Was that what you were going for?

I think he's trying to insult everybody. Next up: Korean grocers.

"What goes around comes around."

In other words, "those who live by the sword die by the sword." I suspect you could find your own cliches for this.

Take the typical criminial--not the glorified fiction of the movies, but the real criminal--he leads a miserable life, either in jail or struggling on the outside to live with a criminal record.

Thanks for the clarification. I just wondered if you meant metaphysically or philosophically or literally.

Thanks for the clarification. I just wondered if you meant metaphysically or philosophically or literally.
I am agnositc about the non-physical interpretation of karma--I just see it as a natural consequence of the fact that acts have consequences, and bad acts are more likely to have bad consequences than good ones.

While this is consistent with karmic ideas, I don't think it is necessary to push into non-physical interpretations.

H

Hacking a man to death
I Sam. 15:33

Hanging up heads against the sun. Putting children's heads in baskets. Nailing a head to the ground
Num. 25:4, 9
II Kings 10:7
Judges 4:21

Hating, abandoning and delivering your family up to authorities. Being rude to your mother and sisters
Matt. 10:35
Matt. 10:21
Matt. 19:29
Ezra 10
John 2:4
Matt. 12:48
Luke 14:26

Hating this life and this world to gain the next. Despising your body
John 12:25
Matt. 6:33
Romans 8:18
Mark 8:35
Romans 8:10

Having repeated sexual intercourse in public view with your neighbor's wives and your fathers' wives
II Sam. 12:11
II Sam. 16:22

Having sexual relations with your wife and her mother
Lev. 20:14

Healing with spit and magic and oil and laying on of hands, faith, a brass snake, aprons, handkerchiefs, prayer, by dipping into a pool, a garment hem, a lump of figs, and shadow.
James 5:13-15
Acts 19:11-12
Mark 16:18
Mark 5:25-30
Mark 5:34
Mark 7:33
II Kings 20:7
Num. 21:8
John 5:4
Acts 5:15

Hiding in vineyards to capture girls as they dance
Judges 21:20-23

Hiring a hitman to kill your brother
I Kings 2:25

Human entrails gushing out
Acts 1:18-19
Judges 3:22

A message to Freethinker, as he posts his efforts to create intolerance toward Christians:

"Tolerance is the homage which the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the Infinite."

--Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975

If what FT were posting were false, I would agree with you that FT were only trying to create intolerance. As it is, his efforts fall under, "creating awareness." Creating intolerance is what Hitler did when he proclaimed the Jews to be the cause of all the world's problems.

I've seen no one here try to argue that what FT is posting is wrong. If it is the truth, it deserves to be said. All truth that affects everyone deserves to be exposed and brought for everyone to see.

What he is posting is not "truth" except in a very narrow, legalistic way--the kind of "truth" of the propagandist.

There are many uplifting Bible passages, many of peace and hope and love. Many that are unbelievably philosophical for their time (Ecclesiastes). He ignores all of this. This is distortion, not truth.

Even many of the passages he actually cites are nowhere near as bad when read in context.

No it is not the truth of the propagandist. The propagandist doesn't care for truth. He has no truth, only an agenda. FT has an agenda, and truth. It's only crime is that you don't like it.

No it is not the truth of the propagandist. The propagandist doesn't care for truth. He has no truth, only an agenda. FT has an agenda, and truth. It's only crime is that you don't like it.

You are talking off the top of your head again. (When I say that I say that your are making bald assertions--everyone has an agenda and propogandists do have a lot of truth). Almost everything a propagandist says can be defended as "true" in some legalistic or interpreted way.

Propagandists love to "quote mine" the way FT's source did.

In a large enough literature, material embarrassing or contradicting the main thrust of the literature can always be found, especially if one is willing to take passages out of context and use ellipsis.

Creationists do this with the biological literature; Communists do this with the western financial press; flying-saucer advocates do this with new reports; FT's source does it with the Bible.

Propagandists love to "quote mine" the way FT's source did.

In a large enough literature, material embarrassing or contradicting the main thrust of the literature can always be found, especially if one is willing to take passages out of context and use ellipsis.


Don't ya think it's funny how the christians only want you to see or hear about how loving and kind and gentle their god is and have a fit if you see the things FT posts? They try to hide the fact that their god is a schizo, saying love others in one hand and slay them in the other.
I don't care if it's embarrassing to the christian, maybe it'll wake them up to see their god isn't all it's cracked up to be and make them reconsider their belief. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't ya think it's funny how the christians only want you to see or hear about how loving and kind and gentle their god is and have a fit if you see the things FT posts? They try to hide the fact that their god is a schizo, saying love others in one hand and slay them in the other.
I don't care if it's embarrassing to the christian, maybe it'll wake them up to see their god isn't all it's cracked up to be and make them reconsider their belief. Nothing wrong with that.
nobody likes to have their faults pointed out, they like it even less to have them dwelt on.

perfect or not, still the best to come along so far.

nobody likes to have their faults pointed out, they like it even less to have them dwelt on.

Then perhaps they should have refrained from going around haughtily proclaiming that their little "god" thingy is *perfect* and "all loving".


_______________________________________

I

Ignorance being elevated above wisdom. People being told to become as children
I Cor. 1:27
I Cor. 1:19
I Cor. 4:10
Matt. 18:3

Incest: raping your sister; impregnating your daughers; marrying your sister; impregnating your daughter-in-law
II Sam. 13:1-22
Gen. 19:36
Gen. 20:12
Gen. 38:13-27

Inflicting childbirth pain as punishment
Gen. 3:16

A message to Freethinker, as he posts his efforts to create intolerance toward Christians.....

There is no *effort to create intolerance* per se.

I am simply pointing out what is written in the holy Bible.........people can look at what it says, and decide for themselves how they will view it; as being tolerant and loving, or as being vindictive and intolerant.

Your puerile and laughable --Well, <sniff sniff>, there's a lot of good stuff in there too that he is ignoring!!!!!"-- argument is kin to saying --"Well hey, Hitler wasn't that bad a person. He was kind to children at times".

If a person is a mass murderer, the fact that they happened to do a few good deeds along the way does not excuse the fact that they committed numerous murders.

The same is true for the god of the Xtians and the acts described in the ABC's of the Bible.

Then perhaps they should have refrained from going around haughtily proclaiming that their little "god" thingy is *perfect* and "all loving".

Ignorance being elevated above wisdom. People being told to become as children
I Cor. 1:27
I Cor. 1:19
I Cor. 4:10
Matt. 18:3

when have innocence and humility not been virtues?

Incest: raping your sister; impregnating your daughers; marrying your sister; impregnating your daughter-in-law
II Sam. 13:1-22
Gen. 19:36
Gen. 20:12
Gen. 38:13-27

reporting a history of a people isn't an endorsement of it. God's Laws expressly forbid such practices.

Inflicting childbirth pain as punishment
Gen. 3:16

explain biology to a person from a culture that knows nothing of human reproduction other than it takes a man and a woman, you'll be explaining it the same way.

Don't ya think it's funny how the christians only want you to see or hear about how loving and kind and gentle their god is and have a fit if you see the things FT posts? They try to hide the fact that their god is a schizo, saying love others in one hand and slay them in the other.
I don't care if it's embarrassing to the christian, maybe it'll wake them up to see their god isn't all it's cracked up to be and make them reconsider their belief. Nothing wrong with that.
For the record, I am a Buddhist, not a Christian.

So what I say is "purerile and laughable."

I fear I must disregard anything you post from now on.

For the record, I am a Buddhist, not a Christian.
You were saying he took them out of context, I don't see how. We've all heard how glorious and good god is, and that is all taken out of context then accordingly. He's just showing the flip side of gods ways, the ones that are part of and equally important to it all. Two halfs to make a whole.

perfect or not, still the best to come along so far.
That's all a matter of perspective I'd say. and experiences one has had with them.

You were saying he took them out of context, I don't see how. We've all heard how glorious and good god is, and that is all taken out of context then accordingly. He's just showing the flip side of gods ways, the ones that are part of and equally important to it all. Two halfs to make a whole.
Great non-Christians such as Mahatma Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson manage to get past these passages (while by no means ignoring them) to see the positive and helpful and healing things in the Bible.

"I don't care if it's embarrassing to the christian, maybe it'll wake them up to see their god isn't all it's cracked up to be and make them reconsider their belief. Nothing wrong with that." --Imp

That isn't what happens. The Christian already knows many such passages exist.

The liberal Christian sighs, and thinks, "There they go again, when will they ever grow up."

The fundamentalist Christian smiles and thinks, "They don't understand that God determines right and wrong, not them."

In short, this kind of debate does great harm (in stimulating hate) and no good.

"I don't care if it's embarrassing to the christian, maybe it'll wake them up to see their god isn't all it's cracked up to be and make them reconsider their belief. Nothing wrong with that." --Imp

That isn't what happens. The Christian already knows many such passages exist.

The liberal Christian sighs, and thinks, "There they go again, when will they ever grow up."

The fundamentalist Christian smiles and thinks, "They don't understand that God determines right and wrong, not them."

In short, this kind of debate does great harm (in stimulating hate) and no good.
I understand what you're saying, but what I've known of christians is they feel they have the right to judge others, call them sinners, condemn them to hell because they stand on the words of their god. They are forgiven and going to heaven in the next life and raise themselfs above a non believer.
If one don't know all that much about god teachings and hear a christian push a 'loving god' down there throat, imagine their surprise when they find that that god is very evil and not one to follow. His words contradict themselfs, don't you agree?

Just as a missionary might overemphasize the "good" in Christianity, what FT does commits the opposite offense and overemphasizes the "bad." In both cases it is card-stacking propaganda.

Originally Posted by Imp
You were saying he took them out of context, I don't see how. We've all heard how glorious and good god is, and that is all taken out of context then accordingly. He's just showing the flip side of gods ways, the ones that are part of and equally important to it all. Two halfs to make a whole.

Great non-Christians such as Mahatma Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson manage to get past these passages (while by no means ignoring them) to see the positive and helpful and healing things in the Bible.

I fully agree that there ARE many positive and helpful and healing things in the Bible! Absolutely. Yes!

But the position of Christianity in general --although i'm sure you will find some way to weasel out of admitting it-- and the way that Christians present themselves to the world and everyone in it is from a perspective of *the Bible is the perfect and holy word of the supreme, all-loving, benevolent Creator of the universe.*

If humankind is expected to see the Bible as perfect and righteous and holy, the Bible should be able to stand up to ALL of it being studied and examined.

But as your ceaseless apologies attest, the Bible can NOT withstand that sort of logical scrutiny....because to look at it with reason and with critical scutiny reveals that along with the many **positive and helpful** aspects it promotes, it ALSO contains ---written down in black and white-- inumerable occurences of evil, murder, treachery and bloody barbarism, and furthermore the wellspring of said evil, murder, treachery and bloody barbarism is the being who supposedly inspired the book itself; the Christian's god.

You yourself have admitted to and fully recognize the inherant *evil* of a god who would "test" humans by commanding a father (Abraham) to sacrifice his son.

Yes!......the god (Yahweh) of the Bible has many positive attributes rightfully ascribed to him. But if this omnipotent being does something unbelievably good one day and unconscionably evil (as you have already admitted) the next day, how can any human be expected to accept him as "all holy" or "all loving", or "all that is good and righteous"........?!?!?!?

Just as a missionary might overemphasize the "good" in Christianity, what FT does commits the opposite offense and overemphasizes the "bad."

If there is a *god* being touted as perfect and all-loving, yet it is at the same time perfectly clear by the writing contained within his OWN holy book that he has many times committed monstrous acts of evil, then I fail to see how that commission of evil can be "over-emphasized".

You seem to never recognize that when I or other atheists criticize the Christian god, we are talking about an entity that is being presented to the entire human race as being both omnipotent, AND perfectly good, perfectly kind and perfectly loving.

A book of parables and mythology written by men for mem and translated from many languages from around the known world of it's time by a group of men who were in there time called (SCRIBES) and who are in our time called (JEWISH LAWYERS.)

The word of God written by lawyers ha,ha,ha.

To the lawyer the words ill eagle represent nothing more than a sick bird and outragious fees.

Is it any wonder that these Jewish lawyers self anointed the Jews as Gods chosen people?? More ha,ha,ha.

"But the position of Christianity in general --although i'm sure you will find some way to weasel out of admitting it-- and the way that Christians present themselves to the world and everyone in it is from a perspective of *the Bible is the perfect and holy word of the supreme, all-loving, benevolent Creator of the universe.* "--FT

I don't have to "weasel" out of anything. Your statement is FALSE. It is a complete misrepresentation of the view of the majority of Christians.

First, there are Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who do not view the Bible as anything more than a divine guide, with human fingerprints all over it--hence the need for the Apostolic Succession to guide people in the religion, including the use of Scripture.

Second, there are most liberal Christians who view these stories as analagous to parables and not as history.

It amazes me that in one breath you complain about Christians picking and chosing and in another you accuse them of not picking and choosing.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]H

Hacking a man to death
I Sam. 15:33

Hanging up heads against the sun. Putting children's heads in baskets. Nailing a head to the ground
Num. 25:4, 9
II Kings 10:7
Judges 4:21

Hating, abandoning and delivering your family up to authorities. Being rude to your mother and sisters
Matt. 10:35
Matt. 10:21
Matt. 19:29


You have a problem with that???? Wait till YAHSHUA reads the list of your sins.

No it is not the truth of the propagandist. The propagandist doesn't care for truth. He has no truth, only an agenda. FT has an agenda, and truth. It's only crime is that you don't like it.


Is FT only against The Bible or is it all religions, don't se FT attacking islam , wonder why, lets hear the excuse FT, we all really know why.

Is FT only against The Bible or is it all religions, don't se FT attacking islam , wonder why, lets hear the excuse FT, we all really know why.

Why do you think it is?

Is FT only against The Bible or is it all religions, don't se FT attacking islam , wonder why, lets hear the excuse FT, we all really know why.
He doesn't attack Islam as much (but he still does sometimes), because Christianity is the religion he's exposed to the most and the religion which is most discussed on this forum because we have a lot of Christians. If there were Muslim posters to defend Islam, then I'm sure FT would find it necessary to test that ability...

He doesn't attack Islam as much (but he still does sometimes), because Christianity is the religion he's exposed to the most and the religion which is most discussed on this forum because we have a lot of Christians. If there were Muslim posters to defend Islam, then I'm sure FT would find it necessary to test that ability...

FT's ire is aimed at Christians, although he manages to take occasional swipes at religion in general.

I think it is partly political--he wants to paint the religious right as a serious political threat--so as to motivate people to move leftward politically.

I think it may also have some basis in having been a Christian and realizing he had been indoctrinated as a child. Some people react with quiet fury when they realize what was done to them and all the guilt and fear they experienced as they began to have doubts was unnecessary.

Partly it may just be immature sophomorism.

I must say trying to get him to see his own irrationality is quite a challenge, maybe one I am not up to. For example, he refuses to see how all the baddies in the OT do not add up to proof that there is no God--something I would think is obvious.

I think his worst offense, however, is to try to paint all Christians, if not all religious believers, with the broad brush of superstition and intolerance. This is just simply bad.

Is FT only against The Bible or is it all religions...

All religions.


lets hear the excuse FT, we all really know why.

Ok. Except that I gave no "excuse".

But please, by all fucking means, since you claim to know what it was, tell me.

FT's ire is aimed at Christians, although he manages to take occasional swipes at religion in general.

I think it is partly political--he wants to paint the religious right as a serious political threat--.....

True. I think they are a very dangerous threat.

Some people react with quiet fury when they realize what was done to them and all the guilt and fear they experienced as they began to have doubts was unnecessary.

My fury was a *quiet fury* for many years. It's beginning to become more vocal.

I must say trying to get him to see his own irrationality is quite a challenge, maybe one I am not up to.

You, with your proclamation that --"Why, if you want to see the evidence of god presented, just look up at the stars!....THERE is your evidence!" -- are the one truly being illogical.

Also, you are being illogical in going along with and defending the relgious dogma that says god is all-powerful and all-loving, when I have shown you innumerable instances that demonstrate the opposite. Yet you always make some irrational, illogical attepmt to obfuscate or avoid intellectually honest discussion of said contradictions.


For example, he refuses to see how all the baddies in the OT do not add up to proof that there is no God--something I would think is obvious.[/quote

It is obvious.

I have never once posited that --- ""all the baddies in the OT prove that there is no God"".

What I said was that this god of the Xtians cannot be both all-loving and all-good and at the same time commit unspeakable evil and violence.

An example of said violence would be his direct order to have hundreds or thousands of children and infants hacked to death with swords.

I am NOT --contrary to your claims-- asserting that ---

""If the god of the Christians ordered unspeakbale thing to happen (such as having hundreds of children and infants hacked to death) it is proof that he dopes not exist".

My contention is simply that --

""Since the god of the Christians ordered unspeakbale thing to happen (such as having hundreds of children and infants hacked to death) then logically he can not also be claimed to be all-loving and/or all-benevolent."

[QUOTE=Thislin]I think his worst offense, however, is to try to paint all Christians, if not all religious believers, with the broad brush of superstition and intolerance. This is just simply bad.

Are ALL Christians intolerant? NO...certainly not. I'd say that a small fraction of them are not.

Are there tens of millions of them in this country who ARE intolerant, who sway the elections of (invariably far-Right) public officials with their votes, and whose position regarding "non-believers" is that if they do not take up their belief in Christ that they will not go to heaven? Yes.

By definition, do all Christians believe in the supernatural?? Yes.

True. I think they are a very dangerous threat.

And here you are way off base. Fundamentalist Christianity has been steadily decreasing in influence over the last century, if not longer. I remember when you couldn't buy alcohol on Sunday anywhere, and when businesses had to be closed. I remember when evolution was avoided in biology class. I remember when gay bars were regularly raided by the police, even in San Francisco. I remember when all abortion was a criminal offense--everywhere.

I think you have poor appreciation of the American government's checks and balances if you think they are a real danger. There is always theoretical possibility, but fear-mongering for political ends is wrong.

My fury was a *quiet fury* for many years. It's beginning to become more vocal.

Yours is a common reaction, but I think an unfortunate one (for you). It was done to me too, and when I realized it during college, it did not cause me to reject all religion, nor to hate those relatives who were so dogmatic. They were doing what they thought was right, no matter how deluded that may have been. The fault, if anywhere, is in the accidents of history.

You, with your proclamation that --"Why, if you want to see the evidence of god presented, just look up at the stars!....THERE is your evidence!" -- are the one truly being illogical.

Also, you are being illogical in going along with and defending the religious dogma that says god is all-powerful and all-loving, when I have shown you innumerable instances that demonstrate the opposite. Yet you always make some irrational, illogical attempt to obfuscate or avoid intellectually honest discussion of said contradictions.

I see you don't read closely, and perhaps only think about how to respond while you are reading, thereby missing the point. That is a bad habit. Read what is posted first, then decide how to respond second.

The stars, as I indicated, taken as a proxy for the comprehensibility of the universe (the fact that science is possible and that mathematics exists) are evidence (not "proof") for God. That is a far different assertion than the one you paint me making. Now I have stated my original assertion much more carefully here. In my original statement I assumed (wrongly) that you were aware of the nature of this argument and would not distort it. I guess I was wrong one one or both points.

I would recommend the exchange with Vilepagan on the subject--he got into it much better, and raised points that I cannot resolve (although of course I was not persuaded by his argument, either).

On the matter of the all-loving, etc., God, how you could possibly have demonstrated the opposite. This would be quite an achievement. I think the ideas contradict themselves ("reductio ad absurdum") when viewed self-referentially, but there is no possibly worldly event that could make such a demonstration.

Originally Posted by Thislin --I think it is partly political--he wants to paint the religious right as a serious political threat--.....

Originally Posted by Freethinker
True. I think they are a very dangerous threat.

And here you are way off base. Fundamentalist Christianity has been steadily decreasing in influence over the last century, if not longer.

I see you don't read closely. The subject was not *Fundamentalist Christianity*. The subject was the *religious Right* in America.

I view the latter entity --while encompassing the former-- as being many times as large as the former.

I think you have poor appreciation of the American government's checks and balances if you think they are a real danger. There is always theoretical possibility, but fear-mongering for political ends is wrong.

They are a *danger* --among other reasons-- simply by the type of narrow-minded religious authoritarians their huge voting bloc causes to be placed in seats of political power.........not to mention their influencing various Christian fanatics like Antonin Scalia (among others) being placed in the highest realms of judicial power.

I see you don't read closely. The subject was not *Fundamentalist Christianity*. The subject was the *religious Right* in America.

I view the latter entity --while encompassing the former-- as being many times as large as the former.


This is something new. In order to undermine the obvious fact that religious fundamentalist influence in America is decreasing (kinda putting some reality into your scare tactics), you now draw a distinction between fundamentalism and the "religious right."

This strikes me as playing fast and loose with definitions as it suits your polemics, so I would appreciate a little more detail.

(Let me observe that I observe Roman Catholics as becoming less and less fundamentalist, going the opposite way as has gone the clergy).

The stars, as I indicated, taken as a proxy for the comprehensibility of the universe (the fact that science is possible and that mathematics exists) are evidence (not "proof") for God.

<sigh> Ok. Once again.

NO, the existence of the stars --whether taken for a proxy of something else or not-- do not comprise ANY *evidence* WHATSOEVER of any "god".

It is exactly akin to claiming that the aurora borealis provides us with "evidence" of the existence of rainbow fairies.

When we have NO idea how something came about, we cannot simply say --"Welp, god musta done it!"-- and pass it off as being some sort of "evidence".

On the matter of the all-loving, etc., God, how you could possibly have demonstrated the opposite.

I submit that a supernaural being who is "all loving and omnipotent" would not order infants hacked to death with swords.

<sigh> Ok. Once again.

NO, the existence of the stars --whether taken for a proxy of something else or not-- do not comprise ANY *evidence* WHATSOEVER of any "god".

You can't "declare" something to not be evidence, and your paralell to the fairies is absurd. The aurora would also be evidence of God.

One other thing--your "sigh" was condescending and therfore I take it as a personal insult. I am an adult and don't need a nanny who sometimes has to sigh to keep patience.

One other thing--your "sigh" was condescending .......

Yes, admittedly, it was.

But then, I cannot understand how any sane, adult human would be incapable of comprehending just how irrational and insupportable the -----"The stars provide evidence of God!"----- assertion is.

For the third time, it is apparent that you and I have radically different interpretations of the word **evidence**.

K

Kidnapping virgins for sex partners
Judges 21:7-14

Killing a child to punish the father
II Sam. 12:14

Killing all your grandchildren and nephews
II Kings 11:1
II Kings 10:13-14

Killing all your servants
II Kings 14:5-7

Killing a man's children and replacing them with another set
Book of Job

Killing everyone breathing
Num. 21:35
Joshua 8:26
Deut. 20:16
Num. 21:3
Joshua 9:11-21
Joshua 10:28-40

Killing man, woman, infant, suckling
I Sam. 15:3
Deut. 3:6

Killing your brothers
Gen. 4:8
II Chron. 21:4
Ex. 32:37
Judges 9:5

Killing your enemies with swords, hailstones, slingshots, arrows, and by crushing, fiery serpents and hornet stings, flaying off their skin and whipping them to death with an animal bone and an ax goad
Judges 3:31
Judges 16:27, 30
Judges 15:14
I Kings 20:28-30
Ex. 9:25
Deut. 13:15
Num. 21:6
Deut. 32:23-25
Deut: 7:20

Killing 50,000 innocent persons because a few looked into a box
I Sam. 6:19

You can't "declare" something to not be evidence, and your paralell to the fairies is absurd. The aurora would also be evidence of God.
What ridiculousness. Claiming the other is absurd, all the while asserting even more foolish arguments.

Yes, admittedly, it was.

But then, I cannot understand how any sane, adult human would be incapable of comprehending just how irrational and insupportable the -----"The stars provide evidence of God!"----- assertion is.

For the third time, it is apparent that you and I have radically different interpretations of the word **evidence**.

Perhaps that is your problem, you cannot understand how any rational person can have opinions different than yours. This is a species of arrogance and will serve you poorly in life.

I would suggest you look up the word "evidence." Pretty much anything submitted in favor of a proposition is evidence. What is persuasive evidence is another matter and varies from person to person.

My fingernail is evidence of God.

My fingernail is evidence of God.
A dandelion is evidence of God! GOD EXISTS, I SAW A DANDELION!!!

There's a six month old bag of jellybeans on my desk. If that isn't proof of god, I don't know what is.

Perhaps that is your problem, you cannot understand how any rational person can have opinions different than yours. This is a species of arrogance and will serve you poorly in life.

I would suggest you look up the word "evidence." Pretty much anything submitted in favor of a proposition is evidence. What is persuasive evidence is another matter and varies from person to person.

There has to be a threshold of credibility when presenting evidence. As was suggested rather poorly by the previous posters, not all things can be accepted as evidence of God merely on the opinion of another.

Thank god we have you around, VP, to make evident our points, which Thislin would be all too happy to ignore otherwise. Teamwork! :)

Perhaps that is your problem, you cannot understand how any rational person can have opinions different than yours.

I can understand people with different opinions very well, thank you.

Presenting *evidence* --contrary to your twisted idea of what consittutes evidence-- has nothing to do with "opinion".

If you call something *evidence*, it should comprise credible, demonstrable evidence.

If you walked into a formal debate and were taking the side of providing evidence for the existence of God, and your stated position was --""Well, you see, there are stars up in the sky. We can all see them. Ergo, God exists"" -- you'd be laughed off the debate platform.


I would suggest you look up the word "evidence."

Okey dokey. I have been full well intending to do just that, but I wanted to let you embarrass youself a bit more before I did.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ev·i·dence n.,

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

BZZZZZZZZZZT.

Your ridiculous assertion that -- ""There are stars in the sky. Ergo, we see evidence that God exists"" -- fails description number one.

Merely observing the stars no more comprises "evidence of god" than an iceberg comprises 'evidence' of gigantic unseen refrigerators.


ev·i·dence n.,

2. Something indicative; an outward sign:

BZZZZZZZZZZT.

Your ridiculous assertion that -- ""There are stars in the sky. Ergo, we see evidence that God exists"" -- fails description number two.

Seeing the stars themselves does indeed provide evidence that stars exist...............but not "god".

ev·i·dence, v.,

3.To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.


BZZZZZZZZZZT.

Your ridiculous assertion that -- ""There are stars in the sky. Ergo, we see evidence that God exists"" -- fails description number three.

I think that even an individual like yourself, who obviously has no idea (or, at least who HAD no idea until just now when I supplied him the dictionary definition) whatsoever of the meaning of the word *evidence* will have to admit that observing a star does not constitute *proof* of the existence of anything.......except the star itself.

I submit that a supernaural being who is "all loving and omnipotent" would not order infants hacked to death with swords.

If such a god existed, he/it might not view the human death as we do.
Death, pain, or mental suffering could merely be stimulation factors to the energy being(soul) with-in.
If the god himself is some sort of energy being, I do not see how he could have ever experienced pain or death, as we experience it, other than as an observer.
It may turn out that these things are some sort of high for energy beings and regrets are merely human responses.

[/QUOTE]There has to be a threshold of credibility when presenting evidence. As was suggested rather poorly by the previous posters, not all things can be accepted as evidence of God merely on the opinion of another.

I am curious what threshold is needed if the fact of order in the universe cannot be attributed to intelligence. Frankly this seems perfectly reasonable and is widely accepted as evidence of God. That an argument is "widely acceptable" is not proof of anything, but I think testifies that this meets any reasonable threshold as evidence.

The other possibility is that order derives from necessity--things could not possibly be otherwise. I suppose there could be a third possibility, but I am not aware of any.

Reading this I need to elaborate. By "order" I don't mean trivial things like the fact that stars don't collide with each other--but fundamental things, like the fact that the mathematics we derive from fundamental principles works when applied to the universe--or the fact that the scientific enterprise is possible at all--that the universe is not chaotic.

These can of course be interpreted various ways, and in fact I don't subscribe to the theist interpretation anyway, but I strongly object to the gross distortions found elsewhere on this board as to the nature of this evidence. It is not "utterly absent," it is not "ridiculous," it is not the equivalent of fairy dust.

My presence here is not to argue the theist case but only to argue that it is not as unreasonable as others on this board try to paint it. Tolerance comes only from the recognition that others reach their opinions with just as much wisdom and care as we do, even though these opinions differ from ours. Understanding the other's arguments is important--not to be able to refute them but to understand them.

I can understand people with different opinions very well, thank you.

Presenting *evidence* --contrary to your twisted idea of what consittutes evidence-- has nothing to do with "opinion".



If you can't discuss, but have to engage in insults, please refrain from reading what I post, or at least don't bother responding. From now on the first unnecessary derogatory comment found in any response from you will cause me to stop reading and go on to the next person.

If such a god existed, he/it might not view the human death as we do.
Death, pain, or mental suffering could merely be stimulation factors to the energy being(soul) with-in.
If the god himself is some sort of energy being, I do not see how he could have ever experienced pain or death, as we experience it, other than as an observer.
It may turn out that these things are some sort of high for energy beings and regrets are merely human responses.

I ask you to stop and think a moment and tell me your personal opinion of a king who orders infants hacked to death? This is an emotional appeal, but I am sure you can see where Bible critics are coming from on this. We must be careful to avoid rationalizing human suffering.

However, your response is logical--for all we know those infants await a glorious future--but we don't know this, and, besides, think of the mothers.

Your description of God is that of a superman. An omniscient god would know what human suffering is, and would even "experience" it as we experience it.

I ask you to stop and think a moment and tell me your personal opinion of a king who orders infants hacked to death? This is an emotional appeal, but I am sure you can see where Bible critics are coming from on this. We must be careful to avoid rationalizing human suffering.

However, your response is logical--for all we know those infants await a glorious future--but we don't know this, and, besides, think of the mothers.

Your description of God is that of a superman. An omniscient god would know what human suffering is, and would even "experience" it as we experience it.

My response was to the statement of a supernatural being ordering the death of infants, not a human.
My description of a possible god being energy is because of its(energys) basic principle of not being destroyed, merely redirected.
A god could be omniscient without being compassionate.
The experience you speak of could be merely a roller coaster ride at an amusement park called earth.

You asked of my personal opinion, that would be that no god was involved in the death order of infants. My belief is that men use the possibility of a god to condone personal acts and personal beliefs.

My response was to the statement of a supernatural being ordering the death of infants, not a human.

<<<I don't see where a supernatural being would be subject to different moral rules than a human being? Does being supernatural give one the right to do evil?>>>

My description of a possible god being energy is because of its(energys) basic principle of not being destroyed, merely redirected.

<<<Energy is a physical thing--in fact we are composed of matter, which is only a form of energy (you probably already know that). "Supernatural" to me means something else. An "energy" being would be, I suppose, different, but still of a material nature.>>>

A god could be omniscient without being compassionate.
The experience you speak of could be merely a roller coaster ride at an amusement park called earth.

<<<Oh I agree with that. You said that it might not feel what we feel, and I only pointed out that if it were omniscient it would--that to not feel what we feel it would have to be something less.>>>

You asked of my personal opinion, that would be that no god was involved in the death order of infants. My belief is that men use the possibility of a god to condone personal acts and personal beliefs.

<<<Yes, of course you are right from a historical perspective; what is going on, however, is the use of these stories to paint religion as evil (this objective is not made implicit, but can be inferred from the tactics). Your point is better. All we really learn from such stories is that people can use ideology (including religion) to justify evil.>>>


--Martin

I am curious what threshold is needed if the fact of order in the universe cannot be attributed to intelligence. Frankly this seems perfectly reasonable and is widely accepted as evidence of God. That an argument is "widely acceptable" is not proof of anything, but I think testifies that this meets any reasonable threshold as evidence.
You're being very slippery here, interchanging God with "intelligence causing order in the universe." At any rate, it's not a logical idea, and no set of evidence can prove something so illogical. People do not believe in God for rational reasons, no matter what they might tell you. They do it out of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of death.

Instead of trying to provide evidence for God, or "intelligent order in the universe," I would first try to prove that God can be treated as a logical entity. More fruitful I think would be solving all the problems inherent in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity. There are so many logical problems with God that to even posit His existence to atheist logicians is to invoke immediate contempt and ridicule. It's a very simple logical error, putting the cart before the horse, but it doesn't stop amateur theologians from hammering and hammering on that using every manner of ridiculous argument causing no end of exasperation amongst the less jaded atheists who are only trying to give the would-be logician the interactions he wants.

You're being very slippery here, interchanging God with "intelligence causing order in the universe."

<<What is "slippery" about that? Wouldn't an "intelligence causing order in the universe" be called "God" by most people? Of course you are right that it need not be a personality--but again it could be.>>

At any rate, it's not a logical idea, and no set of evidence can prove something so illogical.

<<Your opinion here; I think it is perfectly possible, and hence is of course logical.>>

People do not believe in God for rational reasons, no matter what they might tell you. They do it out of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of death.

<<Of course the reason most people believe in God is because they were taught this as a child. I think the "fear" bit is untrue--on the same order of validity as a theist saying that the reason people are atheists is that they don't want to obey God's moral rules.>>

Instead of trying to provide evidence for God, or "intelligent order in the universe," I would first try to prove that God can be treated as a logical entity.

<<That is a different issue--address the logicality of certain ideas of God (omniscient, etc) rather than whether or not there can be said to be evidence of God's existence. The main problem with questioning God's logicality is that an all-encompassing ("omni'") being might seem illogical to us with our finite perspective. There are lots of things about infinity that are rather mind-boggling, if not "illogical" as it is, without introducing being into it.>>

More fruitful I think would be solving all the problems inherent in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity. There are so many logical problems with God that to even posit His existence to atheist logicians is to invoke immediate contempt and ridicule.

<<I am aware of the logical problems--in fact I posted a message about some of them just last week. I do think you exaggerate a bit here, though, since these problems have been around a long time and a lot of acute, profound, theologists are aware too, but still believe. Don't be too quick to ridicule those who may be much smarter and better informed than you are; it may be that you don't understand rather than that they are dumb.

By the way, I think you err in assuming an intelligent being who gives order to the universe has to be omniscient or omnipotent or whatever. Our particular cosmos might be a "do it yourself" kids project in a garage in some super-advanced civilization. We would only see the resulting order and not see the details.>>

--Martin

What is "slippery" about that? Wouldn't an "intelligence causing order in the universe" be called "God" by most people? Of course you are right that it need not be a personality--but again it could be.
There's a difference in ideas between Biblegod and that intelligence thing. If you mean to equate them, than I would be all for it. Just don't start saying, "I don't mean Biblegod, I mean intelligent order!" whenever people start attacking your ideas as such.

Your opinion here; I think it is perfectly possible, and hence is of course logical.
Simply because it is possible, doesn't make it logical. Any number of conclusions made can be possible, it just so happens that no logical inference can be made concerning them. Which is why you get all the comparisons of Christianity to Flying Spaghetti Monsters, jellybeans, and tree fairys. The only reason Biblegod is taken seriously is because, as you say, believers are taught from an early age. Had the world been taught of the Flying Spaghetti monster from birth, they would think of Biblegod as the same sort of abomination as you think of tree fairys.

I am aware of the logical problems--in fact I posted a message about some of them just last week. I do think you exaggerate a bit here, though, since these problems have been around a long time and a lot of acute, profound, theologists are aware too, but still believe. Don't be too quick to ridicule those who may be much smarter and better informed than you are; it may be that you don't understand rather than that they are dumb.
I am also well aware of the centuries of thought pertaining to the study of these questions. I ridicule because it's a very easy way of sifting apart those with real understanding from the posers, because it's fun, and because I'm good at it. If you are so insistent that the answers to these questions exist, why do you not simply hand them over instead of holding them over my head as an absurd excuse to try to moderate my behavior? Why do these theologians still believe? I already have an answer, yet you discard my answer as too simplistic, yet you fail to offer any answer of your own.

There's a difference in ideas between Biblegod and that intelligence thing. If you mean to equate them, than I would be all for it. Just don't start saying, "I don't mean Biblegod, I mean intelligent order!" whenever people start attacking your ideas as such.

<<What I attacked was FT's repeated assertion that there is "absolutely no evidence of any God." Now you seem to be trying to change that into Bible god. I think I am not the "slippery" one here.>>

Simply because it is possible, doesn't make it logical.

<<I guess we went to different rhetoric schools. The way to show something is impossible, I was taught, is by "reductio ad absurdum" (demonstrate that the premise leads to a logical contradiction). Hence if it is illogical it is impossible. Otherwise, well, it is not impossible.>>

Any number of conclusions made can be possible, it just so happens that no logical inference can be made concerning them.

<<That doesn't make sense to me>>.

Which is why you get all the comparisons of Christianity to Flying Spaghetti Monsters, jellybeans, and tree fairies.

<<You get these comparisons for cynical, not rational reasons. If someone comes to me and claims to believe in leprechauns (and I know those who do), I do not dismiss his belief just because he cannot provide me evidence (although they do in fact produce it--again a matter of convincing and unconvincing evidence). The very fact of human belief requires, at least to the believer, either a position of agnosticism on the subject or the production of opposing evidence. Have you ever seen the play "Equus" where the guy thinks he's a horse?>>

The only reason Biblegod is taken seriously is because, as you say, believers are taught from an early age. Had the world been taught of the Flying Spaghetti monster from birth, they would think of Biblegod as the same sort of abomination as you think of tree fairies.

<<That is hypothesis contrary to fact.>>

I am also well aware of the centuries of thought pertaining to the study of these questions. I ridicule because it's a very easy way of sifting apart those with real understanding from the posers, because it's fun, and because I'm good at it.

<<Are you sure you aren't a poser? I think it would be well to avoid making such judgments of others. I don't think you are "good at it"--that is perhaps a self-impression. I would say being "good at it" would not be your ability to anger people, but your ability to change minds.>>

If you are so insistent that the answers to these questions exist, why do you not simply hand them over instead of holding them over my head as an absurd excuse to try to moderate my behavior?

<<I'm not sure why I would like to moderate your behavior, but can think of several possibilities. Probably the most likely is because your behavior serves to rigidify those you mock in their beliefs, and some of these beliefs, we will agree, are delusional and even harmful. Another possible reason is because I see a reflection of myself in people like you when I was in college, and I would like to warn you off of it.

<<I don't know that I have said I have answers to anything. As for the omniscient self-referential contradictions, in the last message I posted to you I provided the answer a Paulist Father might provide--that finite beings trying to understand the infinite are bound to misunderstand a lot of things and perceive them as logical problems when in fact they are not.>>

Why do these theologians still believe? I already have an answer, yet you discard my answer as too simplistic, yet you fail to offer any answer of your own.

<<They believe because it is their faith, even after rigorous analysis. I admire this, although it is not in my nature.>>

--Martin

Although I hear you say, "I ridicule because it's a very easy way of sifting apart those with real understanding from the posers, because it's fun, and because I'm good at it." I think you're actually doing yourself great harm by continuing this tough-guy know-it-all charade. I've noticed lately that some of your posts reveal how morbidly depressed you actually are and I think your little 'I don't believe in God' routine is only adding to that condition.

JMHO, of course... but I strongly advise you to seek counseling if you're not already there. It's very unhealthy for a young man to have such jaded views of life (I'm referring to your post in the discussion with OD about 'friends'). And I think we ALL need to believe we serve a higher purpose on this earth than to ridicule and intimidate those who would do us no harm.

:flowers:
SMW

What I attacked was FT's repeated assertion that there is "absolutely no evidence of any God."
Fine. I'd jumped in without doing proper reading of what exactly was going on. That was mostly an aside to the main thrust of my post.

The way to show something is impossible, I was taught, is by "reductio ad absurdum"
The realm of possibility isn't typically governed by logic, which concerns itself with the structure and categorization of arguments and statements. That's more accurately covered by metaphysics. Nor does rhetoric touch the question, which concerns itself with the art of persuasion through oral and written means, as well as the study of meaning.

You get these comparisons for cynical, not rational reasons.
It's a snippier way of putting it, but the underlying arguments are the same. It is logic, the invalidation of a line of argument through comparison to fallacy, mixed with rhetoric, which couches the argument in a powerfully persuasive form. I'm sorry if you reject the argument, but you should argue the logic of the argument, then seek to couch your counter-argument in a similar rhetorical fashion, not merely attack the rhetorical forms.

Are you sure you aren't a poser? I think it would be well to avoid making such judgments of others. I don't think you are "good at it"--that is perhaps a self-impression. I would say being "good at it" would not be your ability to anger people, but your ability to change minds.
I can say that I am good at it, because I can immediately back it up by demonstrating exactly what I mean, to the person who would question me. After enough such confrontations, most people refrain from countering my assertion. See, Thislin, ridiculing people almost amounts to a calling in life for me. It might well be the only thing I'm really good at, so I will take pride in it.

Probably the most likely is because your behavior serves to rigidify those you mock in their beliefs, and some of these beliefs, we will agree, are delusional and even harmful.
For a while, it will, but it serves to call immediate, scathing attention to false methods of thinking. The greater I can tear down a person's false thinking, the quicker they will come to realize exactly what it is that is so objectionable. But it isn't like I operate completely autonomously. Certain people here, if they were to voice an objection, I would take seriously instead of as a challenge.

that finite beings trying to understand the infinite are bound to misunderstand a lot of things and perceive them as logical problems when in fact they are not.
This is not proper argument, and instead, is more apologetics. It presumes the existence of intelligence and argues from that stance.

Although I hear you say, "I ridicule because it's a very easy way of sifting apart those with real understanding from the posers, because it's fun, and because I'm good at it." I think you're actually doing yourself great harm by continuing this tough-guy know-it-all charade. I've noticed lately that some of your posts reveal how morbidly depressed you actually are and I think your little 'I don't believe in God' routine is only adding to that condition.

JMHO, of course... but I strongly advise you to seek counseling if you're not already there. It's very unhealthy for a young man to have such jaded views of life (I'm referring to your post in the discussion with OD about 'friends'). And I think we ALL need to believe we serve a higher purpose on this earth than to ridicule and intimidate those who would do us no harm.

:flowers:
SMW
Why don't you come sit on my lap, cupcake, and tell me all about it. I'll listen, promise!

The realm of possibility isn't typically governed by logic, which concerns itself with the structure and categorization of arguments and statements.

I would say the realm of possibility is the only thing where logic and only logic applies. You can sometimes use logic to deduce that assertions, or "premises" contradict themselves when explored in detail, especially when explored in self-reference. When you do this you can firmly say that the premise is impossible.

It is of course possible that things that are impossible don't contradict themselves, but this is speculative since we could never produce an example. The realm of reality, of things that actually do exist, is a subset of things that are possible, but we cannot say if it is actually smaller.

It's a snippier way [cynicism] of putting it, but the underlying arguments are the same. It is logic, the invalidation of a line of argument through comparison to fallacy, mixed with rhetoric, which couches the argument in a powerfully persuasive form.

I view cynicism as being the non-belief parallel of credulity. It is an emotional rather than a rational refusal to believe. The skeptic will not believe until shown, the cynic will not believe even when shown.

I don't think rhetoric helps the cynic much, since others soon tire of it. The skeptic, on the other hand, often needs rhetoric to convey his doubts.

I'm sorry if you reject the argument, but you should argue the logic of the argument, then seek to couch your counter-argument in a similar rhetorical fashion, not merely attack the rhetorical forms.

Sorry but your assertion here is absurd, I think because you do not bother to read carefully or I do not explain well.

I can say that I am good at it, because I can immediately back it up by demonstrating exactly what I mean, to the person who would question me.

You claim this, and I will watch for it, but it is not now my impression.

After enough such confrontations, most people refrain from countering my assertion. See, Thislin, ridiculing people almost amounts to a calling in life for me. It might well be the only thing I'm really good at, so I will take pride in it.

They may refrain because you bore them, or because you have angered them and they don't want to express anger, or because they have to go to work. I think you presume too much from people who, at some point, give up. The ability to allow others to have the last word is admirable.

I am not one to psychoanalyze, but getting fun out of ridiculing others strikes me as similar to the pleasure people get watching the Picadors torture the bull. If it is as successful as you think, you must have a marked sadistic streak. I can say that you have other skills--your English is well presented and literate, so I would recommend applying them to something other than ridicule.

This [the Paulist Father's argument] is not proper argument, and instead, is more apologetics. It presumes the existence of intelligence and argues from that stance.

Assigning a label to an argument does not refute it--it does not even address it.


--Martin

Which is why you get all the comparisons of Christianity to Flying Spaghetti Monsters, jellybeans, and tree fairys. The only reason Biblegod is taken seriously is because, as you say, believers are taught from an early age. Had the world been taught of the Flying Spaghetti monster from birth, they would think of Biblegod as the same sort of abomination as you think of tree fairys.


You are not the only apostle of The Supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster, brother Napsterbater.

Many people worship the deity that is the one true pasta-devouring God. And His comfort, bread-sticks, & solace are available to all true believers, not just a chosen few. Read the King Boudreaux version of the Bible, and all will be clear to you:

Our salvation does not lie at the foot of a giant spaghetti tree;
- Ch. 98 - Not a vermicelli-bearing sapling, but rather some other manner of non-deciduous tree: Spontaneous 32:40.... Steve 19:22-31.
....34:20 He protects all his conifers, not one of them will be broken. (Oakland 9, Kansas City 7)

- Jake.22:30hrs- And about the eight or ninth hour, a little too early for lunch, but way past breakfast, the Flying Spaghetti Monster proclaimed with a loud voice, saying, Elvis, Elvis, are you hungry too? that is to say, My God, my God, why did the King of rock & roll have to die on a toilet seat, and what is taking them so long with my order, it’s just some skinny noodles and a tomato-based meat sauce? What the hell??

- Chicago 25 or 6 to 4 - Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Ohio! Shout, Son of Louisiana! See, your flying spaghetti monster comes to you, righteous and having filled up at the pasta-bar, more or less, gentle and riding on a Honda, on a 4-stroke, bearing gifts of frankincense, myrrh, and Schlitz Malt Liquor. (Geddy 21:12)

All praise indeed be upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he too will rise again. And his serving spoon-like but terrible swift sword will strike down the unrighteous, the disingenuous, and the falsifiers. The day of reckoning is coming soon, for the Seven Squirrels of the Apocalypse have told me so.

So it was written, and so shall it be further interpreted and stretched to fit somebody else's peculiar purposes. (Sparky 47 1/2)

I would say the realm of possibility is the only thing where logic and only logic applies.
Once again, logic is not some magical rule that the entire universe has to follow. It's a system for categorising and structuring arguments. It is a human system, not something God dreamt up himself. You are now making the same mistake in the other direction. Any argument that claims to explain the universe should be, but doesn't have to, be logically sound. If it isn't, that will only limit the amount of people who believe in it, because all illogical arguments can be more or less grouped together in the same category of belief.

I view cynicism as being the non-belief parallel of credulity. It is an emotional rather than a rational refusal to believe.
That's a crock of shit. Cynicism has a long history in the timeline of philosophy. It is generally thought to have been started with the Greek philosopher Antisthenes. It's most famous proponent was Diogenes of Sinope, a man whose stories I'm well acquainted with. If you cannot ever learn to appreciate cynicism in either its modern day form or it's philosophical form, I'm afraid there's no hope for our ever coming to respect one another.

I can say that you have other skills--your English is well presented and literate, so I would recommend applying them to something other than ridicule.
In order for me to take anything you say seriously, you must first convince me that you are a man of wit, grace, decisiveness, and penetrating wisdom. I see none of these in your posts. Sorry Charlie.

Assigning a label to an argument does not refute it--it does not even address it.
Foolishness. I shall restate. You cannot argue a stance by presuming it's true and then apologizing for why we cannot see it that way.

Eating human flesh and drinking human blood
John 6:53



"Passage John 6:53:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

ES is right, freethinker insults and attacks christians for being to literal with the bible then turns around and uses literal intepretations to attack them again. I really think this freethinker guy had some bad issues with chritians growing up. He isnt just intolerant of them, he seems to actually hate them with a passion. he hates christians more then he claims christians hate muslims.

So let me get this straight;

Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is wrong?

yes. But, we should do it, because the bible says in plain english we should eat flesh and drink blood :rolleyes:

If you can't discuss, but have to engage in insults, please refrain from reading what I post, or at least don't bother responding.

Way ahead of you, Captain Imperious.

I had already decided to do both.

I do not think you can be reached with logic.

Take your simpleminded --""Just look at the stars! There is your evidence that God exists!""-- nonsense and go your merry way.

I'm done.

Way ahead of you, Captain Imperious.

I had already decided to do both.

I do not think you can be reached with logic.

Take your simpleminded --""Just look at the stars! There is your evidence that God exists!""-- nonsense and go your merry way.

I'm done.
Thislin is a nontheist.

Apparently anyone who doesnt say "your right freethinker" is a gawd fearin' redneck.

Thislin is a nontheist.
"Nontheist." That is a good word. "Atheist," the word I usually use to describe myself (since "agnonistic" doesn't apply--I am quite sure there is no God) is misleading in several ways.

Non-thense.

That’s what I call this entire discussion. You guys walked into one of FT’s many “if you believe in God you’re a slack-jawed, drooling, bugger-eating moron” postings, and tried to turn it into some sort of a debate. Said debate eventually meandered way beyond the point of reason/logic, and into the realm of the ‘intellectual pissing contest’.

And as is usually the case, this pissing contest has the participants posturing themselves with their arms folded firmly across their chests, and defending whatever convenient label or ‘category’ someone has chosen for them to define themselves.
“I’m a theist.”
Atheist.
Agnostic.
Dem, lib.
Gun totin’ Republican.
Socialist.

*Pfft* Who gives a shit?
Why in the world pigeon-hole yourselves like this, and then ramble on ad-nauseum in an argumentative fashion trying to defend your pop-culture label?

If FT’s original intention was to force the audience to ponder the question of the origins of the Bible, the origins of our belief-systems & Dogma, and indeed the origins of our popular and/or secular cultures, then I’d say right on.

But as it is, his intent was to anger and agitate those who would defend their perception or culturally-influenced standard/illusion of God as a loving, benevolent presence. He ridicules that notion, and uses your Bible to rub your noses in the apparent contradictions. “Your GAWD would slay innocent babies with a sword. SEE?”

FT, in his own peculiar angry and tunnel-visioned manner, has attempted to create an alternative reality for the great, unwashed masses. (One that some of you have come to embrace as your own.) “There is no God, and your entire system of beliefs & cultural norms is based upon a fabric of lies and fairy tales.”

The more interesting discussion (and Napster alluded to it) might be this:
If a charismatic individual believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or a jar of jelly beans) is the one true road to our collective salvation, and he or she sells enough people on that concept, haven't we in effect proven how pop culture, political exigency, and the will of the strong-minded over the will of the weak-minded can create a whole new reality for the masses?

“There is no God, and your entire system of beliefs & cultural norms is based upon a fabric of lies and fairy tales.”
I've thought this for years.

Actually, Sparky, I doubt any of the participants in this discussion feel like it's anything more than an intellectual pissing contest. The debates in R+P always tend to wend that way. What else would you call a debate over which system of thought is better?

The good arguments here, well, they're few and far between. The problem, as you say, is the dearth of good questions being asked. But even if someone does ask a good question, it typically gets ignored in favor of more macho posturing.

Actually, Sparky, I doubt any of the participants in this discussion feel like it's anything more than an intellectual pissing contest. The debates in R+P always tend to wend that way. What else would you call a debate over which system of thought is better?

Speak for yourself and only for yourself. I think the issues involved are much more than intellectual games.

The good arguments here, well, they're few and far between. The problem, as you say, is the dearth of good questions being asked. But even if someone does ask a good question, it typically gets ignored in favor of more macho posturing.

Don't project your own behavior. I reject that description.

--Martin

Speak for yourself and only for yourself. I think the issues involved are much more than intellectual games.

Don't project your own behavior. I reject that description.
See, what I mean, Sparky? Ignoring your question in favor of posturing. I do it too, of course, but I do it willfully, in hopes that people might decide to ignore me once in awhile, and the others, and just have a good discussion. Most people just do it unconsciously. Or they'll ignore me, and then go on to do the same thing with less difficult opponents. The problem, if you choose to call it one, is a bit more intractable than that, and simply making posts like your last one, isn't going to get anywhere.

Non-thense.

Your derogatory comment reminds me of Lady Windermere, (In Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of being Earnest") where she comments about those who decry "society." (I tried to find the exact quote but did not succeed). Her gist is that those who are not part of it always find "society" distasteful.

The debate was real enough, but there was no way you could be part of it, since it was a debate between two atheists of different stripes.

[/QUOTE]

See, what I mean, Sparky? Ignoring your question in favor of posturing. I do it too, of course, but I do it willfully, in hopes that people might decide to ignore me once in awhile, and the others, and just have a good discussion. Most people just do it unconsciously. Or they'll ignore me, and then go on to do the same thing with less difficult opponents. The problem, if you choose to call it one, is a bit more intractable than that, and simply making posts like your last one, isn't going to get anywhere.

What's wrong? It seems you think you lost the debate, while I don't think of it as debate but discussion, so I don't need to posture.

You really are a hypocrite talking about others "posturing." I didn't respond to your last message on the matter because it was nothing but posturing. I was not going to say anything, but now that you make these accusations and I just can't resist.

Psh, whatever, loser buddha-boy sissy. You keep nannying and carrying on whenever shit doesn't go your way. I don't give a damn, anymore, if I ever did. Blob said you couldn't be dealt with meaningfully, and he's the best and most informed AFN has got, so I cease to be intrigued by your boring-ass retarded "everyone's so cynical! Why can't we all straddle both sides of the fence!" rants.

Yikes.

And so the intellectual debate has gone totally down the toilet.

Your derogatory comment reminds me of Lady Windermere, (In Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of being Earnest") where she comments about those who decry "society."
The debate was real enough, but there was no way you could be part of it, since it was a debate between two atheists of different stripes.


It's a free-access forum.
Technically I supposed I could be a part of it if I chose to conveniently label myself in one manner or another.
But I reject such labeling.

Just as I reject FT's attempts to antagonize and agitate.
I find the notion of people in the internet shoving their anti-religious sentiments down my throat just as offensive as I do some overly-religious types knocking on my door and trying to offer salvation.

Anyway, please carry on.
I didn't mean to intrude upon such high-brow discourse as yours and Nappy's.

I'm done.
unlikely:rolleyes:

Yikes.

And so the intellectual debate has gone totally down the toilet.
It's a free-access forum.


Absolutely. You could interject any time you wanted to, but you were not a party of interest and therefore naturally rather out of it, even if you had. Lady Windermere's point was that those not in something will naturally decry it, but they shouldn't.

I don't appreciate your trying to paint the discussion as posturing. It seems Napster may have been, but I think the question of whether there is evidence of God, and in particular whether the seeming order of the universe can be taken as evidence of God, is important.

I think I will elaborate a little on the importance of the question. There seems to be order in the universe--the fact that science is possible--that our inferences and our theories and our mathematics seems to actually describe, and, more important, provide means for us to understand the universe, whatever it is we do when we "understand."

It is possible that this is a human projection--that our minds impose order as a sort of illusion. I don't think so, because of science's predictive power and because so many of science's conclusions are so damned counterintuitive. If the order were our projection is seems to me neither of these would be the case.

It is also possible that the seeming order is just a fact--that for reasons buried so deep we may never comprehend them, the order we see is necessary--that the universe is as it is because it cannot be anything else. This sees more possible.

Still, of all the explanations available, the concept that there is mind present--maybe a pantheistic "god" but I think instead something along the lines of karma or Tau (as envisioned in Eastern thought).

Such thinking is not absent in the West, and was widespread in the Ancient World before Christianity persecuted it out of existence. We have seen it begin to reappear here and there in modern times (especially Emerson), but at the moment the predominant ideological framework among the educated is materialism.

So, even though the debate was framed in terms of evidence of God, I never had the Christian god in mind at all. This god is a consequence of a long history of mythical development, not something that makes rational sense.

Of course there is also a lesson in tolerance, and in dealing with Napster that was the prevailing theme, since he seems to be unbelievably intolerant (there are these on both sides of every fence), and therefore refuses to admit that the other side might have any case at all. This I find hateful and even dangerous.

The stream of insults that ended the exchange proved that point, at least.

Absolutely. You could interject any time you wanted to, but you were not a party of interest and therefore naturally rather out of it, even if you had. Lady Windermere's point was that those not in something will naturally decry it, but they shouldn't.

I don't appreciate your trying to paint the discussion as posturing. It seems Napster may have been, but I think the question of whether there is evidence of God, and in particular whether the seeming order of the universe can be taken as evidence of God, is important.

I think I will elaborate a little on the importance of the question. There seems to be order in the universe--the fact that science is possible--that our inferences and our theories and our mathematics seems to actually describe, and, more important, provide means for us to understand the universe, whatever it is we do when we "understand."

It is possible that this is a human projection--that our minds impose order as a sort of illusion. I don't think so, because of science's predictive power and because so many of science's conclusions are so damned counterintuitive. If the order were our projection is seems to me neither of these would be the case.

It is also possible that the seeming order is just a fact--that for reasons buried so deep we may never comprehend them, the order we see is necessary--that the universe is as it is because it cannot be anything else. This sees more possible.

Still, of all the explanations available, the concept that there is mind present--maybe a pantheistic "god" but I think instead something along the lines of karma or Tau (as envisioned in Eastern thought).

Such thinking is not absent in the West, and was widespread in the Ancient World before Christianity persecuted it out of existence. We have seen it begin to reappear here and there in modern times (especially Emerson), but at the moment the predominant ideological framework among the educated is materialism.

So, even though the debate was framed in terms of evidence of God, I never had the Christian god in mind at all. This god is a consequence of a long history of mythical development, not something that makes rational sense.

Of course there is also a lesson in tolerance, and in dealing with Napster that was the prevailing theme, since he seems to be unbelievably intolerant (there are these on both sides of every fence), and therefore refuses to admit that the other side might have any case at all. This I find hateful and even dangerous.

The stream of insults that ended the exchange proved that point, at least.
TLDR

My concern was not about the intimate details of the debate, or even the insults and profanity. (I myself am all too fond of the profanity, I must admit.)
My concern was rather that two or three apparently intelligent & reasoning beings had fallen into the tired habit of selecting hackneyed and all-too-convenient labels for their beliefs, and then, predictably, found themselves having to defend them.

We have many younger posters on these boards, and like it or not, they will look to the older (and more articulate) posters for insight and guidance. In that way, you become a role model.

It is expected that school kids will gravitate toward comfortable, socially-acceptable/popular labels for themselves. (Jocks, nerds, Goth, Band Campers, partyers, dope smokers, etc.) Shoot, they need those labels, they haven't yet found their center or identity.

But this business of fully-formed adults branding one's self and others with overly-generalized labels can become a lazy habit, and it stifles growth, learning, and the striving for self-actualization.

Just as I bristle at being branded or pigeon-holed a 'conservative' or a 'Jesus freak' (I am neither), I also bristle at those who would do that to themselves or others. No one person can be fully-defined by such simple and lazy terms as theist, atheist, Lib, conservative, Chevy driver, Ford driver, fag, dyke, nigger, chink, or Goth. And anyone who settles for just being defined by a label has given up growing as a person.

I am told our Universe is growing and expanding, and I'm sure with your background and education you could explain this to me chapter and verse. It is said that the human mind cannot grasp the concept of the sheer size of the galaxy, the smallness of a molecule, the nature of infinity, or the moods of a woman.

Perhaps humans need the comfort and structure of labels, cliques, generalizations, religion, faith, and communities of anti-faith kibitzers & ridiculers.

It’s easier than forming an original opinion of one’s own, I guess.

Perhaps humans need the comfort and structure of labels, cliques, generalizations, religion, faith, and communities of anti-faith kibitzers & ridiculers.
I think they do. One of the things that struck me getting older is that people have this unquenchable need for both positive and negative interactions with other people. They need people to hate as much as they need people to like. Labels, cliques, generalizations, religions, faith, naysayers and ridiculers are all vehicles people drive for short periods of time in order to get these sorts of interactions from other people that they want. If you reject the categorization, well, there's a label for that too, and another pecking order that the rest of humanity will pigeonhole you into, simply to fulfill their need to be social.

Sparky, the things you see that this branding business stifles, growth, learning, and self-actualization, well, I don't think they're all that common to begin with. I also disagree with you that it prevents people from achieving complexity. People do need negative focus points to strive against, just as they need positive focus points to strive towards. It is very arguable, in my opinion at least, which is more effective.

What I think is the biggest hampering factor, is the need for human beings to find symmetry in their surroundings. People will give certain sides more weight than perhaps they would otherwise if they were truly trying to see reality for what it is. Someone might be willing to argue that both positive and negative focus points are equally important in a person's development, when there is no reason to think that would be the case. Someone might be too inclined to see theism and atheism (or non-theism, what rubbish) as two sides of the same coin, instead of one as a more logical outgrowth to the other.

These things keep a person from really trying to see how the universe operates in their own peculiar lens of their background and character.

I don't think people need to hate others, but I do agree that the tendency to label, or categorize others is a prevalent habit with humans. Since we don't all do it to the same degree it would seem to be a function of intellect rather than an inherent quality of our humanity.

I don't think people need to hate others, but I do agree that the tendency to label, or categorize others is a prevalent habit with humans. Since we don't all do it to the same degree it would seem to be a function of intellect rather than an inherent quality of our humanity.

I can honestly say I do not hate anyone, and I have no need to hate anyone. Hate is the precursor to all the worlds problems, and I do not wish to contribute.

Of course there are people whom I dislike, some more than others. But I do not hate.

Sure, I have had my angry moments, and people have done some mean stuff to me before, but I move on. I dont hold grudges, and I dont judge people. Its not my place.

In the words of the Plain White T's, "Hate is a strong word, but I really, really ,really dont like you." Some of you anyways :)

I don't think people need to hate others, but I do agree that the tendency to label, or categorize others is a prevalent habit with humans. Since we don't all do it to the same degree it would seem to be a function of intellect rather than an inherent quality of our humanity.
I would heartily disagree with you that it's a quality of intellect. Some of the history's smartest people have also had the biggest rivalries. Indeed, sometimes a person's greatest works can come out of an intense rivalry with another. One of the more immediate examples that come to mind is Thomas Alva Edison.

I look at everything like it were an inherent part of human nature. Not the specifics mind you, I don't think postmodernism itself is etched into our natures, but our tendency to categorize and deconstruct, well, that is. Postmodernism, I don't keep up with it, myself, is but one more iteration of that.

I think people also get too hung up on a word, in this case, hate, and forget to probe everything that the word could encompass. I wouldn't say that I 'hate' anyone, but there are certainly people I dislike. To say that these dislikes are not hate, that's just hiding from the issue. I do hate these people, it just doesn't take the all-encompassing Darth Vader-type rage form that people think of when they think of 'hate'. It's no less an iteration of humanity's need for hatred than the emotion Hitler felt for the Jews.

I'm pretty sure that nobody could say that they've ever had people they've ended up having surprisingly stronger than expected negative feelings for. I think that when people neglect to probe their subconsciousness for what they might actually be feeling for these people, that is responsible for the denial that they 'hate' anyone. They really aren't fooling me, who can recognize the bottled-up emotion easily.

Hate makes for good movies, where would we be without all that bloodshed? I'll tell you what hollywood would create, a bunch of chick flicks. And then where would we be? All of our manly men would kill themselves and our society would deteriorate into 'pussyland'.

Hooray for 300, the movie that will go down in history as the most badass movie ever made.

I only hope the actual movie is better than the trailer they keep showing on TV. My God how irritating that preview is. Or at the least the one I've seen them show about a gazillion times already.

On the earlier topic:

We humans tend to create animosities and pigeon-hole ourselves into conveniently-labeled factions, whether there is a foundation for any hatred or not.

'Us against them' is part of our culture. So many of our brothers and sisters enter into society and/or school & the workplace without their own fully-formed identity, their own sense of personal pride, their own set of convictions.
So they sign up for the easy road versus the high road.
The easy road being the one of culturally-inherited labels, adversarial relationships and animosity.

It's everywhere, whether we recognize it or not, and I make this assertion; in the absence of any other strife, hardship, or reason for antagonism, we will create one.

You put a Christian fish on your minivan,
I put a Darwin fish eating your Christian fish on my truck..

You root for the Bears, I’m by-God going to root for the Packers.

You put a sticker of Calvin pissing on Ford logo on your Chevrolet truck, I put a sticker of Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo on my Ford truck.

You identify with one political party and spend all your time (not YOU literally, mind you, this is a rant about our society) bitching about the 'other guys' in that other party, and I join the other party and spend all my time running you down and everything you stand for.

Did you ever watch the classic Simpsons episode where Bart and his buddies engage in the Springfield vs. Shelbyville war? Those little kids didn’t even know why they couldn’t stand the people from that other town, but it was something they’d grown up with and they automatically assumed that this was the natural state of affairs.

Was there any good reason for all of it?
Not really. It was just easier to cling to the 'us vs. them' culture of animosity than to question it or challenge it, and the cycle goes on and on and on.

That was my original point, anyway.
I’m asking people to recognize it, and avoid being sucked into the ‘theist versus atheist’ nonsense, and the even more counter-productive ‘Republicans versus Democrats’ lunacy.

I think we're better than that.

Great post Sparky, and you better damn well root for the Packers. ;-)

I have been since the Bart Starr days.
A Packers-Dolphins Superbowl, no matter how unlikely it is to ever occur, will be my greatest sports-related dream realized.

(It'll also be one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse, I am quite sure. That, along with Hell freezing over and the dead rising up from the graves and walking the earth, etc.)

I think that done with awareness, Us vs. Them mentality provides a fun escape from the living hell that is life all alone. I think that human beings are essentially, unlivable with one another, and that we can never be fully satisfied with one another. I think that fictions such as the Packer-Bear rivalry fulfills both our needs to feel close to one another, and our needs to feel better than others, and they do it in mostly harmless ways. True, in many other countries than the US, even football rivalries can get bloody, but here at least, we've learned to keep ourselves from killing one another over even our religious differences, though in some parts of the country, being or acting gay is enough to have physical violence perpetuated against you. I like to think that at the end of the day, even if we've never actually verbalized it, a certain amount of unsaid respect exists between people like FT and Thislin as a direct result of their bickering, that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

I think that as time wears on, and posters have fight after fight, eventually an easy familiar peace settles between them and then they can have fun with the interactions, even if on the surface they seem filled with hate.

I only hope the actual movie is better than the trailer they keep showing on TV. My God how irritating that preview is. Or at the least the one I've seen them show about a gazillion times already.
You're not a real manly man until you see it. If you see it and don't like it, you're a woman.

I do not think you can be reached with logic.

Take your simpleminded --""Just look at the stars! There is your evidence that God exists!""-- nonsense and go your merry way.

Thislin is a nontheist.

No kidding?!?!?!?

He's only said it maybe 20 times, so I wasn't really sure. [/sarcasm]

The bottom line is that he may be a nontheist, but he HAS stated (nonsensically, but I digress) that when we observe the stars in the sky we are being provided "evidence" of the existence of god.

L

Letting your neighbors help you stone and burn your children alive
Deut. 13:6-10
Deut. 22:20-21
Deut. 21:18-21

Lions breaking bones of husbands, wives and children
Daniel 6:24


M

Making innocent pay for misdeeds of the guilty
Romans 5:12
Gen. 3
Josh. 27:24-26
II Sam. 12:11-14
I Sam. 6:19
Ex. 20:5
II Sam. 24:15

Making people disobey so you can punish them
Ex. 12:28-29
John 12:39-40
Romans 9:16-22
II Peter 2:9
Ezekiel 14:9

Making the sun stand still
Joshua 10:13

Making wives barren, ravishing them and giving them to someone else, all to punish their husbands
Deut. 28:30
Isaiah 13:16
II Sam. 12:11
Jeremiah 8:10
Zechariah 14:2
Jeremiah 6:12
Gen. 20:18
I Sam. 25:44
II Sam. 16:21
II Sam. 12:11
II Sam. 6:23

Making your child "pass through the fire"
II Kings 21:6
II Kings 16:3
II Kings 17:17

Mountains melting with blood; rivers and moon turning to blood; the sword of the Lord filled with blood; shedding of blood for redemption; pour out blood by the force of the sword
Ex. 7:20
Matt. 26:28
Rev. 6:12
Isaiah 34:6
Jeremiah 18:21
Isaiah 34:3

Mutliating the dead
II Sam. 4:7, 12

[QUOTE=Sparky2]My concern was not about the intimate details of the debate, or even the insults and profanity. (I myself am all too fond of the profanity, I must admit.)

I don't use profanities (except an occasional "damn" or "hell"--never in reference to a person. Further, what I post has to be stretched to be called insulting. Please post examples otherwise.

My concern was rather that two or three apparently intelligent & reasoning beings had fallen into the tired habit of selecting hackneyed and all-too-convenient labels for their beliefs, and then, predictably, found themselves having to defend them.

Again, please post an example from the posts in the exchange where I do this. You are doing what you accuse me of.

/QUOTE]

Your charges are made without substantiation, and I reject them as an attempt, a rather unfortunate and preachy attempt, to link me with the likes of Napster and FT, simply because I disagree with your religious views. You are the one doing the labeling that you complain of.

Don't stop, FT. I am saving it all and getting ready to send them. Yup, I am an asshole and am using it for personal vendetta but if a 'christian' can constantly pound down my throat what a loving god they serve and go world wide proclaiming this, I think it's my right to pound it down his throat the other side of his god.
I just got a 3 page letter from a preacher man telling me 100's of scriptural reasons I need to serve his god. Can't wait til you get to z so I can give him 100's of reasons not too.