Translation: "Why won't you just believe, I like it, even though I cant test it, it feels really good, so therefore it must be true, so it should be good enough for you too without testing it"

Sorry, and dont lie to me and say you do that for others, that is bullshit, otherwise you would believe in their gods too.

FYI I do understand WHY you believe you just don't want to accept why you believe and make shit to ignore reality of why you really believe. Why? Because I used to believe myself.  Once I accepted that it was all in my head and merely something I wanted, and nothing real, I got over it and left it in the dust like a kid gives up on Santa.

Since you wont be honest with yourself because you are in love with the idea of having a sky daddy, let me give you the answers.

Here is what you SHOULD be saying if you were being honest with yourself.

"I reject other people's gods because there is no evidence for them"

AND once you answer that question to yourself honestly, then you should aim that same mirror you put in other people's faces and look into it yourself.

WHEN you do that, everything we are arguing will make sense to you.

Thank you for validating my point.  The only way you have to defend your understanding is by trying to manipulate what I've said to mean something different.  You sure you're not a Jehovah's Witness or a mormon... or just an angry Christian sect?

well, i would if I got the same approach as you asked.  So far no one from another religion has given me the same explanation for their god... this is a big reason why i don't accept theirs.

I know you used to believe.   But your reasoning for not believing isn't everyone's and I'm not like you.  I actually had to do the homework and research in order to truly believe in the first place... which means it's going to take more than mere sarcasm and lack of logic to get me to not believe... you might actually have to do a bit of thinking and use rationality.  Otherwise what you're portraying to me is a fear of the unknown.

you look like an idiot.  why don't you read before you comment.

I didn't move any goalposts.  The claim is still equality.. not that Jesus claimed it himself, but that it was understood...

see jcadfly said that Jesus claimed it..

I said He didn't claim it but that it was implied to be the son of God which places him above angels and humans.   This would place him in only one other category, which would be equality with God.... to what degree, i don't know, but it's understood that he was able to do what God could do, which would suggest equality.  

so that would mean that the goal posts were moved from Jesus being equal to God to Jesus being.... equal... to God.... uh... they haven't moved... oh... uh.. I guess this kills your defense yet again.  

So then you see why reading my posts carefully are important and why your manipulated interpretation of what i said doesn't hold water.  i simply deciphered the point that Jesus was never quoted saying.  "yo, peoples.. i's equal with da God!"  only that it was understood... you're sitting here trying to turn it into me moving goal posts and making a case for jesus not being who he is.  Good luck with that.

If you honestly don't care, then why bother trying to make a case that has nothing to do with anything... ah.. I get it.  Diversion.  Good tactic.

too fast for me where?  Are you telling me that if i check back... say 10 pages ago and look at your posts, I'm going to see that they're different than what you're saying now... and that if I follow them up to the present i'll actually see a progressive conversation?  I think you need to recheck your posts my friend.

And they can and do say the same about your claims.

Muslim, "So far no one from another religion has given me the same explanation for their god, that is why I reject Christianity and all other religions"

Jew, "So far no one from another religion has given me the same explanation for their god"

SO THE FUCK WHAT?

"Explanations" are not facts by themselves. They are descriptions of HOW someone comes to the conclusions they do. In the theistic mind they are EXCUSES to believe. That is not the same as putting something an empirical  test.

What you are really saying without realizing it is, "So far no other religion has given me the feelings I have for my beliefs".

You know the expression "Let me explain"

What if I said, "Let me explain why I believe in pink unicorns". Using the word "explain" does not establish the existence of pink unicorns. I would need FACTS to establish the credibility of my "explanation".

Otherwise the "explanation" is nothing but an utterance. They have "explanations" for their positions too and of course they are not the same. But that doesn't make yours true by default anymore than you think theirs is true by default.

"Their explanations are not the same" DUH, but that does not establish a damn thing except that you have a fetish for your position. So do they.

lets do this!

yea

not the evidence you're looking for... it's illogical evidence.  it's like asking me to show you the biological makeup of a cat through an orange.

by the means that we are capable of at this time if in fact you want to capture a peice of it, put it in a lab and poke at it.

sure ok

it fits my definitions of redundant and ignorant on your part

instead of me writing you a 50 volume encyclopedia and you getting frustrated with lack of direction, i figured I'd ask you to tell me what direction you want to take... any attempt at this has been redundantly ignored by you.  

see what?  woop! *CRASH* oww.....

If you would give me an approach to a universal test that WOULD put all doubts aside and convince the world substantially that was also rational and logical to consider for the topic at hand that you would actually consider as evidence when implemented, then I would do it... 

Regardless I will critique you on every aspect and I will call you out on every irrationality until you're approach is rational and logical.  

they've tried.  Be it that none is like the Christian God, none have been claiming the same... no matter how bad you wish they were.

is that an actual quote from a Muslim?  Knowing what i do about the muslim religion, I know that would not be a statement from a true Muslim.   Nice try though.

again, nice try, no sale.  A Jew would not make that claim, they don't need to.  My point for "the same explanation" is that no one can claim all that the Chrsitian God claims.  If they try, they will find themselves blaspheming their god.  it just doesn't work by the basic facts of what their gods claim.  You're making yourself look very uneducated.  stop while you're... well too late.

don't use the empirical test excuse unless you're goign to give me something logical and rational to try.

is it now?  I'm so glad you brought that to my attention.  Thank you

well, let me explain is a reason to continue listening.  Your problem is you would say literally what you just said and then expect me to accept it without further explanation.  Sorry, doesn't work that way

of course it doesn't.  can we stop being redundant and actually make progress yet?

So do you... so whereto from here?

Are you talking to yourself? NO, that is the question I have for you. WHY can't YOU meet that standard?

The REASON you cant meet that standard is because YOU have no credible evidence so rather than admit you are wrong, you hide behind your feelings to protect your own ego.

If your claims were true there would be a basis for them that could be universally demonstrated to even those outside your label. Merely going around claiming shit doesn't mean shit.

So you really don't read my replies.  and i was just being sarcastic before.  I've already explained to you why it doesn't work regardless of whether the metaphysical exists or not.  

Point:  If the metaphysical is real and God is real, your approach to study still does not work and would not be a logical approach. Why?  I'm not going to repeat myself yet again, reread.

oh is that what it is?  phew, i feel soo much better now.  Or it could possibly be what I already explained to you.  You have ignored what I've said because you know it kills your defense.  if it doesn't, then acknowledge it.  Why bother?  Because then that will prove to me and any other believer on here that you are in fact not a quack and actually do know what you're talking about.  Hey, it might actually get me thinking... you never know!

of course it doesn't... so why do you do it?

We can't examine the metaphysical with scientific tools - OK.

Your alternative is to take the metaphysical at face value (as there are no metaphysical tools).

This is also not acceptable

The word "metaphysical" is nothing but another pseudo philosophy used to sound impressive, much the sound affect in a sight gag movie where a kitten lets out a lions roar.

RIGHT, scientific method works. GREAT, glad we agree. AND IT IS THE ONLY APPROACH that has any credibility, anything else is mere imagination.

Is it now.  Or can I.  I assume by "this tool" you're simply referring not to the lab study tools, but to the scientific method.  If so, then it can be applied and in history, the results can be seen as consistent.  

The problem is, everyone has their own mind so everyone approaches the broad subject of metaphysical existence differently, they all come to the same conclusion.  That it's real.  As far as who or what to follow as far as that existence is concerned, that's another approach altogether.  I have tried to work with you on an approach.  i think the scientific method is a great tool to use.  But once you start demanding God DNA or a piece of metaphysical... material... (contradictory right there)  then you're falling outside the definition and expectations of the scientific method which demands "specific principals of reasoning"... not irrational approaches to study that would result in no ability to study the subject at hand whether it exists or not.  remember trying to get my pulse with a catheter?   yea, kind of irrational to use for that means of study.  Same idea here.

its your problem when you demand a rational method with irrational expectations.  

you bounce back and forth.  You challenge me to use scientific method.  I say ok, then you demand to study a piece of metaphysical.... something under a microscope.  I tell you it's irrational to think you can use a tool designed to study physical things to study the metaphysical and suddenly that means I can't use the scientific method?  The method has to do with the approach to the study, not science specifically.  Not that science can't be used as a piece, but you really need to pick an approach and stick with it.  Do you really want to get into this or not?  

It sounded to me a few posts back that you didn't care to.  I'm fine with that, but then stop.  What have you achieved in these years of redundant irrationality on this forum?  Honestly

you seem to have a lot of answers about a topic you seem to have little if any knowledge about.

let's look at it this way... if you were a "sky daddy" would you allow irrational thought to define you?  You're asking God to turn the metaphysical into the physical so that you can see that the metaphysical exists... but is it rational to think first of all that God can or would turn the metaphysical into the physical let alone seeing a physical piece of the metaphysical would convince you of existence outside the physical?  

let's think about ti this way, in order to make the metaphysical physical, it would have to suddenly take on physical traits, which means, even if you saw it and I told you it was a piece of the metaphysical, because it is now physical, why would you accept that this physical piece is actually from the metaphysical?  

your dad might be very protective of his stuff and maybe didn't keep all that stuff but locked it away, however there would be documentation of his being in the Super Bowl, so you could take your friends to a library and open a book and show them that he was in it.... and they'd be a fool not to believe you.   However, due to the fact that you don't have anything first hand to show your friends, they might not care to take the time to go with you and see because the only way they'd believe you is if you could show them an actual piece of it and not documentation of its happening.  Either that, or they'd read it and still think it's just fictional and/or another person that happened to have your daddy's name that was in the Super Bowl.  Sure, the picture kind of looks like him, but that's not proof, it could be anyone.

it's not as secretive as your scenario makes it out to be though.  if it was, over 80% of the world would not be believers in the metaphysical like they are.

To make your scenario apply to the metaphysical, it'd be like saying most of your friends believe and accept your dad once being in the Super Bowl, but because of your lack of material possessions, there's  a small group in your school that refuses to accept it.  

People tell stories.  it doesn't make every story told false.

Sure, it sounds glamorous to be tortured and killed because of your profession of Jesus Christ, but in reality it's not.

yes, we're all in the same boat and you're in the water drowning, but still refusing the rope we throw out to you.   It's too bad you don't want to see that.

ok, metaphor aside

do you really want to go there or not?  If so, we need to work out together, a LOGICAL, RATIONAL means of study using the scientific method that would convince YOU if the results  prevailed.  

 I came in this post way too late, it had turned into a scream fest between Brian and Cap.  I'm relatively new to the forum so I was browsing topics.  Now I know the OP was more then 2 years ago, but what drew my attention was the word 'Unholy'...  The obvious resonance to the 'Holy Grail' aside I believe it was in the title specifically to demonise atheists.  I read your opinion on it earlier that it just means not of god.  

As I was learning English I had to study a dictionary on regular basis.  Now both you and I know that your average person will read Unholy as Demonic, and your understanding of the word represents a minority.  Suppose the other side of the spectrum someone not familiar with English at all.  Here is the dictionary definition.

un·ho·ly   

[uhn-hoh-lee] 

–adjective, -li·er, -li·est.

1. not holy; not sacred or hallowed.

2. impious; sinful; wicked.

3. Informal . dreadful; ungodly: "They got us out of bed at the unholy hour of three in the morning."

Here's a passage from the bible Lev 2 3:2

"For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, UNHOLY, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..."

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that the author meant unholy as it's least offensive, counter popular understanding definition.  Perhaps you can highlight some of the ORIGINAL arguments that this author makes.  I like to get my mind blown once a week at least, and since I don't go to church anymore... 

Aren't the references in fact to God having "stretched out the heavens" as in he's not doing it anymore? By Biblical logic, the universe should no longer be expanding and should be in a static state.

Why is it when theists try to make science and the Bible fit together, the Bible is the only thing that gets manipulated?

That is utter bullshit, for "proof" or "evidence".

The bible does use any specific modern language of scientific evidence. If you are going to believe that shit, then you might as well believe in the Greek gods because they first used the word atom.

You are merely retrofitting modern science to suit the ambiguity of the bible. Muslims have also quoted "mountains moving" as proof of Muhammad knowing about plate tectonics. I also recently saw a Muslim website with a picture of a red super nova and they tried to claim the verse "the painted red sky" was proof the writers knew about deep space. BULLSHIT, "painted red sky" refers to the blood of their enemies.

Saying, "the sky is blue" SAYS NOTHING about your knowledge of the scientific reasons for it being blue.

There is absolutely NOTHING modern or specific IN ANY HOLY book that would indicate any rational knowledge modern science has uncovered. Ambiguity and retrofitting after the fact is not "evidence" or "proof" it is back peddling because science is leaving myth in the dust and the only way to hold on to the last thread is to falsely and wrongly bastardize science by trying to justify myth.

The bible WAS NOT written by people using geology, biology, astrophysics or evolution to measure reality. The bible was written over a 1,000 year period with books left out and 40 authors who had NO CLUE what the scientific reality of nature was.

IT IS NOTHING BUT PURE MADE UP MYTH.

You dippy. The "manipulation" can't be done by the writers because they didn't have the scientific tools to know what "stretching" WAS and "stretching" IS NOT what scientists call it today.

THE manipulation is being done by modern society who don't want their myth to die, so they conflate ambiguous words written by scientifically ignorant people to mean something THEY want it to mean.

BACK THEN there was no way the were even "on to something" BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CLUE, they could demonstrate any scientific knowledge. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE WRITERS INTENT. Their only intent was to market their superstition. Everything to the writers was explained with "GOD DID IT".

You are using the tactic of word games.

AGAIN, if a Muslim quoted the Koran with an ambiguous verse, would you simply buy it because they said, "this word here fits with modern science"

AGAIN,

"THE SKY IS BLUE" only says the sky is blue, it says nothing about WHY the sky is blue.

"MOUNTAINS MOVING" only says mountains move. It says nothing about the science of why mountains move, and back then when both the bible and Koran say, "mountains move" THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT "POOF" GOD DID IT, not modern science and that plates under the crust shifting cause earthquakes.

YOU are totally embarrassing yourself with this steamy pile of pony loaf.

So that's why when you try to show the Bible is scientific you have to reinterpret the Bible. The science book doesn't change.

What do the verses mean? Nothing really - poetic metaphor doesn't have to mean anything. It's main purpose is so sound pretty. To make it science, you have to interpret it according to the science book. Funny that - science doesn't have to be reinterpreted to fit the Bible does it?