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
In discussing the existence of hell Cap says:
caposkia wrote:This of course is only assumption. People trying to make sense out of an unknown existence.
Now, let's apply this measured position to whatever exists outside the universe, whatever started the universe and admit that there are many things we simply do not know.
I will not deny that. Your point?
Seems like you've only helped me support the existance of God here.
P.S. Jesus does say sinners will be cast into a lake of fire in Mark, right? With wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Right... are you saying that lake of fire is Hell? and that we're literally going to see a lake of flame and God is going to grab you by the scruff of your neck and heave you into it?
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheistextremist wrote:
In discussing the existence of hell Cap says:
caposkia wrote:This of course is only assumption. People trying to make sense out of an unknown existence.
Now, let's apply this measured position to whatever exists outside the universe, whatever started the universe and admit that there are many things we simply do not know.
I will not deny that. Your point?
Seems like you've only helped me support the existance of God here.
iwbiek wrote:
P.S. Jesus does say sinners will be cast into a lake of fire in Mark, right? With wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Right... are you saying that lake of fire is Hell? and that we're literally going to see a lake of flame and God is going to grab you by the scruff of your neck and heave you into it?
I think his point is that you are using an assumption and calling it "God" to make sense out of an unknown.
Are you saying that the description of Hell that Jesus gives in the Gospels is merely symbolic? Makes no difference to me - he's your God's son. Not up to me if you take him seriously or not.
"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 The only FACT about Jesus is that people claim he existed. Debatable at best and even IF, it would still not constitute the magic tricks claimed in the bible being possible or immaterial beings with no brain or body or neurons.
if you want to get technical, everything in history is debatable at best if you weren't there and you don't trust the sources. Think about it, convince a German that the hollocost really happened. Some believe it but there are many who still deny it exsited despite the evidence.
You merely bought a claim that appealed to you and now you are doing everything within your imagination to justify it. You are not doing anything differently than fans of Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu. You merely fell for the emotional appeal of having a hero.
Or, I have challenged you to tell me what evidence "LOGICALLY" you would accept and you can't get past needing physical evidence of a meta-physical being (not a logical request) or farting that eleged car out of your ass.
You want physical evidence or DNA of my pet rock, fine, I'll send that to you. Until you can tell me how to send you God DNA or Godsperm, you're going to be disappointed. I"m willing to do it if you have a way.
Before you go off on your usual tangent, let's think about it. Let's just assume for a moment God exists out there as a metaphysical being. How would I, one who knows God as I claim to go about getting this DNA evidence that you seek? Ask him maybe? How do I hold meta-physical DNA? How do you study it? Even understanding that God is a meta-phsycial being, would metaphysical DNA actually exist be it that DNA is the makeup of "physical beings"?
Can you answer these questions? If not, then I think you need to consider alternative evidences if you really care at all to show me how my belief is flawed. Your rants I hate to say don't bring really any doubt to my mind, only confirmation that you lack scientific logic.
- Login to post comments
Offline I think his point is that you are using an assumption and calling it "God" to make sense out of an unknown.
Are you saying that the description of Hell that Jesus gives in the Gospels is merely symbolic? Makes no difference to me - he's your God's son. Not up to me if you take him seriously or not.
Well, the idea is that we're at this point still trying to agree on a greater intelligence behind the design of the universe. Are you saying he agrees that there is one?
Hell isn't in the original languages. the other problem with his portrayal of Hell as the lake of fire is that in Revelation, hell is thrown into the lake of fire thus making the lake of fire not hell.
- Login to post comments
Offline By the way, I have to chuckle every time a religionist declares that his or her religion is not a religion. Religion in general has begun to give many people a bad taste in their mouths so it's understandable that believers would want to distance themselves from it. I did the same thing myself when I was still a believer. However, defining Christianity as something other than a religion means that you have to ignore many of the more commonly-used meanings of the word religion. It means that you have to ignore the fact that religion does not exclusively mean institutionalized religion; religion also means things like "belief in and service to/worship of a god or gods" and "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".
you again are diving into a bit of history with me here. I have gone through my intentions behind my claims for religion. As religion is viewed in this world, I am not a part of it. I have said this before. I have also said that if you want to get literal, everyone who agrees with a group of people about a topic can be categorized as a part of a relgion. If you are so bent on claiming I"m a part of a religion, I'll accept that as long as you can accept you're a part of one as well. as one 'religionist to another' do you agree?
I believe the proper term if you want for my following would be 'unaffiliated' under the Christian category.
"Non-religious" religionists like to tell you that what they have is not a religion but, rather, a personal relationship with their favourite deity. That "relationship", of course, requires that one holds a particular "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". It requires that you believe in a god or gods whom you seek to serve/follow/worship. So, when you break it down, when someone says, "I'm not religious; I have a relationship with God" they're actually saying, "I'm not religious; I'm religious."
Kinda funny, really, don'tcha think?
yes it is. This originally started by ones trying to claim that I"m just like every other religion in Christianity to which I clarified that i wasn't. I would then claim 'I hated religion' in the context of what Christiain religions tend to be. Then we get into the whole idea that whether I want to believe it or not, I'm religious, which again goes into the perspective of what a religious person is versus the true definition of what a religious person is.
Then somewhere in the middle someone like you comes in and has to take the whole thing literally and make sure that they can prove me wrong by saying that no matter what I want to believe I'm a part of religion completely ignoring the context of where it all started.. either that or just being quite unaware, either way making their point very irrelevent to the point and progress of the conversation at hand.
So yes, I do find it quite funny that this seems to happen a lot.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:I think his point is that you are using an assumption and calling it "God" to make sense out of an unknown.
Are you saying that the description of Hell that Jesus gives in the Gospels is merely symbolic? Makes no difference to me - he's your God's son. Not up to me if you take him seriously or not.
Well, the idea is that we're at this point still trying to agree on a greater intelligence behind the design of the universe. Are you saying he agrees that there is one?
Hell isn't in the original languages. the other problem with his portrayal of Hell as the lake of fire is that in Revelation, hell is thrown into the lake of fire thus making the lake of fire not hell.
I can't speak for him bu the greater intelligence designing the universe is a possibility. I don't hold to that possibility as there are too many poorly designed things out there for me to blame on a greater intelligence.
The problem is you claim that this intelligence is the God of the Bible and do so with a certainty that only one with proof can have.
As for Hell, he also claimed that it was a place reserved for the Devil and his angels but had no problems expanding the entrance requirements later on.
"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 iwbiek wrote:
P.S. Jesus does say sinners will be cast into a lake of fire in Mark, right? With wailing and gnashing of teeth?
whoa whoa whoooooaaaaa. what's with the misquotation? i never said that. just look at the capitalization and you know i never said that. please be more careful next time.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline ok, so are you saying that all moral judgement is bad? That it's wrong to ever tell someone they're doing something wrong? If so, are you not making a moral judgement on Jesus by saying it's wrong for him to do that?
No, I'm saying that moral judgement is necessary. I think you and I agree that they are mistaken who claim that Christianity is about tolerance and non-judgementalism.
NoDeity wrote:It doesn't make sense to me that an omniscient being would have hope. When you absolutely know how things will turn out, hope is irrelevant. If one could be present in all times and all places simultaneously, hope would be irrelevant.I used the word hope. Maybe it's the wrong word to use. the point being, sure even if he could be everywhere, what would expect a God to do who gave his creation "free will" to not allow his creation to make a mistake? This of course without impeading upon free will because he promised he wouldn't.
I'm curious: where does God promise not to impinge on free will?
NoDeity wrote:I have an understanding of Christianity as it is generally actually practiced. I also have a solid understanding of the New Testament and I realize that organized Christianity has wandered quite a long way from its roots. I was a Christian for a long time and, long before I rejected belief in the divine and the supernatural, I had already rejected organized religion.
I would agree with you that organized Christianity has wandered quite a long way from its roots. I am curious on what pulled you away after rejecting organized religion?
After having been involved in the "charismatic movement" in the late '70s and early '80s (I blush to admit that I "spoke in tongues" -- but, damn, the pastor's daughter was cute! 
), I suspected that many of those I'd met and heard of who claimed to have had supernatural experiences or to have special divinely-granted gifts of healing, prophesy, etc., (both inside and outside of Christianity) were either fraudulent or delusional. So, I became interested in rational skepticism (i.e. skepticism as described by Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc.) as a means of distinguishing between what is and isn't true. I found that when I applied those principles to the things I believed in, as opposed to just the things those religious kooks believed in, I seemed to be on shaky ground myself. My doubts about my beliefs drove me to get into Christian apologetics and, much to my disappointment, apologetics didn't fare well when I examined it in the light of my new-found understanding of skeptical inquiry. I wanted to believe but, eventually, I found that I could not. (I had probably stopped believing quite a while before I was able to admit to myself that that was the case.)
NoDeity wrote:I agree that being judgmental isn't necessarily bad. In fact, I reject Jesus' "Judge not lest ye be judged" and, instead, approve of Ayn Rand's "Judge and be prepared to be judged."
very similar. The idea is that judgement comes down to a point. How are you going to judge others. Taking the word literally, you can't avoid being a judge of everything, it's how you understand and comprehend life. What Jesus was saying is that you will be judged by the father in the same manner you judge others. In other words, you will be judged, but only in the way you have judged others.
So many misunderstand scripture because they look at it for how it is written in their language and fail to do the research on the context and intention behind the statement.
It's somewhat similar in that it recognizes that judging leads to oneself being judged. The Jesus character quotation, though, appears to be urging people to avoid judging in order to avoid judgement, which is quite different from Rand's advice. Is it your view that that is an accurate description of the difference or do you think it is a consequence of the Jesus character quotation being misunderstood as a consquence of having been translated between languages and cultures?
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't speak for him bu the greater intelligence designing the universe is a possibility. I don't hold to that possibility as there are too many poorly designed things out there for me to blame on a greater intelligence.
Which one atheist turn theist brought up the question, 'with such an understanding that there are so many flawed things, how could we possibly come to the conclusion that there is this perfect being behind the design?' The point is, it still happened.
Another thought, what might be flawed or poorly designed to you might be intentional for a reason beyond our understanding. Don't know what you might be referring to though.
The problem is you claim that this intelligence is the God of the Bible and do so with a certainty that only one with proof can have.
you're right.
As for Hell, he also claimed that it was a place reserved for the Devil and his angels but had no problems expanding the entrance requirements later on.
From what I understand, if you look through all of the OT, there is not once a mention of this Hell. The Bible does mention of deep chambers in some areas that fallen angels are in or certain places they're bound, but a question comes that if that's where the deamons are, then how is it that they're also on Earth posessing people... and why are some lucky enough to be bound at the river Euphrates?
If hell is as said, then they would be bound there, not able to freely come and go as they please, same with people, but it's not said to be that way. In fact, the original languages as I said don't mention Hell. Just a place where the dead go.
I think what is misconstrued through religion and somantics is that separation from God is portrayed as Hell, when it's written simply as quite unpleasent. comparibly to being in a hell like we have formulated with our imaginations. Those who don't follow God will be separated from him at death.... whatever that might mean. We could then go into the whole Revelation thing about how they'll all be thrown into the lake of fire, but there's much more to that story than just that moment and would require a discussion on the book and what is written about the "final days"...
- Login to post comments
Offline
No, I'm saying that moral judgement is necessary. I think you and I agree that they are mistaken who claim that Christianity is about tolerance and non-judgementalism.
Yes. I'm just trying to make it clear that Christianity is about unity and equality and not about separation as the religious sects have made it to be. Improper judgement can cause separation as well as intolerance. Christianity is accepting of all no matter who you are and what you've done, but it does stick by it's morals.
I'm curious: where does God promise not to impinge on free will?
The Gospels are a good place to start... I should tell you, you're not going to find a literal sentence that says; "I YHWH will not impinge on your free will", but it is made quite clear.
After having been involved in the "charismatic movement" in the late '70s and early '80s (I blush to admit that I "spoke in tongues" -- but, damn, the pastor's daughter was cute!
You know why they call it apologetics right? Could be a round-about way of saying "sorry I dont' have a better explanation of why I believe" ;P Sadly, it focuses on doctern and not necessarily the Bible.
It's somewhat similar in that it recognizes that judging leads to oneself being judged. The Jesus character quotation, though, appears to be urging people to avoid judging in order to avoid judgement, which is quite different from Rand's advice. Is it your view that that is an accurate description of the difference or do you think it is a consequence of the Jesus character quotation being misunderstood as a consquence of having been translated between languages and cultures?
I don't see it as avoid judging in order to avoid judgement. Says in Revelation all will be judged according to their deeds... ALL... indicating that how you judge is what matters. I do believe that we're just misrepresenting the word judgement probably through translational issues. The judgement mentioned is talking about discriminatory judgement vs. judgement in general.
- Login to post comments
Offline NoDeity wrote:
No, I'm saying that moral judgement is necessary. I think you and I agree that they are mistaken who claim that Christianity is about tolerance and non-judgementalism.
Yes. I'm just trying to make it clear that Christianity is about unity and equality and not about separation as the religious sects have made it to be. Improper judgement can cause separation as well as intolerance. Christianity is accepting of all no matter who you are and what you've done, but it does stick by it's morals.
NoDeity wrote:I'm curious: where does God promise not to impinge on free will?
The Gospels are a good place to start... I should tell you, you're not going to find a literal sentence that says; "I YHWH will not impinge on your free will", but it is made quite clear.
Can you give me one example? One reason I'm curious about that is that there are some pretty clear instances in which, according to the Bible, God did impinge on someone's free will, such as when he "hardened" Pharoah's "heart".
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Improper judgment"????????
Cappy Cappy Cappy, I am quite sure that conveniently know what "proper judgment" is. Sorry all you other Christians and Muslims and Jews, you got it wrong. The answers are all right here with Cappy.
Meanwhile Cap has evidence that a invisible brain with no brain, no neurons and no cerebellum floating around in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Is this the invisible friend who guided your neurons to find the "proper" judgment?
"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 Can you give me one example? One reason I'm curious about that is that there are some pretty clear instances in which, according to the Bible, God did impinge on someone's free will, such as when he "hardened" Pharoah's "heart".
Ah, what you gave is a perfect example of literary assumption. For that you need to look at where God is coming from in this story. He knows the pharoah like you would know your own child or wife. when he "hardened Pharoah's heart", I understand it as;
you're going to tell him the truth, but he's not going to want to hear it, therefore by me telling you to tell him this, I will harden his heart. It still was pharoah's choice to accept the news or refuse it. God knew what choice he would make.
It'd be like you saying... 'I know you're going to hate me for this, but you need to know....' This way, it shows that God gave pharoah a fair chance to change his mind about what he was doing.
As far as the example you were looking for. You're still looking for that sentence that says; 'I YHWH will not impinge on your free will' aren't you? The reason why I referenced the Gospels is because the general ministry of Jesus is all about giving us a way to redeem ourselves, yet only by a choice of following Jesus does that happen. No where does it say that you don't have a choice.
You are going to read into some other quotes from the Bible, like Jesus saying to a disciple, "you will deny me three times". Making it sound like he has no control or choice in the matter because it's a prophesy of something that hasn't happened yet. Though he does have a choice on whether he is to deny Christ or not, when the moment comes it's fear we see that overcomes him and he of course does as said.
My question to you should be where does it say God does impinge on free will?
Let's put it this way, if he did impinge on free will, then there would have been no reason to send Jesus to die for us on the cross. There would be no point in having the laws written in Exodus, there would be no point in sending Moses on the journey he went on due to the fact that God could have prevented the slavery in the first place through impingement of free will.
I am curious of other parts of the Bible that you think God is impinging upon free will. According to how the Bible is written in Genesis, Adam and Eve would still be living in the garden if God impeded upon free will.
I can see the counter arguement of how God will allow free will, but still has controlled. So I think the best approach is to have you show me the areas where you think he's impeding on it and we can discuss.
- Login to post comments
Offline NoDeity wrote:Can you give me one example? One reason I'm curious about that is that there are some pretty clear instances in which, according to the Bible, God did impinge on someone's free will, such as when he "hardened" Pharoah's "heart".
Ah, what you gave is a perfect example of literary assumption. For that you need to look at where God is coming from in this story. He knows the pharoah like you would know your own child or wife. when he "hardened Pharoah's heart", I understand it as;
you're going to tell him the truth, but he's not going to want to hear it, therefore by me telling you to tell him this, I will harden his heart. It still was pharoah's choice to accept the news or refuse it. God knew what choice he would make.
It'd be like you saying... 'I know you're going to hate me for this, but you need to know....' This way, it shows that God gave pharoah a fair chance to change his mind about what he was doing.
LOL! Do you actually find that rationalization convincing?
As far as the example you were looking for. You're still looking for that sentence that says; 'I YHWH will not impinge on your free will' aren't you? The reason why I referenced the Gospels is because the general ministry of Jesus is all about giving us a way to redeem ourselves, yet only by a choice of following Jesus does that happen. No where does it say that you don't have a choice.You are going to read into some other quotes from the Bible, like Jesus saying to a disciple, "you will deny me three times". Making it sound like he has no control or choice in the matter because it's a prophesy of something that hasn't happened yet. Though he does have a choice on whether he is to deny Christ or not, when the moment comes it's fear we see that overcomes him and he of course does as said.
My question to you should be where does it say God does impinge on free will?
I already gave you a clear example but you have made it clear that you will not read the text for what it plainly says but, instead, will twist it to make it fit what you already believe.
Let's put it this way, if he did impinge on free will, then there would have been no reason to send Jesus to die for us on the cross. There would be no point in having the laws written in Exodus, there would be no point in sending Moses on the journey he went on due to the fact that God could have prevented the slavery in the first place through impingement of free will.
[shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Improper judgment"????????
Cappy Cappy Cappy, I am quite sure that conveniently know what "proper judgment" is. Sorry all you other Christians and Muslims and Jews, you got it wrong. The answers are all right here with Cappy.
Meanwhile Cap has evidence that a invisible brain with no brain, no neurons and no cerebellum floating around in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Is this the invisible friend who guided your neurons to find the "proper" judgment?
haha!! Brian, you never cease to amaze me. You can read through a whole series of conversations over and over again and still miss the purpose of the conversation and topic at hand. It's amazing how religious you really are. It's like trying to talk to a Jehovah's Witness. You seem to feel that ignorance and redundancy will convince people of your belief.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:"Improper judgment"????????
Cappy Cappy Cappy, I am quite sure that conveniently know what "proper judgment" is. Sorry all you other Christians and Muslims and Jews, you got it wrong. The answers are all right here with Cappy.
Meanwhile Cap has evidence that a invisible brain with no brain, no neurons and no cerebellum floating around in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Is this the invisible friend who guided your neurons to find the "proper" judgment?
haha!! Brian, you never cease to amaze me. You can read through a whole series of conversations over and over again and still miss the purpose of the conversation and topic at hand. It's amazing how religious you really are. It's like trying to talk to a Jehovah's Witness. You seem to feel that ignorance and redundancy will convince people of your belief.
I am not missing anything. I am skipping your distractions and cutting to the chase. In the end, beyond all this tripe about an ancient book written by unscientific people, ultimately it boils down to you you believing in a disembodied brain with no brain with magic super powers.
Talking about an ancient book is a distraction when I am talking about the alleged god itself. Other people have their disembodied being claims too of other religions., yet you don't believe in their invisible friend claims. It never occurs to you that you merely like what you believe.
If anything is laughable it is you thinking I am missing the point when it is you who is missing the point.
It is all in your head and merely something you want to believe. Otherwise you'd be able to replicate and falsify your "god" claim in an independent peer reviewed setting.
"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 I am not missing anything. I am skipping your distractions and cutting to the chase. In the end, beyond all this tripe about an ancient book written by unscientific people, ultimately it boils down to you you believing in a disembodied brain with no brain with magic super powers.
Talking about an ancient book is a distraction when I am talking about the alleged god itself. Other people have their disembodied being claims too of other religions., yet you don't believe in their invisible friend claims. It never occurs to you that you merely like what you believe.
i rest my case. I have told you strait out that I am not trying to distract you and am trying to take you head on with your challenges... so far you have no basis for allegations of my belief.
I have challenged you to tell me how I can present to you what you're looking for... that is God DNA or god-sperm. First I have asked you how I can get DNA (data for physical beings) from God to give you to study and also have presented the question of whether that would even exist assuming God exists.
Speaking of distractions, you have very effectively ignored that challenge and tried to turn the tables to claim that I have no basis.
how am I supposed to present you evidence if you wont' tell me a logical means of doing so?
If anything is laughable it is you thinking I am missing the point when it is you who is missing the point.
Ah yes, I forget. You still think i haven't understood that you think along the same lines as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, traditional catholics or other sects of Christiandom. Don't' worry, I understand you believe it's snowing even though i see it raining. I could bring you a cup of rain, but you'll claim the snow melted before I got it to you. So tell me now. Where do we go from here?
If you ask me again to show you evidence then tell me a logical means of doing so. let's actually take the sheer assumption that this God I claim actually exists. How would you present the evidence of this God to someone else? I ask you this in hopes that you'll think of a reasonable means of evidence that you would suggest me presenting. Nothing that would be obviously unachievable even through Biblical standards.
It is all in your head and merely something you want to believe. Otherwise you'd be able to replicate and falsify your "god" claim in an independent peer reviewed setting.
I have presented to you a willingness to work with you under logical means. Balls in your court to present to me a logical and reasonable means of evidence that you will consider.
Truthfully, you're so adamant on your own belief. I want to come to an agreement with you... unfortunately, you fail to use logical thinking. You ask for an apple then tell me to prove to you that dinosaurs existed only using that apple. What do you expect from that except for me to say I can't? You then conclude that because I can't prove dinosaurs existed through that apple, that they never actually existed when in fact your request was illogical to begin with.
Do you see where I'm coming from here? Can you think on that wavelength?
No frustration on my part intended on this reply either. I'm just honestly confused by you... not because you won't believe what i believe, but because it seems you can't think logically even in your challenges to my belief. I will point out that others seem to find a logical means of challenging my belief. it's why I compare you to those religious sects out there like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. They use the same means of logic to prove their point. Point and case, it's not logical and when scrutinized, it doesn't hold water.
- Login to post comments
Offline [shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
At least you acknowledge that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You just choose not to dwell on that part.
You remind me of the defense against the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books. The defense is to wrap your towel over your eyes because the beast assumes that if you can't see it then it can't see you.
"If I don't see the glaring problems in the Bible, they're not there", right?
"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 The ball was never in my court because I am not claiming a magical invisible friend with no brain, you are.
Im calling "BULLSHIT" and it is up to you to come up with a god model and have it independently replicated and falsified.
Otherwise if logic worked that way I could say, "The ball is in your court to prove that their isn't a invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter"
Or, "The ball is in your court to prove to me that Allah is my pet invisible brain in the sky isn't real".
Your problem is that you are so deeply in love with your pet claim you are unwilling to examine it. All you are doing is looking for ways to justify your position. Testing something and justifying something are two different things. Testing is not dependent on liking a claim. Testing depends on drawing upon good prior data, coming up with a standard universal test, and then testing it and falsifying it, THEN handing that data over to others with no horse in the race and have them repeat what you have done.
Humans have always had a history of making up myths and gods and your problem is that you think you are not doing anything differently. You merely like the ideal of a super hero so you look for ways to justify your position. That is not the same as testing what you claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline how am I supposed to present you evidence if you wont' tell me a logical means of doing so?
I did tell you HOW you could logically demonstrate your claim. You don't want to because you know you cant. You are just so in love with your claim that you don't want to face that you cant. Stop being in love with your claim. Stop trying to justify it and be unafraid of TESTING IT.
If I came to you and claimed, "I can fix your transmission problem in your car by waving this feather boa around it"? Because cars are real and feather boas are real, means I have a way of proving to you I can fix your car? Or is it merely bullshit?
"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 caposkia wrote:[shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
At least you acknowledge that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You just choose not to dwell on that part.
You remind me of the defense against the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books. The defense is to wrap your towel over your eyes because the beast assumes that if you can't see it then it can't see you.
"If I don't see the glaring problems in the Bible, they're not there", right?
FWIW, the quote attribution above should have my name in it, not caposkia's.
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:caposkia wrote:[shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
At least you acknowledge that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You just choose not to dwell on that part.
You remind me of the defense against the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books. The defense is to wrap your towel over your eyes because the beast assumes that if you can't see it then it can't see you.
"If I don't see the glaring problems in the Bible, they're not there", right?
FWIW, the quote attribution above should have my name in it, not caposkia's.
My mistake. The commentary is for cap.
"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
caposkia wrote:[shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
At least you acknowledge that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You just choose not to dwell on that part.
Just for the record, that's not my quote. Please be careful. If you check, that was I believe NoDeity. I never claimed that it was inconsistent nor self-contradictory.
You remind me of the defense against the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books. The defense is to wrap your towel over your eyes because the beast assumes that if you can't see it then it can't see you.
"If I don't see the glaring problems in the Bible, they're not there", right?
uh... I thought you knew me better than that after all this time. I'm going to assume you're basing that assumption off of the misquote above.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:
caposkia wrote:[shrug] That the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory is your problem, not mine.
At least you acknowledge that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You just choose not to dwell on that part.
Just for the record, that's not my quote. Please be careful. If you check, that was I believe NoDeity. I never claimed that it was inconsistent nor self-contradictory.
jcgadfly wrote:You remind me of the defense against the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books. The defense is to wrap your towel over your eyes because the beast assumes that if you can't see it then it can't see you.
"If I don't see the glaring problems in the Bible, they're not there", right?
uh... I thought you knew me better than that after all this time. I'm going to assume you're basing that assumption off of the misquote above.
Yeah - i apologize to both of you.
Someday I'd like to find Christians who don't think it part of God's wil to lie to me. I'm not saying you're one yet but you are not plural.
"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 The ball was never in my court because I am not claiming a magical invisible friend with no brain, you are.
Open your eyes for a second. I put the ball in your court when I asked you for a logical focus for evidence or discussion. You have yet to follow through.
Im calling "BULLSHIT" and it is up to you to come up with a god model and have it independently replicated and falsified.
I can tell you a million things that I know about God, but until I understand what you will accept it will all be pointless. Ready to play yet?
Otherwise if logic worked that way I could say, "The ball is in your court to prove that their isn't a invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter"
Or, "The ball is in your court to prove to me that Allah is my pet invisible brain in the sky isn't real".
I'm willing to look at the meta-physical aspects that might hold you to that belief as well as the documentation and supporting evidence as I have offered for you. What will you be willing to accept as evidence besides an illogical DNA from a meta-physical being.
I guess I could be just as illogical to you and say that you have to go to Jupiter and get me the DNA of this invisible teapot. Let's think logically for a second. Say this invisible teapot you speak of actually exists. Would it honestly be logical for me to ask you to give me a DNA sample of it? Or could there be other ways you could show me the reasoning behind your belief?
Your problem is that you are so deeply in love with your pet claim you are unwilling to examine it.
yea, that's it. i have never offered to talk to anyone about the scientific, historical, geological, archeological, meta-physical or emperical evidences of my belief... ya got me there (*hand smacks head*)
maybe you weren't all there when I said I'm looking for people to challenge what I know. It's ok, we all have those nights.
All you are doing is looking for ways to justify your position. Testing something and justifying something are two different things. Testing is not dependent on liking a claim. Testing depends on drawing upon good prior data, coming up with a standard universal test, and then testing it and falsifying it, THEN handing that data over to others with no horse in the race and have them repeat what you have done.
woah.... wait a minute... was that.... naw... was that a... logical thought process from Brian!!!!!!! Excuse me while I get some Advil.
Humans have always had a history of making up myths and gods and your problem is that you think you are not doing anything differently. You merely like the ideal of a super hero so you look for ways to justify your position. That is not the same as testing what you claim.
alright, how do you propose I test my position?
wait a second... I need a logical means of testing... not praying for a lambroghini fart or for it to rain God DNA.
Oh, and it needs to be something so that the results, when presented to you... will be understood and considered... and replicated by you... In other words, it must have a result that you can accept as a "God-sighting" as some would call it.
Be it that God's not a constant and can make choices, I'm excited to hear your idea. Somehow I don't think I'll get a logical response.. though you're so bent on proving me wrong, maybe this is a perfect opportunity for you to shine.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah - i apologize to both of you.
Someday I'd like to find Christians who don't think it part of God's wil to lie to me. I'm not saying you're one yet but you are not plural.
I know a lot of Christians that wouldn't lie to you. I'm curious on what lies have been told to you. I would like to clarify those misunderstandings if at all possible.
- Login to post comments
By the way, I have to chuckle every time a religionist declares that his or her religion is not a religion. Religion in general has begun to give many people a bad taste in their mouths so it's understandable that believers would want to distance themselves from it. I did the same thing myself when I was still a believer. However, defining Christianity as something other than a religion means that you have to ignore many of the more commonly-used meanings of the word religion. It means that you have to ignore the fact that religion does not exclusively mean institutionalized religion; religion also means things like "belief in and service to/worship of a god or gods" and "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".
"Non-religious" religionists like to tell you that what they have is not a religion but, rather, a personal relationship with their favourite deity. That "relationship", of course, requires that one holds a particular "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". It requires that you believe in a god or gods whom you seek to serve/follow/worship. So, when you break it down, when someone says, "I'm not religious; I have a relationship with God" they're actually saying, "I'm not religious; I'm religious."
Kinda funny, really, don'tcha think?
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
I can agree with you, sure. By literal definition of judgement, why would Jesus shy away from it? You make it sound like judgement is bad.
Funny, what you quoted were statements more than the coined "judgement". Think about it, if Jesus is who he says he is, are those really judgement calls or facts that people were being told?
Is it judging of me to say to someone, if you rob that store, you're going to go to jail? I've just made a similiar statement as you've quoted Jesus saying.
I think we're losing focus of judgement. Many view it as discrimination when what you quoted applies to all people who would be in their situation.
Ah, I see. Doesn't matter what one sect might emphasize, what most seem to fail to understand is that all applies. Sure, one follower might emphasize attitudes over action another action over attitude, when it comes down to it, to be a true follower, all must be taken into account.
Don't read into that too much, no one is perfect and true followers fall short every day of fulfilling the Biblical expectations. Which is why they're followers of Jesus. They understand that they can't be perfect and are far from it. A lot of it comes down to how you handle what you know. If you're so arrogant that you know everything and no one can tell you otherwise... then it's hard to call yourself a true follower. On the other hand, if you're open to the idea that you still have a lot to learn and arent' even scratching the surface of knowing everything, then it's a more likely attitude of a true follower.
oh, I'd agree with you there. The biggest mistake a Christian can make is to think or portray God or Jesus as "a big carebear in the sky". Jesus was quite harsh and wasn't afraid to be. Question. if he wasn't so harsh, would he have had nearly the impact he had? My thought is that without him being harsh, no one would have seen reason to execute him.
ok, so are you saying that all moral judgement is bad? That it's wrong to ever tell someone they're doing something wrong? If so, are you not making a moral judgement on Jesus by saying it's wrong for him to do that?
Another question, if you never passed a moral judgement on your children, how do you think they'd turn out?
The above would be taking the literal definition of moral into consideration be it that it's a decision of right and wrong.
I used the word hope. Maybe it's the wrong word to use. the point being, sure even if he could be everywhere, what would expect a God to do who gave his creation "free will" to not allow his creation to make a mistake? This of course without impeading upon free will because he promised he wouldn't.
I would agree with you that organized Christianity has wandered quite a long way from its roots. I am curious on what pulled you away after rejecting organized religion?
very similar. The idea is that judgement comes down to a point. How are you going to judge others. Taking the word literally, you can't avoid being a judge of everything, it's how you understand and comprehend life. What Jesus was saying is that you will be judged by the father in the same manner you judge others. In other words, you will be judged, but only in the way you have judged others.
So many misunderstand scripture because they look at it for how it is written in their language and fail to do the research on the context and intention behind the statement.
Oh get over yourself. Everyone who's been talking to me for a long time know I don't avoid questions. I'm sorry I didn't answer it directly.
I'm bad with names, but I'll try to give you some sources to look at. I know Nat Geo. had referenced some of them in a special they did. http://www.nationalgeographic.com might have a link.
Dr. Hal Webb talks about how artists didn't portray Jesus with long hair or even a beard until at least the 4th century. I can't remember at the moment who specifically I remember saying it, but looking up online information on the appearance or race of Jesus might yeild some results for you.
See wikipedia for a good history on how they conclude what the people of Jesus' time might have looked like. In breif, ancestorial timelines are how I understand they do it.
i don't have to look it up, hoss, i studied it for four years and i've kept up with the literature in the subsequent 5 years. please enlighten me as to what your definition of "church" is. i've encountered many, but i've never encountered one that describes it as a place whose inner premises are forbidden to all but a class of priests, where animal sacrifices take place, and where public treasures are stored. that's a temple, not just in the jewish sense but in the general sense of temples at that time, of which the herodian temple was a typical example. there's also the fact that the herodian temple has never been referred to as a "church" in any scripture, christian or jewish, nor in any extrabiblical literature i have ever encountered, devotional or scholarly. so just for the sake of clarity, it's a poor choice.
That would be a tabernacle, or a temple not a church. For one who is so well studied, I'm surprised you missed that. A church by dictionary definition and not my own is simply a place where Christians gather to worship. What happens in a church setting up and beyond worship is going way beyond what we were discussing and can mean the difference between Christian worship and other.