.  The punishment was for all those sins. 

It says in the gospels that God was glorified by the resurrection of Jesus, not the suffering and from the works Jesus did while on Earth.  The suffering was needed to take the punishment from us and the death as well.  The overcoming of death was to show the power of God, which glorified Him because he overtook even death. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote: Your

Di66en6ion wrote:

 Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.  Yes, you've made a clear request, but are you saying you want me to predict what science will discover in the near future and when?  If I knew that, I'd not only be rich, but I'd be presenting the discovery myself!

Examples of something mentioned in teh Bible that has occured in science since the ind. rev.

ok.  The more extreme weather that has been caused by the Ind. Rev.

If social science is acceptable, then the loss of respect for parents/elders generally speaking

Loss of respect for moral issues generally speaking.

Luke warm Christians.

That would be directly related to science anyway. 

If you want to discuss any of those, let's try and stay specific and be precise on what you're looking for.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Everyone interprets everything differently, you assume that your interpretations is correct because of the way you think you have studied it and that everyone else will come up with the same conclusions.

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

That video displayed a perfect example of dispensationalism.  Something I do not follow.  If you followed my blogs at all, you'd know this does not apply to me.

Di66en6ion wrote:

The bottom line is all you can do is point to scripture or talk about the voice inside your head. You claim to "know" god yet can't seem to come up with any additional information exterior to the bible. You make the same mistake that many people do with externalizing your thoughts, fears, joys, etc...

You have not done your homework tsk. tsk.  See my other forums.   Esp.  Science vs. Religion.  Then try to claim that.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

If I had physical or specific evidence (the only evidence I'm aware that you'd accept), they wouldn't be considered "miracles"

What evidences would you accept for disembodied minds?  I'm willing to work with you on this.

 

Di66en6ion wrote:

The bottom line is that what you think is incongruent with reality the way most of us view it;

of course, otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate on the existance of God.

Di66en6ion wrote:

with no supporting hard evidence you're going to be perpetually stuck in the situation you're in when trying to convey your opinions.

I'm trying to keep opinions out of this.  Most on here don't seem to.  Same applies to you.  Hard evidence would make me question what I know.  Obviously it's not that easy is it.  You have to be willing to accept the source.  Clarify for me what sources you will accept... specifically.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I don't care what you believe at the end of the day and I'd probably rather you stay the way you are then come in line with anyone's opinion on this board.

Same here, and don't worry, opinions don't sway me.

Di66en6ion wrote:
 

The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own.

I can reference specific logical reasoning for my discrediting any.    If you're applying that to me, you again have not done your homework on me.

Di66en6ion wrote:
 

Contorting science to fit a vacuous world view isn't going to prove a thing,

never did

Di66en6ion wrote:

anyone can do it,

it shows

Di66en6ion wrote:

whether or not you can contribute anything to science from your world view is the real question.

Again, what would you accept logically thinking now about my world view and what God is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is sooooooo

Brian37 wrote:

It is sooooooo hard to show people like cap that it is merely all in their head.

...especially when you present no further evidence for your claim.  It's beyond asking for proof of a negative.  You're so sure it's just in my head that you made the statement.  Now you must prove that statement just like I must for all my statements.

Brian37 wrote:

They fail to realize that many of us used believe in a super being as passionately as Cap seems to. I feel lucky enough to have been woken up out of that delusion.

to "believe" and to "know" are 2 majorly different things

Brian37 wrote:

I am hopeful for Cap though. In my history of posting on atheist sites, no one who stays this long stays a theist, and Cap is over due.

Better start presenting something then.  Otherwise, what's my reasoning for leaving my faith?

Brian37 wrote:

I am not predicting anything because I don't know the future, but Cap is battling us because what we are saying IS getting to Cap, even if Cap won't admit it.

yup, I'm in denial.  I can't see how the matter of fact statement, "it's all in your head" is really suppose to convince me.  The delusion statement is just as helpful. 

lemme try it on you.  You want to think there's no God becuase it frightens you.  You will deny this, but I know it's true!  You're happy in your fantasy world that you are in control of your own life and that nothing but nature can get in your way of doing what you please and living forever.

Are you a believer yet?  No??? why not?

Brian37 wrote:

I don't think people who stick with arguing with us can maintain their position because it requires them to remask their arguments and backpeddle.

I haven't had to mask anything yet, let alone remask any of it.  The arguements by most on here are weak at best.  Why mask something when a strong arguement can't even be presented let alone something that might make me question even for a fraction of a second my belief. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Of course, that sits in direct opposition to the event that you believe led to your salvation - Jesus being beaten and killed for the glory of his father. God did get glory from that, yes?

Or did Jesus not suffer (in which case his sacrifice would mean nothing because he didn't experience what we humans would in those circumstances)?

well now you're parallelling the topic of conversation to suffering by punishment vs. the seemingly random suffering from disease or serious injury, allergic reactions etc. around the world. 

Either way, niether of what you claimed is true.

It does not say that 'God was glorified' or 'got glory from' the suffering of Jesus.  It says he was pleased by it.  It goes on to explain the reasoning for Gods pleasure was due to the fact that the punishment was on Jesus because Jesus was bearing the weight of the sins of the world, past present and future.  The punishment was for all those sins. 

It says in the gospels that God was glorified by the resurrection of Jesus, not the suffering and from the works Jesus did while on Earth.  The suffering was needed to take the punishment from us and the death as well.  The overcoming of death was to show the power of God, which glorified Him because he overtook even death. 

 

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

"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
jcgadfly wrote:So the

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

As I wrote in the parenthetical, it was unnecessary for an omnipotent God to need to fuel forgiveness and salvation with blood. Or are you saying that God is subject to Jewish law? He certainly is not subject to his own edicts - too much evidence exists to the contrary.

Pleased? No - gaining pleasure from another's punishment is actually pretty gruesome. Closure and a satisfaction that justice was done makes more sense. Happiness at the punishment of another just makes God look more like a sadist.

For me, overcoming death means not being afraid of it. I didn't lose that fear until I stopped being a Christian. My point was a being that could not die would have zero problems overcoming death. Basically God put on a grisly show for his own amusement so he could offer people something that he could have offered whenever he wished. He could also have done it without making people have to kiss his butt forever. A being of unconditional would have no strings on his/her offer. What does that tell you about your God?

So yes, the three day vacation that Jesus took was a cheap entertainment for Yahweh. It gave nothing for nothing and cost absolute, unquestioning obedience for the people who think they're getting something.

 

 

"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


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation.

Now I am the first to admit I have never created a reality in my life. I have no idea how to even start creating one.

But it seems to me one cannot claim to have not only created but to have absolute control over this reality and then declare anything is necessary.

One has absolute control or one does not. Declaring anything is required as a predicate is an arbitrary act of creation of that predicate.

You should be explaining why that god chose to make it a predicate when it had an infinite number of alternates to choose from.

Now I have heard the entire "he wants" riff but if it cannot controls its appetites why should we think it wants us to control ours?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:
caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

As I wrote in the parenthetical, it was unnecessary for an omnipotent God to need to fuel forgiveness and salvation with blood.

What are we superstitious savages? Blood is nothing special. As creation goes it is no different from shit or piss or rocks or water for that matter. I keep getting a rerun of Spike giving Buffy that riff on "It's always blood." Good for entertainment but who in their right mind would take it as anything special?

jcgadfly wrote:
Or are you saying that God is subject to Jewish law? He certainly is not subject to his own edicts - too much evidence exists to the contrary.

One should not expect much of the jewish god or the christian one for that matter.

jcgadfly wrote:
Pleased? No - gaining pleasure from another's punishment is actually pretty gruesome. Closure and a satisfaction that justice was done makes more sense. Happiness at the punishment of another just makes God look more like a sadist.

Of course if one takes them seriously crucifixion was a terrible way to die. It took days. He got off easy because some idiots picked the wrong day. That god isn't really the kind you want. A single father sending his son to earth on a suicide mission. Really weird.

jcgadfly wrote:
For me, overcoming death means not being afraid of it.

It was a big thing back then. Lots of gods overcame death and there was always a woman involved as his mother, wife or both and they always spent three days in the underworld before returning. They had all the same trappings as this Jesus character.

jcgadfly wrote:
I didn't lose that fear until I stopped being a Christian. My point was a being that could not die would have zero problems overcoming death. Basically God put on a grisly show for his own amusement so he could offer people something that he could have offered whenever he wished. He could also have done it without making people have to kiss his butt forever. A being of unconditional would have no strings on his/her offer. What does that tell you about your God?

So yes, the three day vacation that Jesus took was a cheap entertainment for Yahweh. It gave nothing for nothing and cost absolute, unquestioning obedience for the people who think they're getting something.

You do have it wrong. Were it not for the evil Judas it would never have happened. That is the clear story in the gospels. Like the Adam and Eve story, some fools came along later and invented some nonsense tradition on the clear narrative of the story.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Utter, meaningless nonsense. Prove it.

Quote:

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

Being 'pleased' at punishment certainly is against any spirit of forgiveness. Excessive 'pleasure' at a punishment, especially if harsh, now that would be arguably 'sadistic'. 

Some level of 'satisfaction' that justice has been served is ok, of course.

Punishment of the offender does not in itself repair any injury or suffering to the child.

Quote:

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

Putting any laws in place that require blood sacrifice is very crude, harsh, and primitive, totally unworthy of a God deserving of worship.

Being prepared to change your mind when presented with evidence that you have stuffed things up is a virtue. He had apparently already got things wrong once and had to wipe the slate clean with the Flood, so this is one very incompetent Supreme Being.

Quote:

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

Even if you accept all that nonsense, it 'proves' nothing of the sort. So the 'Son' of a supreme being can overcome death? Big deal.

The whole crucifiction/salvation scenario I find nasty, primitive, offensive, and illogical.

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: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

Cap, this is utter cicular self serving steamy pile.

RIGOR MORTIS.................go find a dead body and replicate this event and falsify it. THEN you will have something.

Otherwise do the right thing and admit that all this is is an ancient story that appeals to you.

And why would I want to kiss anyones ass, much less forever?

Quote:
God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice

Then by virtue of "could not" you contradict the claim of "all powerful"

 

 

"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


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 I think the real questions

 I think the real questions here is why people wont believe observed repeatable tests but will believe 2nd/3rd hand accounts of events in a time that had predominantly oral traditions of passing down information. You can't even get a complete message out of a chain of 10 people whispering to eachother yet people assume it's authority because of its age. It's even been shown that your own memories are distorted quite a bit after a while. 

 

It seems to me if you give credence to the bible then you have to do the same for every other maddening bit of fictional work out there. 


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Di66en6ion

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

 Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.  Yes, you've made a clear request, but are you saying you want me to predict what science will discover in the near future and when?  If I knew that, I'd not only be rich, but I'd be presenting the discovery myself!

Examples of something mentioned in teh Bible that has occured in science since the ind. rev.

ok.  The more extreme weather that has been caused by the Ind. Rev.

If social science is acceptable, then the loss of respect for parents/elders generally speaking

Loss of respect for moral issues generally speaking.

Luke warm Christians.

That would be directly related to science anyway. 

If you want to discuss any of those, let's try and stay specific and be precise on what you're looking for.

First of all, quote the line of scripture you're attributing it too.

Your extreme weather example is extremely vague. There are many recorded incidents of extreme weather prior to the industrial revolution. Without scripture quotes I can't see how you twisted it to mean anything you want.

The loss of respect sounds like another one of those "oh noes, the moral decline of society!" bullshit arguments. Prove it. If it were possible I'd like to see you live a few centuries ago and say that.

Loss of respect for which moral issues? 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

If I had physical or specific evidence (the only evidence I'm aware that you'd accept), they wouldn't be considered "miracles"

What evidences would you accept for disembodied minds?  I'm willing to work with you on this.

So you acknowledge your superstitions and the self biased flaw of the concept of miracles? Why exactly wouldn't they be considered miracles to you if they had physical evidence?

For disembodied minds, obviously something involving evidence. Cosmological arguments fail, they always equivocate or employ some other logical fallacy. 

caposkia wrote:

I'm trying to keep opinions out of this.  Most on here don't seem to.  Same applies to you.  Hard evidence would make me question what I know.  Obviously it's not that easy is it.  You have to be willing to accept the source.  Clarify for me what sources you will accept... specifically.

It's only difficult when you completely accept a single source's word on something with nothing but anecdotal evidence lacking anything objective. Sources would include anything that you could put under the rigors of the scientific method. I wont accept confirmation biases until you can magically prove that miracles are anything but statistically unlikely events, not impossibilities.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:
 

The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own.

I can reference specific logical reasoning for my discrediting any.    If you're applying that to me, you again have not done your homework on me.

Really, your emotional conviction is stronger or more 'real' than everyone elses'? You can't produce any objective evidence for the survival of flesh through rigor mortis or disembodied minds so how are your claims of a supreme being and his suicidal son any different? 

 

I wasn't asking about what you've managed to rationalize yourself through, any human being can do that with anything if they think it's actually rational. I'm asking you why the voice you believe you hear that is god is more real than any other religious person's voice. Why is it that someone who makes the exact same claim of knowledge of God wrong and you right when you accept such concepts as 'miracles' and the supernatural? Do you think they're just listening to the wrong God, what's the deal?

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, what would you accept logically thinking now about my world view and what God is.

When it comes to objective evidence it wont matter. You'll do exactly the same thing all other religious people do and throw out apologetics; "that would be tempting the lord", "God works in misterious ways", "he can do what he wants, he made you!", "he doesn't have to prove anything to you, you have to prove yourself to him!", blah blah blah...

A demonstration of power of course would do the trick although I understand that nonexistant beings generally can't demonstrate anything.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Why wouldn't the miracles be

Why wouldn't the miracles be considered miracles if we had physical evidence?

1. Because skeptics might find a way to reproduce the trick, through less divine means, casting doubt on the original.

2. Miracles aren't just for show (one of the more frequent claims I hear).

What it comes down to is - Christianity thrives on mystery and secrecy. Christians just like to call it faith.

"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