The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline I keep trying to explain this as have countless other atheists.
We know that George Washington existed, and we know that Washington DC exists, but no sane person would claim that he could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass.
it couldn't be because there really wouldn't be a reason to believe that.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass.
In an age of DNA and Ipods you'd think that this crap would rightfully put in the myth bin where it belongs.
Strange that the guy who helped discover DNA is a believer.
It is nothing more than a psychological placebo in an attempt to escape our own mortality. If we can convince ourselves that their is a super hero that will save us, we can avoid our finite existence. How Christians think they are escaping the same human flaw all other religions have, past and present, is absurd. Super heros don't exist. Allah is a myth, Yahwey is a myth and so too that of the magic of Jesus.
or could it be that the denial is the psychological placebo in attempt to have more control over life than you really do.
The sad part is "Christianity" has not avoided the same human flaw all other religions have. This is why it is important to always challenge what you know. If, like Brian you don't do that, then Hallmark will always be the very best and wisdom will be fed to you in the form of a pill.
How anyone can willfully believe that a claimed being with no body and no DNA can magically get a girl pregnant is beyond me. If you can swallow that then why not believe that George Washington can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass. BOTH claims to be believed require suspension of skepticism and reason.
Maybe due to logic and empirical reasoning.
It merely amounts to something the person wants to believe because the idea sounds comforting. I'd like to date Lucy Lawless, but I don't delude myself into actually thinking I am.
yea, it's comforting to know that in many countries in this world I'd be tortured and killed for this particular following. Aah the bliss
- Login to post comments
Offline Except that there is absolutely no 'community service' involved in the scapegoat idea. It is a superstitious attempt to push off your sins onto something (someone?) else. IOW, a way to get a 'free pass', the very opposite of actually doing something to compensate for any injury to other people, so you don't have to do anything of real substance.
...eh.. except maybe walk the walk... unless you want to be a hypocrite.
The idea of someone or something else 'sacrificed' for my 'sins' is a very bad thing, endorsing as acceptable for people to effectively 'get out of jail free', and not having to seriously confront their wrong-doings.
who said you don't still have to "confront" them? There is much remorse from most true followers about their sins of the past and the ones they do because they have an understanding of why they shouldn't. If they're choosing to do them without remorse then they're not really accepting the redemption and aren't considering the point of the sacrifice.
The idea behind the crucifiction was primitive and immoral, it should be roundly condemned by any serious thinking person, along with the stupid concept of 'original sin' with which it is associated.
...and yet many serious thinking people don't condemn it... they actually support it... I wonder why that is?
- Login to post comments
Offline You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Admitting that I had no memory before my birth constitutes super heros? Which one......let me guess.....the one you favor. What a shocker!
You always get defensive when I squash you on a logic point. The point simply was your conclusion was not logical... nothing more. As for "the one I favor", let's get by the existance of any favored metaphysical being first.
How about that super heros don't exist and whatever I was before I was born will be what everyone will be after they die?
Be it that God is not viewed as a superhero... yea I can agree with that statement.
Do you really expect me to believe that Jesus, Horus, Allah or Thor, Posiden or you or me were part of a plan 50 billion years ago and that they are part of a plan 50 billion years from now?
I don't expect you to believe anything if you don't use logic.
It frightens me that my life will end, don't get me wrong. But I don't make up stories to placate my fears to avoid reality. Humans invent gods to avoid fear. YOU are no different.
In today's world, do I not have more to fear expressing belief in God than not? If I step foot in the wrong country, my life could be greatly shortened... painfully just for mentioning Jesus. This happens to many who are according to you... "inventing gods to avoid fear." Sounds pretty scary to me.
What frightens me more than my finite existence is the length humans will go to fight over myth. The only thing that frightens me about death is pain, not some fictional reward or punishment in a non existent afterlife that any religion absurdly proposes.
I was no more planned than the bird who shit on my car planned to shit on my car after I washed it.
That's what you believe... yet you dont' ever back it up. You claim you don't need to because what you know is true and real... yet... I've heard Christians get severely ridiculed for that same statement by atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Except that there is absolutely no 'community service' involved in the scapegoat idea. It is a superstitious attempt to push off your sins onto something (someone?) else. IOW, a way to get a 'free pass', the very opposite of actually doing something to compensate for any injury to other people, so you don't have to do anything of real substance.
...eh.. except maybe walk the walk... unless you want to be a hypocrite.
BobSpence1 wrote:The idea of someone or something else 'sacrificed' for my 'sins' is a very bad thing, endorsing as acceptable for people to effectively 'get out of jail free', and not having to seriously confront their wrong-doings.
who said you don't still have to "confront" them? There is much remorse from most true followers about their sins of the past and the ones they do because they have an understanding of why they shouldn't. If they're choosing to do them without remorse then they're not really accepting the redemption and aren't considering the point of the sacrifice.
BobSpence1 wrote:The idea behind the crucifiction was primitive and immoral, it should be roundly condemned by any serious thinking person, along with the stupid concept of 'original sin' with which it is associated.
...and yet many serious thinking people don't condemn it... they actually support it... I wonder why that is?
1. How does not doing what you aren't obligated to do (walk the walk) make you a hypocrite? All you have to do is believe in Jesus, right? Sola fidei, sola gratia, sola scriptura? Works (let alone good works) don't fit in.
2. Why do some followers carry remorse for their sins if God (according to scripture) has dropped them into the great sea of his forgetfulness? (Micah 7:19)
3. Because belief in something that feels comforting doesn't require thought?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Except that there is absolutely no 'community service' involved in the scapegoat idea. It is a superstitious attempt to push off your sins onto something (someone?) else. IOW, a way to get a 'free pass', the very opposite of actually doing something to compensate for any injury to other people, so you don't have to do anything of real substance.
...eh.. except maybe walk the walk... unless you want to be a hypocrite.
That doesn't actually follow from the scapegoat thing, and makes the scapegoat/sacrifice business irrelevant.
BobSpence1 wrote:The idea of someone or something else 'sacrificed' for my 'sins' is a very bad thing, endorsing as acceptable for people to effectively 'get out of jail free', and not having to seriously confront their wrong-doings.
who said you don't still have to "confront" them? There is much remorse from most true followers about their sins of the past and the ones they do because they have an understanding of why they shouldn't. If they're choosing to do them without remorse then they're not really accepting the redemption and aren't considering the point of the sacrifice.
The sacrifice/redemption bit is still an unnecessary bit of illogical symbolism which is there because it appeals to the primitive part of the human mind which is behind the scapegoat idea - I can pass of at least some of my guilt for having done bad things onto a third party which does the suffering for me, which is ultimately illogical and immoral. It is there because it provides a psychological echanism for reducing the amount of 'confrontation' they need to do.
BobSpence1 wrote:The idea behind the crucifiction was primitive and immoral, it should be roundly condemned by any serious thinking person, along with the stupid concept of 'original sin' with which it is associated.
...and yet many serious thinking people don't condemn it... they actually support it... I wonder why that is?
Simple. Because they don't examine it with a truly open mind, and the conventional reading of it has become so deeply ingrained in our culture, and they are still susceptible to the same psychological appeal that makes the idea so popular. They are supporting the symbolism which has become associated with it, rather than re-examining the actual implications of such a scenario. it is a powerful meme.
It's like the God meme - to the majority of people who just grow up with it, it seems so obviously true. It takes some effort and/or a mind not so susceptible to the meme to break free of it, and then you look back and wonder what you ever saw in it.
In some ways, the sacrifice/scapegoat idea is more deeply ingrained than the God-meme, and it is not specifically tied to God belief, so even people who have discarded God will still react positively to the idea of 'sacrifice for others', which is fine when the sacrifice directly saves others from harm, such as when a soldier takes enemy fire to himself to allow his comrades to escape. It is the conflation of such real sacrifice with the Crucifiction scenario which I find offensive. It would be like the soldier simply blowing himself up as a symbolic act when it served no other purpose, as compared to the scenario I described.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Once you accept a metaphysical being
Once you accept that George Washington can fart a Lamborghini out of his ass, the world will have peace. Who needs evidence when you have a placebo?
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I keep trying to explain this as have countless other atheists.
We know that George Washington existed, and we know that Washington DC exists, but no sane person would claim that he could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass.
it couldn't be because there really wouldn't be a reason to believe that.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass.
Brian37 wrote:In an age of DNA and Ipods you'd think that this crap would rightfully put in the myth bin where it belongs.
Strange that the guy who helped discover DNA is a believer.
Brian37 wrote:It is nothing more than a psychological placebo in an attempt to escape our own mortality. If we can convince ourselves that their is a super hero that will save us, we can avoid our finite existence. How Christians think they are escaping the same human flaw all other religions have, past and present, is absurd. Super heros don't exist. Allah is a myth, Yahwey is a myth and so too that of the magic of Jesus.
or could it be that the denial is the psychological placebo in attempt to have more control over life than you really do.
The sad part is "Christianity" has not avoided the same human flaw all other religions have. This is why it is important to always challenge what you know. If, like Brian you don't do that, then Hallmark will always be the very best and wisdom will be fed to you in the form of a pill.
Brian37 wrote:How anyone can willfully believe that a claimed being with no body and no DNA can magically get a girl pregnant is beyond me. If you can swallow that then why not believe that George Washington can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass. BOTH claims to be believed require suspension of skepticism and reason.
Maybe due to logic and empirical reasoning.
Brian37 wrote:It merely amounts to something the person wants to believe because the idea sounds comforting. I'd like to date Lucy Lawless, but I don't delude myself into actually thinking I am.
yea, it's comforting to know that in many countries in this world I'd be tortured and killed for this particular following. Aah the bliss
You cant be that dense can you? I love you Cap, but come on.
OF COURSE THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON COULD FART A LAMBORGHINI OUT OF HIS ASS.
OF COURSE I PULLED THAT CLAIM OUT OF MY ASS!
TO SHOW YOU that merely uttering a claim, or the popularity of the claim doesn't make it true!
AND THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BEINGS WITH NO BODY OR BRIAN (BY ANY NAME OF ANY RELIGION) EXIST!
We know what a human brian looks like. We also know that humans cannot wave their hands or a wand and make dirt into gold. So what makes you think A DEITY by any name, MUCH LESS YOURS, exists?
I'll tell you. For the same reason other people with other deity claims claim them. BECUASE IT APPEALS TO THEM!
The claim that the earth was flat appealed to most people at one time.
So? Newton also believed that alchemy was lagit science. There are pleanty of smart Muslims with PHDs who would argue that means Allah is the one true god. Yet you are not a Muslim.
Gene Rodenbery concieved of a hand held comunications divice, yet you don't believe that Klingons are real.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Di66en6ion wrote:caposkia wrote:1. What 'observed repeatable tests' are you referring to that you claim I don't believe?
2. thousands of translations of many Biblical scripture through thousands of years have proven to be almost identical which untimately blows your "operator" theory out of the water.
3. why would credence to the Bible ultimately give way to the same for all fictional work? Don't tell me it's fictional either. Maybe do some homework. Start with the Archeological study Bible maybe. Either that, or show me a map of the land of Nod and how to get there from here.
1. Not specifically directed toward you. Has to do with the more general claptrap people believe even when there is a complete lack of evidence supporting their claims. (ie. miracles)
Can't base a following off miracles alone. Jesus addressed that many times. It's why he refused to "perform miracles" when people demanded it.
Di66en6ion wrote:2. Yeah, has nothing to do with that ~50-120 year gap between when these events supposedly took place and the time they were written in the NT.
Many "factual" things were written down much later than the actual event. Think of many stories out there of real happenings that may have been scribbled down somewhere, later ending up in a best selling novel or a movie. The scribbled down notes of what happened would have been lost in history, yet the best selling novel is what's going to be remembered. What makes it different now?
Di66en6ion wrote:3. What, you think just because there are archeological congruencies with places mentioned in the bible that automatically validates every fairytale "miracle" also mentioned in it? If I can find other fictional work with congruencies in history, why are those less authentic than yours?
See, that's what happens when you don't open your mind. You forget that there's more to my belief than just archeological evidences.
If that was the case, then Unicorns are real. Many stories place unicorn sightings in actual places here on Earth. It's when you try to back it up with the histories of those claimed places that the story will either hold water or fall apart.
Archeology is just a stepping stone. Intelligent people don't believe in God because they forgot to think!
Oh here we go with the opening your mind bit, get a fucking clue. The only stepping stone for your arguments are god of the gaps. Throughout this entire thread all you have done is expressed generalized views with no concise reason for believing what you do besides faith/circular reasoning. Someone asks you why you believe X is true, you cite some biblical passage and/or anecdote all the while ignoring the uncritical nature of your sources. Stop beating around and either man up and express yourself succinctly or realize that you have no means by which to do so.
Yeah, I get it, there's more to your belief then that pesky thing called evidence. Quit attempting to use physical evidence when you know that it does nothing to further your arguments.
- Login to post comments
Offline Intelligent people don't believe in God because they forgot to think!
Really? Is that why God asks for people to suspend reason and take him on 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
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. How does not doing what you aren't obligated to do (walk the walk) make you a hypocrite? All you have to do is believe in Jesus, right? Sola fidei, sola gratia, sola scriptura? Works (let alone good works) don't fit in.
To 'accept' Jesus is the only requirement. but to accept Jesus is to understand Jesus. To understand Jesus is to comprehend his intentions, is to walk the walk, otherwise do you really accept or just say you do.
In other words, you can believe in Jesus. It is said that Satan 'believes' in Jesus. He knows Jesus exists, therefore, he believes. But it doesn't mean he accepts Jesus.
The Bible doesn't say know me and you're saved, it says accept me and you're saved. There's a difference. It's not works, its acceptance, which is understanding. With that understanding comes reasonable distinction of actions because to accept is to agree and therefore, you strive to become as much a part of what you accept or agree with. Anyone of any faith or anti-faith can believe that.
Yes, if you read the Bible, you will question me now and say; but it does say 'believe'. but keep in mind translational misunderstandings. 99% of the words or phrases in the Bible are not literally translated, but are translated in the best possible way to get the best possible understanding of the original intent while still making sense to us. This 'believe' is not talking about momentary beliefs, but "settled attitudes". (Zondervan Study footnote)
2. Why do some followers carry remorse for their sins if God (according to scripture) has dropped them into the great sea of his forgetfulness? (Micah 7:19)
It's easy for God to forgive and forget through Christ. It's difficult for you to forgive yourself, forget your past and move on.
Also, some dwell on their sins as if that suffering they'll put themselves through will ultimately bring more forgiveness from God, but that's a misunderstanding of the grace of Christ.
3. Because belief in something that feels comforting doesn't require thought?
Sure, but it doesn't excuse the support they have for it through the knowlege they posess. It would take ignorance to blindly accept a belief because it feels comfortable. E.g. an alcoholic who finds comfort in drinking and therefore denies that they have a problem.
I believe I have repeatedly expressed the many discomforts that come with being a follower of Jesus Christ. It amazes me that people still try to use that excuse for followers on this forum.
- Login to post comments
Offline That doesn't actually follow from the scapegoat thing, and makes the scapegoat/sacrifice business irrelevant.
What's the point then in even doing a sacrifice? If you're not going to 'walk the walk', it's irrelevant to begin with.
The sacrifice/redemption bit is still an unnecessary bit of illogical symbolism which is there because it appeals to the primitive part of the human mind which is behind the scapegoat idea - I can pass of at least some of my guilt for having done bad things onto a third party which does the suffering for me, which is ultimately illogical and immoral. It is there because it provides a psychological echanism for reducing the amount of 'confrontation' they need to do.
I think you misunderstand what is 'passed off' when accepting the sacrifice. Guilt is definitely not what is passed off because "true guilt is from within". You still pay for a sinfull life with death and in many cases the results of your sinful actions in life.
Look at it more like you have a life sentence without parol, but through Christ, you actually do get out on parol. The catch is you have to accept the fact that someone has to pay the full penalty.
If anything, you end up with more guilt because you know someone else took your place, but joy in the understanding that your past mistakes are no longer there to haunt you. Joy because the one who took your place did it out of love for you and not for any other reason.
Simple. Because they don't examine it with a truly open mind...
Sure it's simple when you don't read their stuff. I'm not even going to ask you who you might be referencing to be it that there are too many out there to name. Sorry to tell you I'm not talking about them.
I'm talking about the ones (some who were avid anti-theists and atheists) who through their expertise, discovered God.. or even forget the Christian God for a moment. Many others discovered the understanding that it is terribly illogical to consider the universe the way it is without intelligence behind it.
It's like the God meme - to the majority of people who just grow up with it, it seems so obviously true. It takes some effort and/or a mind not so susceptible to the meme to break free of it, and then you look back and wonder what you ever saw in it.
If I may ask, some self relflection here... possibly? If so, what did you ever see in it and what made you change your mind about it?
In some ways, the sacrifice/scapegoat idea is more deeply ingrained than the God-meme, and it is not specifically tied to God belief, so even people who have discarded God will still react positively to the idea of 'sacrifice for others', which is fine when the sacrifice directly saves others from harm, such as when a soldier takes enemy fire to himself to allow his comrades to escape. It is the conflation of such real sacrifice with the Crucifiction scenario which I find offensive. It would be like the soldier simply blowing himself up as a symbolic act when it served no other purpose, as compared to the scenario I described.
The problem with your scenario is that Jesus' sacrifice is likened to the soldier that takes the enemy fire vs. a symbolic 'blowing himself up'.
Without the sacrifice, there'd be no redemption of sins except through animal sacrifice, which in today's world, would be no more because we'd have wiped out the animal population. (my opinion)
It wasn't just so people could see; 'hey! look at me, I can die and live again.. That means I can do that for you too!!!'. No, it was a needed action in order for redemption through Christ to be possible. Just like the one soldier dying so the other can live. If that first soldier didn't die, the other would not have lived.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Once you accept a metaphysical beingOnce you accept that George Washington can fart a Lamborghini out of his ass, the world will have peace. Who needs evidence when you have a placebo?
....so in other words, you'd need a 3 day old Beethoven to write you a symphony right then and there before you believed he would grow up to be a timeless composer... Otherwise, even if he did ultimately grow up to be that timeless composer, you would not accept it because at 3 days old, he was incapable of writing you one. Got it.
e.g. same logic you present above.
- Login to post comments
Offline You cant be that dense can you? I love you Cap, but come on.
OF COURSE THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON COULD FART A LAMBORGHINI OUT OF HIS ASS.
OF COURSE I PULLED THAT CLAIM OUT OF MY ASS!
TO SHOW YOU that merely uttering a claim, or the popularity of the claim doesn't make it true!
*heroic trumpet sound* Captain obvious to the rescue!!!!
Start reading some of the other posts... and maybe read God according to God.
AND THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BEINGS WITH NO BODY OR BRIAN (BY ANY NAME OF ANY RELIGION) EXIST!
nah, and there's no such thing as gravity. It's just a figment of our imagination. It must be the air pushing down on us that keeps us on the ground. That's really the only physical excuse us Earth bound beings have to not being able to leave the planet without exteme opposing force.
We know what a human brian looks like. We also know that humans cannot wave their hands or a wand and make dirt into gold. So what makes you think A DEITY by any name, MUCH LESS YOURS, exists?
many things. I've tried to talk to you about some of them.... eh, but you're not interested in logical thinking 
I'll tell you. For the same reason other people with other deity claims claim them. BECUASE IT APPEALS TO THEM!
has nothing to do with logic, emperical reasoning, or making sense...
The claim that the earth was flat appealed to most people at one time.
Amazing that the churches had scripture that pointed to a round Earth that whole time. Yet they had no emperical reasoning, just a fear of being wrong.
So? Newton also believed that alchemy was lagit science. There are pleanty of smart Muslims with PHDs who would argue that means Allah is the one true god. Yet you are not a Muslim.
Gene Rodenbery concieved of a hand held comunications divice, yet you don't believe that Klingons are real.
Let's get through the existance of an inteligent being behind what we know as real. Then we can tackle the religion debate. If you can't even grasp that, I would never expect you to understand why I'm a Christian and not any of the other 1000's of religions out there.
I'll be the first to admit I completely understand from a non-believer's perspective why it's so easy to grasp an idea that God can't be real. I've questioned it all. The question is, have you or do you blindly accept your disbelief.
- Login to post comments
1. The hypocrite's way out? Then John was a hypocrite when he wrote 1 John 2:1.
2. The only problem with the shortened sentence analogy is that no crime was committed.
3a. You know someone who chose to have their parents' gametes form them?
3b. He loved us so much he died for us as long as we kiss his tail for the rest of our lives - that's not agape.
4a. And yet, being god he knew that he would have to go through this (not necessarily feel it - just go through it) so he could go back and be God again.
4b. He'e pushing us out of the way of the bus that he happens to be driving. Why not just stop the bus?
5. Paul said God raised Jesus from the dead - are you saying Jesus raised himself? How could God raise God from the dead?
6. I would interpret them to be equal with Yahweh in the myths. I look at them as equal in fact as they are al human constructs.
"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
Except that there is absolutely no 'community service' involved in the scapegoat idea. It is a superstitious attempt to push off your sins onto something (someone?) else. IOW, a way to get a 'free pass', the very opposite of actually doing something to compensate for any injury to other people, so you don't have to do anything of real substance.
The idea of someone or something else 'sacrificed' for my 'sins' is a very bad thing, endorsing as acceptable for people to effectively 'get out of jail free', and not having to seriously confront their wrong-doings.
The idea behind the crucifiction was primitive and immoral, it should be roundly condemned by any serious thinking person, along with the stupid concept of 'original sin' with which it is associated.
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
Can't base a following off miracles alone. Jesus addressed that many times. It's why he refused to "perform miracles" when people demanded it.
Many "factual" things were written down much later than the actual event. Think of many stories out there of real happenings that may have been scribbled down somewhere, later ending up in a best selling novel or a movie. The scribbled down notes of what happened would have been lost in history, yet the best selling novel is what's going to be remembered. What makes it different now?
See, that's what happens when you don't open your mind. You forget that there's more to my belief than just archeological evidences.
If that was the case, then Unicorns are real. Many stories place unicorn sightings in actual places here on Earth. It's when you try to back it up with the histories of those claimed places that the story will either hold water or fall apart.
Archeology is just a stepping stone. Intelligent people don't believe in God because they forgot to think!
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Admitting that I had no memory before my birth constitutes super heros? Which one......let me guess.....the one you favor. What a shocker!
How about that super heros don't exist and whatever I was before I was born will be what everyone will be after they die?
Do you really expect me to believe that Jesus, Horus, Allah or Thor, Posiden or you or me were part of a plan 50 billion years ago and that they are part of a plan 50 billion years from now?
It frightens me that my life will end, don't get me wrong. But I don't make up stories to placate my fears to avoid reality. Humans invent gods to avoid fear. YOU are no different.
What frightens me more than my finite existence is the length humans will go to fight over myth. The only thing that frightens me about death is pain, not some fictional reward or punishment in a non existent afterlife that any religion absurdly proposes.
I was no more planned than the bird who shit on my car planned to shit on my car after I washed it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog