Dear Believer
by Dan Barker
Dear Believer, — You asked me to consider Christianity as the answer for my life. I have done that. I consider it untrue, repugnant, and harmful.
You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost? Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions? Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin; Roman historian Seutonius said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died; and Buddha was supposedly born speaking. You don’t believe all that, do you? Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity?
I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth ... while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
If you believe these stories, then you are the one with the problem, not me. These myths violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic. If you can’t see that, then you can’t separate truth from fantasy. It doesn’t matter how many people accept delusions inflicted by “holy” men; a widely held lie is still a lie. If you are so gullible, then you are like the child who believes the older brother who says there is a monster in the hallway. But there is nothing to be afraid of; go turn on the light and look for yourself.
If Christianity were simply untrue I would not be too concerned. Santa is untrue, but it is a harmless myth which people outgrow. But Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent. It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can’t tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature!
The biblical god is a macho male warrior. Though he said “Thou shalt not kill,” he ordered death for all opposition, wholesale drowning and mass exterminations; punishes offspring to the fourth generation (Ex. 20:5); ordered pregnant women and children to be ripped up (Hos. 13:16); demands animal and human blood to appease his angry vanity; is partial to one race of people; judges women to be inferior to men; is a sadist who created a hell to torture unbelievers; created evil (Is. 45:7); discriminated against the handicapped (Lev. 21:18-23); ordered virgins to be kept as spoils of war (Num. 31:15-18, Deut. 21:11-14); spread dung on people’s faces (Mal. 2:3); sent bears to devour 42 children who teased a prophet (II Kings 2:23-24); punishes people with snakes, dogs, dragons, drunkenness, swords, arrows, axes, fire, famine, and infanticide; and said fathers should eat their sons (Ez. 5:10). Is that nice? Would you want to live next door to such a person?
And Jesus is a chip off the old block. He said, “I and my father are one,” and he upheld “every jot and tittle” of the Old Testament law. Mt. 5:18 He preached the same old judgment: vengeance and death, wrath and distress, hell and torture for all nonconformists. He believed in demons, angels and spirits. He never denounced the subjugation of slaves or women. Women were excluded as disciples and as guests at his heavenly table. Except for hell he introduced nothing new to ethics or philosophy. He was disrespectful of his mother and brothers; he said we should hate our parents and desert our families. Mt. 10:35-36, Lk. 14:26 (So much for “Christian family life.”) He denounced anger, but was often angry himself. Mt. 5:22, Mk. 3:5 He called people “fools” (Mt. 23:17,19), “serpents,” and “white sepulchers,” though he warned that such language puts you in danger of hellfire. Mt. 5:22 He said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword." Mt. 10:34 (So much for “Peace on Earth.”) He irrationally cursed and withered a fig tree for being barren out of season. Mt. 21:19 He mandated burning unbelievers. Jn. 15:6 (The Church has complied with relish.) He stole a horse. Lk. 19:30-33 He told people to cut off hands, feet, eyes and sexual organs. Mt. 5:29-30, 19:12 You want me to accept Jesus, but I think I’ll pick my own friend, thank you.
One of Jesus’s many contradictions was saying good works should be seen, and not seen. Mt. 5:16, 6:1-4 One of his mistakes was saying that the mustard plant has the smallest seed. Mt. 13:31-32 The writers of Matthew and Luke could not even get his genealogy straight, contradicting the Old Testament, and giving Jesus two discrepant lines through Joseph, his non-father!
I also find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The concepts of original sin, depravity, substitutionary forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.
Finally, Christianity is harmful. More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason. The Church has a shameful, bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, heresy trials, American colonial intolerance, disrespect of indigenous traditions (such as American Indians), support of slavery, and oppression of women. Modern “fruits” of religion include the Jonestown massacre, the callous fraud of “faith healers,” recent wars and ethnic cleansing, and fighting in Northern Ireland. Religion also poses a danger to mental health, damaging self-respect, personal responsibility, and clarity of thought.
Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message? It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity — but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.
Dear Believer, — You asked me to consider Christianity as the answer for my life. I have done that. I consider it untrue, repugnant, and harmful.
You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost? Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions? Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin; Roman historian Seutonius said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died; and Buddha was supposedly born speaking. You don’t believe all that, do you? Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity?
I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth ... while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
If you believe these stories, then you are the one with the problem, not me. These myths violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic. If you can’t see that, then you can’t separate truth from fantasy. It doesn’t matter how many people accept delusions inflicted by “holy” men; a widely held lie is still a lie. If you are so gullible, then you are like the child who believes the older brother who says there is a monster in the hallway. But there is nothing to be afraid of; go turn on the light and look for yourself.
If Christianity were simply untrue I would not be too concerned. Santa is untrue, but it is a harmless myth which people outgrow. But Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent. It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can’t tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature!
The biblical god is a macho male warrior. Though he said “Thou shalt not kill,” he ordered death for all opposition, wholesale drowning and mass exterminations; punishes offspring to the fourth generation (Ex. 20:5); ordered pregnant women and children to be ripped up (Hos. 13:16); demands animal and human blood to appease his angry vanity; is partial to one race of people; judges women to be inferior to men; is a sadist who created a hell to torture unbelievers; created evil (Is. 45:7); discriminated against the handicapped (Lev. 21:18-23); ordered virgins to be kept as spoils of war (Num. 31:15-18, Deut. 21:11-14); spread dung on people’s faces (Mal. 2:3); sent bears to devour 42 children who teased a prophet (II Kings 2:23-24); punishes people with snakes, dogs, dragons, drunkenness, swords, arrows, axes, fire, famine, and infanticide; and said fathers should eat their sons (Ez. 5:10). Is that nice? Would you want to live next door to such a person?
And Jesus is a chip off the old block. He said, “I and my father are one,” and he upheld “every jot and tittle” of the Old Testament law. Mt. 5:18 He preached the same old judgment: vengeance and death, wrath and distress, hell and torture for all nonconformists. He believed in demons, angels and spirits. He never denounced the subjugation of slaves or women. Women were excluded as disciples and as guests at his heavenly table. Except for hell he introduced nothing new to ethics or philosophy. He was disrespectful of his mother and brothers; he said we should hate our parents and desert our families. Mt. 10:35-36, Lk. 14:26 (So much for “Christian family life.”) He denounced anger, but was often angry himself. Mt. 5:22, Mk. 3:5 He called people “fools” (Mt. 23:17,19), “serpents,” and “white sepulchers,” though he warned that such language puts you in danger of hellfire. Mt. 5:22 He said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword." Mt. 10:34 (So much for “Peace on Earth.”) He irrationally cursed and withered a fig tree for being barren out of season. Mt. 21:19 He mandated burning unbelievers. Jn. 15:6 (The Church has complied with relish.) He stole a horse. Lk. 19:30-33 He told people to cut off hands, feet, eyes and sexual organs. Mt. 5:29-30, 19:12 You want me to accept Jesus, but I think I’ll pick my own friend, thank you.
One of Jesus’s many contradictions was saying good works should be seen, and not seen. Mt. 5:16, 6:1-4 One of his mistakes was saying that the mustard plant has the smallest seed. Mt. 13:31-32 The writers of Matthew and Luke could not even get his genealogy straight, contradicting the Old Testament, and giving Jesus two discrepant lines through Joseph, his non-father!
I also find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The concepts of original sin, depravity, substitutionary forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.
Finally, Christianity is harmful. More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason. The Church has a shameful, bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, heresy trials, American colonial intolerance, disrespect of indigenous traditions (such as American Indians), support of slavery, and oppression of women. Modern “fruits” of religion include the Jonestown massacre, the callous fraud of “faith healers,” recent wars and ethnic cleansing, and fighting in Northern Ireland. Religion also poses a danger to mental health, damaging self-respect, personal responsibility, and clarity of thought.
Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message? It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity — but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.
Comments
My goal is not to convince anyone that God is real. I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul. I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views. I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside. To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life.
God Bless You
Thank Nature...
anonymous: "I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul."
Soul? What that?
anonymous: "I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views."
Perhaps, more attuned to providing a place to present reality...
anonymous: "I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside."
I have an empty Soul? and it causes me to be restless? How so? If one can not define the Soul, how does it become empty and restless...
anonymous: "To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life."
i.e., don't look at this physical reality, to solve lonliness, and need, look to an historical icon labelled Jesus, who may or may not have existed, who knowingly Martyred himself (Death Cult), so that Others may receive a Benefit or Reward, i.e., everlasting life, etc... Oh, and "sin", what's that...
What are you so angry about? What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness? If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever. I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that. I like to think there is a reason to exist. I believe in the hope of eternal life. But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope. What do you live for? Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless. To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway. I am glad I don't live like that anymore.
You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems. If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up. We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it.
As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is
Thank you for your time,
By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet.
Kevin: "By reading some of these comments I see that many of you have little Biblical understanding or knowledge of Christ and what it truly means to be a Christian."
Kevin, if you believe that the comments, of which I am part of the "many" as you explain, that you have viewed on this site, appear to portray me as an abecedarian on the subject of the Christian religion, I challenge you to provide information that seems to have been missed during my university studies, and thousand plus hours of personal research... I suppose, I am more aggravated than angry, that people can make presumptions so easily, but then, typically from what I have experienced, the same people are also typically the ones to accept presuppositions blindly...
Kevin: "What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness?"
Okay, now I'm angry... Who gave you the authority to anthropomorphically wrap my life, with your depraved world views... I understand you are programmed to believe we all live a hopeless life, but... personally, I have a qualitative life, and don't need the co-dependence of someone or some religion, to tell me if I am, or am not, living according to "their" standards for a "meaningful" life... A person who requires someone to tell them whether they have a meaningful life, is indeed hopeless, as they have no autonomous Individuality... that's beyond hopeless, that just sad...
Kevin: "If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever."
Meaning in my life, is decided upon the decisions, I make in this life as an Individual, and the impact of those decisions on the homeostatic balance it provides me, and the whole of humanity of which I am a part...
Kevin: "I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that."
Truly, and... what per se, gives you meaning in life... is it the goal that you reach for, that has been handed to you by someone you trusted as a child, or as an adult in search for a solution for an unmet need... If it is, You as an Individual don't have a meaning... you are defined by someone elses' "meaning", and you chose to allow this, and willingly "measure" your progress toward their standard... Your lack of autonomy and ability to reach intellectually beyond the need for "other" people to "guide" you, removes you as an "authority" for judging "meaning" for those, who are capable of defining their personal "meaning" autonomously...
Kevin: "I like to think there is a reason to exist."
Please rephrase... you appear to allude that if one doesn't hold a religious view... then there obviously is no "meaningful" existence to be obtained... Kind of shallow, or do I read this wrong...
Kevin: "I believe in the hope of eternal life."
Nothing wrong with "hoping" and "wishing", if its a personal truth in ones' life... Personally, I want to retire, and travel, but... that's coming from someone who is obviously leading a Meaningless life...
Kevin: "But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope."
Again, your "meaning, purpose, and hope", was "given" to you by another person, via some medium, either verbal or written... You have chosen to have "faith" in that "medium", and not in the "self" first... You have lived a life, for someone else, not your Self, and... that's your choice, however, I see trying to persuade Others to live their lives by evading total mental and intellectual "autonomy" as a gross disservice to the quality of life for that Individual, as they can not become as Maslow put it... "all they can be", they are stuck living a "limited" life, based on the beliefs of "another" person...
Kevin: "What do you live for?"
I live for happiness, care, and joy... peace, and harmony is how I reach these physical states of being... I do this by Self introspection, of "Personal" Values, and the affects they have on my life... and not by mandated "Values", given by a "second" party...
Kevin: "Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless."
You must be a pretty sad person, to not be able to live an Individual life... you are so co-dependent on God, that you can't phathom the idea that life can hold meaning without a supernatural god... So, no, I don't admit that "my" life is limited by your view of a metaphysical/supernatural god, that would be tragic for me personally to lower my self esteem to the point, that I have to be defined by some extrinsic factor...
Kevin: "To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway."
Hey Kevin, those who live for "today", and Value this "Life" know they will be immediately judged in the here and now accordingly... However, the religious view, is to do good and bad, and attempt to escape from social justice because they feel they will pay the price in the afterlife...
Obviously, you haven't read the bible in depth... if you do eventually take the time, look at the ten commandments per Exodus, and see if there are times in the bible where the commandments are broken, by your own god... Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your god is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself... If you aren't intelligent enough to read the bible, and need me to break out the ten commandments and how they obviously don't provide some "Absolute" moral guide, then I "may" take the time... However, it would obviously show your lack of will to know your own religious foundations...
Kevin: "I am glad I don't live like that anymore."
Well, if you needed structure in your life, because you weren't capable on innately knowing right from wrong, one could assert you need mental therapy, becuase, naturally, people know right from wrong... You moved your justification for doing bad things, to justification of a belief system with no evidence... If you consider lying to be a bad thing... then, what do you call it when someone poses a supernatural god as a "fact"... I call it "lying"... If lying were part of your previous lifestyle, that you considered bad, it doesn't appear you have moved too far, you have just shifted the object of your lies to supporting your belief... and... lets be honest... your belief garners you social benefits... therefore, you are lying for tangibles... If you hold these beliefs personally, and don't attempt to "persuade" others with lies, then no harm, no foul... however, the minute you attempt to "persuade" Others to believe your god is a "fact", is a "lie"...
Kevin: "You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems."
Uh, I don't believe the metaphysical/supernatural realm exists, as by definition the Meta(beyond)physical can not be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively while existing in this natural reality... Therefore, if onw asserts they actually "exist" in this "natural" reality... they disavow the existence of the supernatural or metaphysical... Now, one can "hope", and have "faith" that the "rules" of logic and reason we have as humans are "flawed" in order for there to "exist" a dual reality (duality)... but that's banking that we as humans are "defective"... However, logic rears its head again, and says, if we are Naturally defective, then how does anyone know "anything"... to include a supernatural god... at this point... we'ed all have to claim agnosticism if truly honest... However, we both know, religions say everyone is "defective" but... religious leaders are "more" than mortal, because they "Know" the "Truth" and are able to lead the "defective" others...
If you didn't get it, I am a methodological naturalist, I don't make claims whether a supernatural god or gods exist or don't exist... However, I live my life as if they didn't, until someone pulls one of those out of their hats... and I run the data through my "sound" and magnificent brain, that "I" own...
Kevin: "If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up."
Religion has had the biggest negative impact on humanity, than "any" other organization I know of... Christianity, leading the way... And, yes, its amazing what people will do when they have no autonomy and are so easily and blindly led to accomplish the deeds of the few religious leaders, i.e., the pope, etc... and don't say you're not Catholic, your religion was rooted in Roman Catholicism, and someone, one "defective" person, passed on their wisdom to another "defective" person to create the religion you are a part of today...
Kevin: "We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it."
But here you are, as a human, trying to solve it... Do you find that odd? Do you find it odd, that there are others who also believe there are areas for improvement for humanity, but are more willing to live in the here and now, instead of "promising" people some "reward" after "death", if they adhere to a set standard, proclaimed by a few elitist religionists...
Kevin: "As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is."
That made no sense... Define sin... Lying... is that sinful? If so, religion has made an "art" out of lying over the past few thousand years... as they tout their claims as Universal Absolute Truths...
Kevin: "Thank you for your time,"
Thank you for your time, and for the time of those who have had to endure this post...
Kevin: "By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet."
There are definitely new changes on this site, and I am also getting used to the new "feel"... take it easy...
Abecedarian! Great word and great post!
"Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your God is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself..."
First time I have seen that observation. Jesus, being God was a murderer when he had himself killed to atone for sin.
Also the part about the bible being full of lies because it is trying to make people believe a bunch of stuff that was invented by men and has no substantiation or proof.
The more I read about the bible the more I realize that I am a better person than God!
Dano, I agree, the mixed nuts may indeed be preparing for a seige on this most revered virtual cloister... ;-) Oh, not only did God commit murder, but, it was pre-meditated murder :-) Jesus refused to keep the sabbath day holy, but we have plenty of nuts running around telling us, we need religion and to be in church... And God... is a self proclaimed omnipotent liar...
2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible...
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain
Take care...
I quote your quote by Mark Twain.
"What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible..."
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain
Take care...
I am always amazed at how these "giants" of literature and science like mark Twain, Galaleo, Ingersoll, Voltaire, Payne, Franklin, and many others are able to see things so clearly in one sentence or one paragraph, that others can't figure out in a lifetime of profundity in writing.
I would like to thank you for pretty much validating my assertations. Although you may have studied the Bible and/or religion it seems to me there are some areas which I think you may be misunderstood. For someone who seems to be very intelligent I think you could have done better than the 6th commandment. It is easy to see all of the killing that plakes in the Bible and say that it contradicts "Thou shalt not kill," but you have to look a little bit deeper. Throughout the Bible God authorizes killing in certain situations whether it be an animal for sacrifice or a person who took someone elses life, in either case these death's are to provide ATONEMENT, which is what JESUS' death provided on the cross. The commandment refers to murder, which is unjustified killing. Now I will in no way try claim to be a Bible scholar. I have only been studying for about 3 years, and I will be the first to admit that I have much to learn. For example, before Joshua leads the Israelites into Canaan he is instructed by God to kill everyone. I have some thoughts on why, but by reading the rest of the Bible I rest in the faith that God's judgements are always righteous.
Now you claim that I am codependant and cannot rely on myself. To that I say Amen, you are exactly right. I depend totally on the Lord to guide me each day.
When I was talking about life being meaningless and hopeless I was referring to the overall existence rather than day to day living. Sure you can find hope and meaning in your family your day to day activities, your friends, I take joy in those things as well. I also do not want give the false impression that as a Christian, life is grand and all the stop lights are green. I go through the same struggles as everybody else and since giving my life to Christ I probably have more questions now than ever before. However I no longer have to wonder about the eternal.
The hopelesness I was referring to is that if you don't believe in after life than by definition you have no hope for something greater after you die. Can you agree with that?
You also quote Mark Twain. I am going to speculate so please forgive if I'm wrong, but I assume that you believe in evolution(if not I would like to know your opinion on origin). That takes way more faith than believing in a creator. To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life). Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are. The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen). Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator.
Once again I could not agree with you more that religion has a scarred history and the church has things to be ashamed of. If you look at what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees you will see that he condemns religous leaders for being corrupt and misleading others. You are also wrong to say that Christianity is rooted in Catholicism. It wasn't until the 4th century that Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome. The Bible was complete most scholars say by 90 A.D.(when I say complete I mean all the books were written they were yet to be compiled). That means that the gospel was being spread for about 400 years before the Catholic religion started to form. I cannot disregard the major impact Catholicism has had on Christianity I just want to show that it is another example of what can happen if you take the the focus off of Christ(whom is the one we are to follow, not the church). Regardless of all of that, no matter what people in the church have done to give Christ a bad name, that doesn't change who Christ is or the fact that we will stand individually before God and not be judged according to what others have done.
Lastly, as a naturalist do you believe in moral relativity? If so, than who gets to decide what is right and wrong, each person? That would actually void right and wrong because each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "It's right for me."
If you don't believe in moral relativity than that would presuppose a standard of morals. From whom I ask would these morals come from?
Once again I thank you for your time. I enjoy these discussions
Kevin
First off, please click on the little radio button that says "OTHER." Then you can type in a name, any name, like even Kevin, then you wouldn't keep coming up as anonymous. Isn't that neat?
Now as to your comment: "each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "'It's right for me,'" I've got news for you anony, um, er, Kev - that's exactly what everyone has always done, regardless of any religious affiliations. We all do what WE THINK is right. Some of us justify it by saying "GOD COMMANDS IT." Others justify it other ways.
It doesn't matter if you never masturbate and I wack off 7 times a day. It just doesn't matter - until either you or I start hurting other people with our opinions on masturbation. If I start teaching the neighborhood children how to do it, then I think most of the parents would try to see me locked away. It has nothing to do with any mystical "RIGHT AND WRONG," it has to do with parents protecting their children. If I kill someone in self-defense, then I'm not found guilty of any crime or of any wrong doing. However, if I kill someone out of anger, or jealousy, or just plain meanness, then guess what? I get the chair - or a real long vacation in prison.
Right is not harming another - wrong is harming another.
Who says? The OTHER!
I would say that if I try to harm you, you'll have a strong feeling that it's just not right. Likewise if you try to harm me, I betcha, I not going to think it's a good idea.
Absolutism made slavery legal, burned witches, tortured Jews and Muslims and anyone that didn't have the exact right CHRISTIAN doctrine, kept medicines from advancing, and tried to stifle science for over 1000 years.
Absolutism is wrong - it's wrong because it harmed millions of people for hundreds of years.
Again now, remember to check out that little radio button that says "other."
I know you directed your comments toward the webmaster, but I'd like to answer them too, if you don't mind. I'm going to restrict my comments to the "scientific" statements you made, although I think most of what you said can be debunked rather easily.
Kevin: "...I assume that you believe in evolution...."
That's a very bizarre question! I can't imagine one scientist asking another "do you believe in evolution", as if were a deity of some sort. My answer: I believe that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence, so I *believe* that it is the most likely explanation for a great many observations. That is a dramatically different statement than professing "belief in" evolution, which generally connotes a level of confidence that exceeds the evidence, or exists independent of evidence (i.e. irrational).
Kevin: "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator."
That's about the millionth time I've heard that, and it's just as wrong now as it was the first 999,999 times. First, please explain to me what could POSSIBLY be more fantastic than an *infinitely* powerful transcendent invisible being. Even if the theory of evolution posited the spontaneous assemblage of countless atoms (which it categorically does not), how could that even be in the same league as *god*? And how would you go about objectively comparing the two scenarios in any case?
By the way, your question, and your use of the word "faith" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the status of scientific ideas. Theories require and deserve NO faith whatsoever. The moment they fail to accord with observed facts, they become questionable (at best), and are eventually relegated to the scrap heap. Is that the way you feel about your god? Are you willing to throw him out as soon as you encounter difficulties with the concept?
Kevin: "To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life)."
I take it you have never had the privilege of seeing computer simulations of galaxy formation. The marvelous thing about science is that seemingly complex phenomena can often be beautifully explained by relatively simple underlying laws. The inverse square law (of gravitation) coupled with theories of stellar evolution nicely explain the large-scale structures we see in the universe. Of course, there remain many open questions, but to think that it somehow requires "faith" to believe that planetary systems can arise from natural processes in absurd. What it requires is *hard work* to discover the underlying principles.
As for being "lucky", that's a fallacy. It's akin to saying "It sure is lucky that that big bolder over there has a mountain under it, otherwise it would come crashing down." You confuse *highly correlated* events with random events; the same fallacy is beneath most creationist claptrap.
Kevin: "Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are."
I'm sorry, but that's so puerile it's not worthy of a response.
Kevin: "The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen)."
Define "information". If you can do that, you'll need to publish it in a prestigious scientific journal, because it's been a vexing problem for centuries. But, putting that aside, you claim that it has "never been shown... to happen". Where did you get that idea? Under any intuitive definition of information that I am aware of, it can and *has* been shown to occur. In fact, it's almost trivial to show that "information" can be discovered by random chance, both in biological organisms and via computer simulations (e.g. artificial evolution, genetic algorithms, Monte Carlo algorithms, etc.).
Kevin: "Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator."
No, you clearly have very little scientific interest at all. If you had, you would have examined your statements critically and discovered that they are merely a bunch of unfounded assertions and ill-defined concepts. There's nothing wrong with believing in a creator; that's your right. But if you think this somehow enables you to leap to profound scientific conclusions using nothing but gut-feel and naive intuition, then you are sorely mistaken.
Like I said before, I am not a scientist, but tell me where I go wrong here. Science is available to everybody and the laws and physical properties of our universe apply whether or not the person analyzing the data is a Christian or not. What I'm saying is that the scientist who is an Evolutionist or the one who is a Creationist are both looking at the same data, just from different points of view. So an evolutionist would look at the universe and marvel, and try to figure out how it came to be, and a Creationist would look at the same universe and marvel at the awesome glory of God. Same universe, different points of view.
My question is this: Can something come from nothing? However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from? I am not attempting to be sarcastic, it just seems to me that as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness. Again, please correct me if I am misunderstood.
I have no problem with what you just said. Yes, of course people can reach different conclusions, even if the same data is available to them. But that's NOT what you said before. You said "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator", which implies that there is LESS evidence in support of evolution than creation. I think the latter assertion is absurd.
Kevin: "My question is this: Can something come from nothing?"
Yes, millions of times per second, in every square inch of space. Look up vacuum fluctuations, or "virtual particles". The effect is well-known, has a solid theoretical foundation, and can be observed in the laboratory. Many physically observed phenomena conflict with naive intuition, which is precisely why armchair speculation about cosmology and biology are of little to no value.
Kevin: "However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from?"
I'm not sure your question is even meaningful, as it implies that matter DID "form" from something else, and it also implies a temporal ordering (i.e. there was a "time" before matter existed). Those assumptions are deeply rooted in our innate macroscopic views of the world, and they break down (if modern theories are correct) under extreme conditions, just like practically every other "intuitive" concept.
But, to keep this discussion simple, I'll just answer the question as if it were well-posed. Here is my answer: "I don't know". Now, please tell me what you can conclude from the fact that I do not know. Does that mean "god exists"?
Kevin: "...as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point."
As you sit there, simulating the entire universe in your brain, according to the intuition you (and your ancestors) have built up by interacting with teacups, tennis rackets, and the family dog, you fancy that you can somehow arrive at a profound cosmological insight. Is that right? Are you also able to see the implications of time dilation, or general relativity, or quantum tunneling? I suspect not, for the simple reason that these things violate our naive intuition.
Kevin: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness."
You mean the second law of thermodynamics (SLT)? That is a *descriptive* law that, as yet, has never been observed to be broken (so it's "robust" in that sense). However, to put it simply, nobody has a clue whether it applies to the entire universe, nor whether a singularity (such as the Big Bang) can violate it. For all we know, it's a "law" that arose from some kind of symmetry breaking as the universe cooled (and other symmetries were broken, such as those uniting the fundamental forces).
Bottom line: You simply *cannot* expect to reach profound cosmological conclusions by consulting your intuition, nor by trotting out some elementary principle or law. It's nowhere near that simple, as 20'th century physics has demonstrated time and again.
First off, the "sun" is a god damned STAR---there's bazillions of them, so shut-the-f%ck up about "odds". Secondly, I live in Florida, and on any given day I can see some elderly person walking around with half a nose or only one flippin' ear because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun." Lastly, if you live up north, I would ask you to please conserve energy during the winter and STOP using your heaters!!!!Why?..because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun", of course....::eye roll::...
Perhaps, the only insight I can provide will come in the form of philosophy... What we are describing in epistemological foundations for "knowledge"... In short, what is knoweldge... and can someone have a belief without knowledge... Further, is it irrational to have a belief, without knowledge...
"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
If we were to take this definition literally, and you accepted the terms... It means, that one need "experience", or "learn", a posteriori (after events take place), or "introspectively", a priori (before events take place)... We use a posteriori and apriori processes to formulate what are facts and truths...
There are two types of truths... personal, and Universal...
Personal truths, are garnered based on a persons' mental disposition, which rests on physiological and psychological foundations which are influenced by social environment...
Universal truths, are different, they require validation from more than one person, and in consistent terms - usually quantifiable terms... When a Universal Absolute Truth is asserted, it means, that the truth, has no exceptions to the rule, from past, to present, or to the future... For instance, thou shalt not murder/kill, is obviously not a Universal Absolute Truth, as murder/killing has occurred numerous times throughout the bible... Therefore, the bible does not hold an Absolute moral law... The way you explained Murdering/Killing in the bible places it in the realm of subjective morality... subjective, because one can choose to murder someone else, based on how they interpret the context of the bible... Now, of course "you" may not take the bible as the Universal Absolute Truth, literally... however, there are many who do... pointing out the absurdity of an absolute moral code in the bible, was the point I was making earlier... Does that remove "laws" in general from society? No...
However, do you ever wonder why there are judges... I would surmize a guess, that they are there because of the grayness of laws, and becuase they along with the entire judicial branch of the government know, that there are very few dichotomous cases, i.e., cut and dry, either right or wrong, and no mitigating circumstances... Probably has to do with determinism I would suspect... a child is abused (cause), they get in fights at school (effect), and they end up in the principles office being judged on a minor scale, no pun, and a fair judge would take into acccount the past of the child, in order to render a just verdict, whether it be rehab, etc...
Do I as a Methodological Naturalist have moral degeneration because of my views, based on relativism? Fair question... I don't believe in Absolutes, there is only one I "know" of based on a postpriori experience, and that's "Change" (and its not 100% fact, there is the remote possibility that a reductionist will one day break down matter to particles that are in a static state)... Aside from that, I have "Values", which found my personal truth... In chronological order, the Value of "Life" is at the top of the list... The U.S. judicial system is based on those few inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... If a person affects another persons' rights, laws are created and people charged with crime... The U.S. legal system has gone through some serious changes over the past few hundred years to include civil rights, etc., to ensure the inalienables were being supported, as previously, slavery, etc., was surely not in accord with those inalienables...
So, how do I perceive morality... easy, don't tread on Other peoples' inalienable rights, the right to "Life" being at the top of the list... I suppose my values seem to initially line up with the U.S. legal system, fascinating...
Now, do I consider it amoral for someone to commit suicide, or overdose on drugs and die, etc... I would be infringing on another persons' right to liberty, if I were to impose my beliefs on them, in my humble opinion... In India not so long ago, some religions partook of a ritual where deceased people were burned... not so bad, I mean we have cremation also... However, if a male was married, and they outlived their wife, their "wife" got thrown on the fire while alive also... Do I think that amoral? Or, is it the right of the invididual to make choices in life, which ultimately "only" affect themselves... I don't want to speculate on this topic too long, this is just a matter of personal truths, and I know mine, and the Values they reside on... I don't necessarily align my Values with those of religion however, and is a point of contention... Murdering for Murder sake, violates my Value of "Life"...
You're religious obviously, therefore, you believe we all have "ghosts" inside us... Per the bible, God allowed Eve to Murder all of our souls... He sat back, watched Eve get tempted, and allowed all of humanity to be damned for eternity... Now, this poses a twist...
Scenario; A woman who has a baby or is within seconds/minutes of conceiving a baby wants to commit suicide, or kill her baby before commiting the act... do I think that is moral... No... She is removing another beings "Life", by imposing her power over that helpless being...
Now, your God, "according to religion" on the other hand, had no problem allowing Eve to spiritually murder billions upon billions of people, until the entire human race disappears... Your God, whatever his reasoning/justification is in direct opposition of my primary Value, "Life"...
Your God murdered his own son, or himself, in theory for a greater cause... Because he is speculated to be all powerful, he "chose" to allow murder to occur... as he could have prevented the act, if indeed he were all powerful... your God, as an all powerful being, "Intentionally" murdered his own son... If you are going to postulate that your God is not all powerful, I will chalk up a different argument, but until then... The God of the OT, as opposed to the God of the NT, Murdered his own son, for Greater Glory...
Personal morality is based on the truths we hold, through a priori reasoning, and a postpriori knowledge... Your beliefs, and even your "religion", is based on "a priori" knowledge, you "hope" for the future to provide you something that you have not yet "experienced"... I on the other hand, base my Values and "knowledge" on a postpriori experiences...
What you "believe" a fact, using a priori introspection, I call, hypotheticals, and stating you have a well founded "Knowledge" of anything using "a priori" processing is suspect, until the concept is pulled into this natural world, and others can view the "knowledge" universally... Until you do, you have a personal truth... and pardon, but... in my humble opinion, I don't call a priori cognitive processing "knowledge"... In short, "Knowledge" wants to be put into "action", and "tied" to observable attributes in our Natural environment... I can think of Santa Clause all day long, but until St. Nick shows up and becomes "anchored" somehow to this natural environment, I can't truly "know" of him, I can however, "Guess" what he "May" be like... I mean, using my natural environment, to create the image of Santa Clause, how I am to "Really" 'Know" Santa... as, I haven't Experienced him...
For me, I base "Knowledge" predominately on "a postpriori" experiences, and reserve my "imagination" to postulate ways to manage matter, processes, etc., that all are connected and anchored in this natural universe, in short, I cognitively model the natural universe in my mind, using diagraming models, mathematics, patterns, etc...
The only exception to using my "imagination" where there is no "total" grounding is when I read fantasy books, or watch sci-fi movies for entertainment... but of course, I apply what I read, or view to this natural universe... I don't accept that Harry Potter is real, because the events that are portrayed in the movie, are not something I have "a postpriori" knowledge of... I am an empiricist, I need experience, its how I am cognitively mapped...
If someone says they have "Knowledge" of a metaphysical object, because they have persuaded themselves to "believe" in the object... I don't consider their belief to have any universal meaning... in short, its all in that persons' head, and their head alone... The second one can pull that thought out into this natural environment, it then becomes "experience" to more than one person, and experienced through more than just a cognitive premonition...
Religion, rests its head on Absolutes... and is therefore, absurd... it then moves toward using Natural experience to persuade others that there is more to their experiences in this natural life, than their natural senses tell them... again, no evidence, purely persuasion without evidence... You stated earlier that the same Natural evidence can be viewed in two different ways by two different people... Sure, but... one is making more out of the evidence, than the evidence supports... and that is dishonest... Using "knowns", to create or establish "Unknowns" as facts, as religion does, is not honest...
Why are the tetonic plates still moving on earth and volcanos spewing lava?
All of these should not be happening if god created things as they are in 6 days. What is the pupose of change?
The Bible has answered the question. It has shown that Hades, Sheol or hell is the common grave of mankind. At the resurrection hell gives up its dead. God destroys hell, for it is cast into the “lake of fire.” Gehenna represents the state of destruction that lasts forever and ever. There is no hope of a resurrection for those in Gehenna. So the fiery hells are only pagan hells. The Bible hell (Sheol-Hades) is not hot, but is the dark, silent grave.
If you have any question on the Bible, please send it to me at my email address.
Hey, berk, most Jews believe that "NO ONE" stays in Gehenna for more than 12 months, which accounts for their period of mourning... If someone sends you an e-mail, I hope they aren't looking for unbiased information...
You said, "if God indeed created everything perfect there would be no need for change. I am very dissapointed, you said you have thousands of hours of personal research and university studies. Yet you seem to have missed one of the utmost Biblical foundations.
God absolutely created everything perfect(Gen 1:31). However after man sinned the fall occured in 4 ways. Man was separated from God when he hid himself(Gen 3:8), man was separated from each other(Gen 3:12,13), man was separated from the Earth which is now cursed(Gen 3:17,18), and man was separated from himself(this info is paraphrased from Josh McDowell's "Answers to tough questions skeptics ask about the Christian faith"). The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it.
I am sure you have plenty of knowledge about the history of religion, and as I said before I am in agreement with you that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. However, Christianity does not stand because of religious concepts. It stands solely on the credentials of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not who he says he is, then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." But if Jesus is who he says he is "the way, the truth, and the life"(John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?
"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it."
Could you provide examples of were god requires change in the universe for "man's sins".
According to the bible, he may ask that a person be re-born, but what has that have to do with super novas, black holes, etc? Why is the universe not static? but under constant change?
"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin..."
Please elaborate!
The Bible says in Gen 1:31 that everything God made was good. After sin, the Earth was cursed(Gen 3:17) and began to change. Everything we know about our world is from a post-curse perspective, we don't know what the celestial conditions were before the fall, so I do't know why there are still super-nova's.
As far as I know God does not require the universe to change, it changes because of sin. for example, there wasn't even rain on the Earth until the time of Noah(Gen 2:5), that means that something like rain which is a neccessity for us is actually the result of man's sin. However,
Rev 22:2,3 says that when Jesus return's, the leaves from the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations and there will be no more curse. So, the Earth was perfect, then cursed, then it will be redeemed.
I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are. I don't think we will ever stop searching for answers to things we don't understand. Sometimes though, I believe it can be to our detriment if we let the unknowable burden us too heavily. Romans 11:33 says, "O'h the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgement's and His ways past finding out!"
So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
I thank God for that rest!
Kevin
"I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."
I am completely in awe also at how unlimited our (human) minds are, given the text of the bible. Some imagination I'll say!
"So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable"
Thats right, hide under a rock and not use logic, reason and intelligence to learn! If the medical community had your philosophy, we would still be living just like your imaginary friend jesus. Just think no medicine for bacterial infections. No hospitals and the average age of humans would return to ~35 to 40 years old.
Also, no electricity, etc. Oh why not go live with the Amish, they have been overwhelmed with modern times that they reject all that they do not understand. I praise Ben Franklin for not completely understanding lightning and having the balls to experiment and discover electricity. Otherwise people like you would swear that the bolts were from an angry god, like Zeus! At least Zeus gave a fuck about humans and took pity upon them unlike his cousin Jehova, Elohim, Yahway or Allah (take your pick).
The problem is, it is all make believe. Again, I'll refer to what you said; "I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."
Here is what you consider to be the first drops of rain on earth. Please read (you do know how to read, right?) all 11 pages.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm
And those "credentials" are established by what/whom? The Bible, right?
Kevin: "If Jesus is not who he says he is,..."
You mean if Jesus is not who the anonymous gospel writers claim he is. There is no way of telling for sure how much, if any, of the gospel saying were ever uttered by Jesus, nor whether there even was such a man. (You realize that Paul never quoted Jesus, nor seemed to know much of anything about him as a human being, right?)
Kevin: "...then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.'"
I think it's "most pitiable" for people to structure their lives around religious myths. Paul was a religious zealot, just like the founders of countless other religions. Why not listen to Muhammad and worship the "one true god" of Allah? Why did you choose to believe what Paul had to say?
Kevin: "...But if Jesus is who he says he is 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?"
Yep. If he was actually god in the flesh, you bet; we should bow to him and follow his every command. But, now let's ask another hypothetical: If Krishna is the one true god, should we not worship him? The answer would have to be "yes", wouldn't it? Now, the ten-ton elephant in the room is this question: WHICH, IF ANY OF THEM, IS A *REAL* DEITY?
Later Kevin said "...whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"
What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Those have got to be the three most underutilized words in the world, especially among religionists.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?
Values are developmentally understood, babies don't have knowledge, but they innately try to survive at the earliest stages of fetal development...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Value is nothing more than what one likes or dislikes, one's approvals or disapprovals."
A child lives according to natural instinct, until they reach a point between birth and 6/7 years old, where their values are learned from their caregivers/environment, and based on cause-effect to their state of being... at this point, a "child" doesn't have "autonomous" values, they are living according to their programming...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Are the horrors of the Nazis during WWII nothing more than one's individual approval or disapproval?"
It depends on "who" you ask...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Is it purely subjective?"
Theoretically, there is "no" purely objective response, when describing matters of humanity and behavior... there are "correlations"... between the individual, and the "mean" belief of a society... because there are no purely Objective laws, we have "judges" who preside over courts to make decisions based on scenarios, that are "never" the exact same...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Or in their atrocities were the Nazis guilty of real (objective) moral wrong? If yes, what law did they violate? Law of U.S.A.? Law of England? Or some other law? If the Nazis are guilty of real, objective moral wrong, that entails an objective standard. If there is no higher law, a law which rises above what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time, by which the conduct of individuals or societies may be correctly judged as either morally right or morally wrong, then it's false and wrong to say the Nazis actually did real wrong with their concentration camps and the murder of six million human beings.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?"
The forefathers of the U.S. didn't pick out a Higher Law according to some "SuperNatural" power, as if... They went back to the "Basic" instinctual nature we act upon, which is survival... Therefore, they determined there to be "certain" inalienable rights upon birth, survival being at the top of the list... therefore, they concluded "life", the "liberty" to be free from physical oppression, and the freedom from intellectual persuction which leads to "happiness" to be the basic rights of citizens...
The U.S. Constitution is the Higher Law in the U.S., and is based on inalienable "rights"... Other nations may have their own foundations, and the right to lead separate and sovereignly, until they allow their citizens or national influence to attack another nation based on its own understanding of higher law...
Therefore, the higher law, if one wanted to argue for arguments' sake, would be "Nature" and the instinctive and innately act of survival... I'm almost positive that the religious attribute this higher law to some "spiritual law", with "zero" foundation...
Perhaps, that is why there is "natural" law practiced in the U.S., along with "common" law, which is based on custom, religious custom/culture to be precise...
When the religiously uneducated, attempt to take their "beliefs" based on custom, and there are thousands of different "views" based on religious custom, and attempt to make some binding law, it gets to be a little ridiculous... Whereas a religious moron would suggest "life" is valuable because a book says so, there are others who believe that "life" is Naturally understood and "valuable", and there isn't a need for a battle of the bibles, to figure it out...
Speaking of common law, if the U.S. justice system were totally based on comon law, we would be able to cite the bible and commit murder based on "exceptions" to the rule, one being, blasphemy of god per the bible... I mean, if one wanted to really look at the bible, Jesus allowed Judas to facilitate his death... a precedent for "euthanasia"... I wonder why Dr. Kavorkian finally got slapped in prison for following the same principle... probably had something to do with Natural Law...
I have a question. Of the following statements, which one(s) is (are)true:
1) A woman was on earth before any human baby.
2) A human baby was on earth before any woman.
Or are or both statements or one of the statements false?
I'll give a one-word answer, then elaborate: "Phylogeny", or the historical development of an organism. One often hears the false dichotomy of "absolute moral law" vs. "personal whim" being bandied about by religionists, but this deftly ignores any innate sense of right and wrong that is built up in the same way that wasps have learned to build elaborate nests, and ants have learned to enslave lesser creatures; i.e. through the development of successful survival strategies over millions of generations.
Do I disdain rape and murder because "god made it so", or because it's a personal whim? No, neither. I disdain those things for the very same reason that you do, and most human being on this Earth do; they are reprehensible to me because that is the way I am "wired" as a typical, highly social, human being, AND because this innate disdain has been reinforced through my upbringing and exposure to countless intellectual arguments in favor of peaceful coexistence.
Adding to the confusion that many religionists exhibit over this point is a common misunderstanding of Darwinism; they conflate "survival of the fittest" with promoting evil totalitarian regimes (with the Nazis being most commonly cited). This is extremely naive at many levels. First, "survival" can be, and often is, most successfully attained through *cooperation*, not domination. In fact, such totalitarian regimes are routinely toppled by the much more stable alliances based on cooperation, which are de facto more "fit". Second, the principle is in no way normative; one cannot deduce what "ought" to be true from it. Third, the principle only applies to characteristics that affect the gene pool over vast stretches of time.
Moreover, simply stating one's strong preference for an "absolute" system of morals in no way makes the latter more likely. Even if we all agreed that it would be far better to have an absolute and unambiguous system of justice, that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the questions of what we actually HAVE. Nature, so far as I can tell, is under no obligation to deliver what we prefer to have.
Lastly, I see absolutely no evidence for there being moral "absolutes" that exist outside of the human mind. Moral ambiguities abound, and they will keep courts of international law busy in perpetuity. While there is strong sociological evidence for some basic innate principles that are common to all humanity, even a casual observer can see that these simple "heuristics" quickly lead to conundrums that have no clear answer, and over which people are sharply divided.
In summary: 1) What you offer is a false dichotomy, as you ignore innate tendencies, which appear to be the *real* bedrock of morality, and are explainable in natural terms, 2) Regardless of what we deem preferable, we must look at the *evidence* in order to ascertain what *is* the case, and 3) nobody has been able to articulate a universal moral code that consistently and unambiguously allows us to resolve our differences, for even within a given religious sect there is sharply divided opinion.
For all of these reasons, I believe there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral law; i.e. one that exists outside of the human mind.
You could say a sub human female primate gave birth to the first human.
In order to know which birth that was, you would have to have an exact definition a human. Since this is impossible, you would never get any two people to agree on which sub human female primate, gave birth to the first "Human Mutant."
That's a ridiculous question, couched in the same ridiculous *absolute* language that most religious claptrap indulges. (It also makes the unwarranted assumption that the god of the Bible is the same as the god revealed through nature, if indeed both actually exist, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Let me re-phrase the question so that it can be answered simply and directly:
Question: Who will explain why you do not believe in the god that is proclaimed in the Bible?
See the difference? Your statement hinges on (presumably absolute/infinite) *knowledge*, whereas mine is a request for one's *reasons* for not accepting a fantastic claim. Phrased in the more reasonable way, the query has a very succinct answer:
Answer: There is no credible evidence to support that claim.
Elaborating on that some....
1) The Bible itself has no inherent authority as it fails to exhibit any credible evidence of having divine origin. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that it is the product of the human imagination, weaving together many existing mythical motifs from much more ancient religions, just like every other existing religious text. The so-called "fulfilled prophecies" all crumble when examined closely, as they rely on imaginative interpretations of older text, invented fulfillments, etc.
2) Christian dogma is replete with nonsensical and contradictory claims, such as the notion of atonement, the notion of the trinity, and original sin. Throw in the countless acts of wanton cruelty (rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, deception, etc.) perpetrated and condoned by this supposedly infinitely merciful being, and stories of talking animals, a tower that reaches into heaven, Noah's ark, etc., and you have a belief system with all the credibility of a Brothers Grim fairy tale.
3) People the world over, in all cultures, since recorded history, have invented similar stories and believe them just as fervently as do those alive today who proclaim that THEIR god exists, and that THEIR holy book is the inspired work of god. As these stories are wildly different, they cannot all be true. This clearly shows man's capacity to deceive himself when it comes to invisible sentient beings, for which there is not a shred of credible evidence.
4) Every argument I have ever heard for the existence of god, or for the divine nature of a given holy text, has disintegrated on critical examination. Each one has been based on distortion of fact or fallacious reasoning.
Is that sufficient, or shall I go on?
yeh so knowledge we can presume is an integral part of ones interpretation of values. So to properly understand this he has used the example of a child. Knowledge is an ongoing build up of information. A child takes in this information from its surrounding, i.e parents, people. Therefore we presume that as the child is taking in knowledge in this way he is also absorbing the values that it is taught. (maturity) So what im saying is if your mother tells you off for taking something that is not yours then you take in the knowledge that it is no appropriate and then that knowledge becomes our values. In contrast primitive cultures have different values because they take in different information. So you can also say the age old debate that genitics AND ENVIRONMENT (environment means knowledge, which means values) both determaine the type of person with such values you will become. A test of two identical twins was taken, where both were seperated and risen differently by a french man. Different values were present like how people are unique and different because of their upbringing. I would also like to add that religion has a big part of escpecially western values. I like to think of it as a inheritance. Pre-Christian world (watch the movie alexander), was very different. Then christianity was introduced. When it was intoduced it was fed in to peoples homes, governments and ultimatelty their lives. Therefore is was passed down in time (those values) from generation to generation. I mean look at most western governments the laws reflect those values. Do you the ancient world had values for the education of every child in their empire? Im no expert by any means. I just have a theory, like many i am jst fuullll of question. P.S some ppl really like to diss my writing but hmm..kinda in a hurry to check spelling and everything. Peace.
Greetings, Mr. Anonymous. One's personal opinion is absolute to the person wielding the belief, if they have shut off all doors to reason and ability to adapt and learn..., a person then becomes absolutely brain dead, but hey, they're absolute in their ways...
And, No, there is no Universal Absolute Truth, besides Change known at this time... Hence, why its unnatural and uneducated for a person to say, that their "personal" truth is Universally True... Because of trial and error over the past few thousand years, democracy has shown to be the most adaptible framework for a changing society...
In some countries, its okay for a woman to marry multiple men, and in others for men to marry multiple women... its the inability of religion to adapt to changing values that makes it ridiculous... :-) take care...
Perhaps, it depends on the craftsmanship I suppose...
Anonymous: "Would you know that his natural hand was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not?
Well, if a child was born with a deformed hand... I wouldn't call the creator intelligent, would you? Unless, the creator is deformed also... and then it would make perfect sense... cheers...
I saw Jesus on the side of a milk carton the other day, I wonder if they finally found him, the milk's over 2,000 years old.
Yes of course a prosthesis is designed by an intelligent being - or at least by a human being. Prosthetics don't naturally occur in nature - they are made in factories by people. We can observe this. We can go into a prosthetic factory and watch the process from start to finish.
If your ultimate point is to compare naturally occurring events and living things with man-made objects, then you are trying to compare proverbial apples to oranges. A better analogy might be that you are comparing automobiles with trees. We simply do not know exactly how a tree has developed into the form of life that it is. We cannot watch the process of how the tree developed - we may have reasonably reliable scientific theories or strong religious beliefs on how it happened, but we can't absolutely say how or even why a trees developed into their present form as opposed to any other optional plant form.
Human arms and prosthetic arms have nothing in common. A natural arm exists because it developed over eons of evolution. Most mammals don't have arms, so they are not an absolute necessity for being alive - they are quite useful though. A prosthetic arm exists because a person finds their arms useful and if an arm is lost for any reason, the person may want to try to replace it.
However, if any person has an appendectomy, we don't try to replace our appendixes because they are no longer useful.
Or if your supposition is that because a prosthetic has a purpose that proves it has a design and a natural arm has a purpose so that proves it has a design. Well, hurricane Katrina certainly must also have been designed because it certainly had a purpose right? That purpose undoubtedly was to kill, destroy property and afflict the wicked sons of men! Using your logic, Katrina raised hell with thousands of people, so that was its intended purpose. Praise be!
My point? Having the appearance of design in nature is a far cry from actually being designed by a thinking intelligent being, AKA God - who would also have to be an extremely complex entity with a purpose but who completely contradicts the whole "things that look designed need a designer" mentality because this god doesn't require a designer.
Why can't "ex-Christians and the like ever say something original instead of just quoting Depeche Mode and eachother. From Dave's description of Jesus it is apparent that you read the Bible not with the intention of discovery, learning, or exploration of any kind but simply to further your own argument. He tries to sound so smart as he blogs with his dictionary and thesaurus readily at hand, but the big words don't magically make sense of the way off base ramblings. The truth is there is truth and some people will simply miss it. But thankfully some of you "ex-Christians" will humble yourselves, abandon the flesh, and return to your God.
I'll let you know, when my skin falls off, and I have truly "abandoned"... is that like saying, "I was scared out of my skin?"... and return to my god, we were never introduced, so, there obviously will be no "reunion" anytime soon... perhaps, you can introduce your god that is unknowable to "me" for the first time... oh, and if your god has a jealous personality, let me know, I don't want to be eternally tortured based on his lack of security... thanks...
You quoted me:
"......oh, and before some evangelical nut reads this and says I'm gonna go to hell, let me add that I think that if God follows this site and reads everything we post, he must spend a lot of the time rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off!"
Anonymous said:
"Why can't 'ex-Christians and the like ever say something original instead of just quoting Depeche Mode and each other"
The quote in your post above WAS original, (mine), whereas your blog name (Anonymous) in your post wasn't.
What the fuck does, abandon the flesh, mean? Sounds like something from the Bible! What does, return to your God mean? Sounds like one of those meaningless Christian clichés. You, nor anyone else knows what God is!
Your: "The truth is, there is truth and some people will simply miss it," describes yourself to a tee.
There are people on this site who say ORIGINAL, logical, intelligent things, worth quoting, but so far you are not one of them!
Dano
P. S. You used the name of a "Rock Band," incorrectly, to describe a manner of quoting. (original, but stupid)
It's really painfully simple... You don't need to invoke any nonsense about being "self-caused". As always, I shall speak for myself, but I'm sure most will agree. Here it is:
I do not believe in your god for the simple reason that I've seen NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE.
It's never ceases to amaze me how difficult that concept seems to be for religionists. It's just the same (I presume) for you and Zeus. You probably don't believe in Zeus because you've NO REASON to; there is no evidence or reasoning that has ever compelled you to believe in him, hence you do not. No metaphysical nonsense was necessary for you to reach that position, and clearly no *proof* of *non-existence* was needed either.
Does that make sense to you?
To quote an atheist: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have had a cause. If God had a cause, then He was not the first (or uncaused) cause. If God did not have a cause, then not everything must have a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one of those things which also does not need a cause."
Again, I don't believe that God is self-caused. That's absurd. I believe He's uncaused. Also, I don't believe that everything must have a cause, but only that every effect must have a cause. An atheist might say, "everything has a cause." I say, "everything that begins has a cause." I believe that God is an uncreated (uncaused) Creator (cause).
If it's irrational to believe that God, who has no beginning, needs no cause, then atheism is also irrational. You see, many atheists believe that the universe
needs no cause, because it had no beginning. Unless an atheist calls the "big bang" the beginning.
The real question becomes, "what is eternal. God, or the universe?" If is is rational to believe that the universe could be eternal without a cause, then there can be no real argument against theists who insist that God is an eternal Being without cause. If it is irrational to accept this about God, then its is also irrational to accept the same idea about the universe. In other words, the objection cuts both ways.
Take care, and have a nice day.
The whole thing is making me abdomamous!
Merry synonymous to all and to all of the Anonymous's keep up the good fight!
You too, Dave, and Dave, and Carol, and Jim, and Jim, and John and freeman, and South, and Kevin Forever and ever, and Mutt Mutt, and all of us who are not able to hang on to that great security blanket in the sky any more, and just have to wing it with rational thought.
Oh! and I certainly didn't mean to exclude, Jezebel_in_a_Red_Teddy!
Me old china plate.
Thats Austra alien for M8.
Fairdink'm cobber.Check ya in the forums.
I'm of to fill me tucker bag with another jumbuck.
Struth the christian sheep are hard to tame.
Yet they will come a waltzing matilda with me.
I must admit, your "faith" is much greater than mine.
Take care.
Peer reviewed scientific evidence is what I look for. Almost no reputable scientist believes as you do. From what you say, you are still hiding every time it thunders because god is angry.
Nice. This sounds like a chant for a cult. Say something over and over till your own brain begins to fuzz and it all makes sense to you.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know if there is a god or creator or not. But I know for a fact that there is no christian god, muslam god, or any other sort of god as described by man made books. Open your eyes and you will see this for yourself.
Anyway, other than that, you've got an okay site. I guess if someone was looking for this kind of information, this would be the place.
Gerald, I'd be fine and dandy with anyone who had a belief in something that I differed in or didn't believe in at all. The problem here is that these people are taking something that they believe and are trying to make the rest of us live by their beliefs.
Do not kid yourself, it is exactly what is happening. All thru history you find examples where religion has been used as a method to control, take from, and command anyone around them. Their methods appear docile and moral on the outside, but when left unchecked it often leads to violence and bloodshed. There is no place, no nation, and no race that does not have a history of violence involving religion.
People of religion would have you beleive that they are doing nothing to anyone, simply trying to spread the word. No harm no foul. But this is simply not true. From government to education to our daily lives, religious dogma and influence effect our world. It is something that has been saturated into our society so far that people really do not want to even contemplate giving it up.
Religion is a tool to control. People are inundated with the dogma for so long they simply cannot see that. People need a comfort zone, and for many it is the belief in something after life. I only wish these people would really look at what they THINK they are supporting. If they would only dig deeper and ask questions. I wager none of them take a bank loan or morgage without digging for all the answers first. Why is it they accept something as obviously false as religion? Because they want to and turn a blind eye.
But I digress. Fundies do not go follow the ideal of "live and let live". If this were true then why do they wage ware against homosexuals, athiests, science, other religions, and people who differ from them? They try and seed themselves into every aspect of life then cry foul when people try and stand against them.
It would be great if they went about their lives and didnt worry themselves over mine. But it doesnt work that way.
Honestly, take a look at this site. No one can refute the information here :
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
At best all they can do is stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la la".
Do you think that if I entered a church I would hear preaching?
You entered this website, and if you're reading some things you consider preachy, well - duh.
It's not "extreme lengths." It's just a website - a website aimed at those leaving Christianity.
Unfortunately, fundies can't resist dropping by and being offended. Personally, being told I am a vile sinner offends me, but that doesn't stop Christians from saying it over and over. If the site offends you, click off.
First of all: Thank you for this website. I used to believe in god but now i don't anymore, because there is no logical reason for me to do so. On the
other hand I can understand people who really think they got the truth. If I thought I did I would also want people to know it. Well, anyhow. My comment on Science vs. Creator is that Science can't be perfect yet, because it was opressed by christians for such a long time. christians had over 5000 years to find arguments for their believings. Science has been liberal for much less time. It cannot prove that there is no god, so far. But it can already proof,that the stuff written in the bible cannot be (literally) true and that god ( if there is one) is not the one described in the bible. Just give science a bit of time please, christians.
Oh, by the way: Values come from experience. Almost every kid touched a hot oven or sth else hot just to know how it is. Afterwards they didn't do it again, unless they were mentally ill. They had concluded: it hurts don't do it again. Thats called experience. Also people experienced that it hurts to lose someone you lose especially if someone else has killed the person. so they concluded: don't kill, it will only cause trouble. You can use this position of looking at it for many things in the bible. The first commandment by the way is only a smart way to make EVERYBODY do the other nine laws. Noone would react to laws made by a mortal person, but if you threat with some unprovable place called "scheol" you will make people do what you think is good. All I am saying: The bible has very good aspects, but it's a law book written by smart people and not by people inspired by god. And also today we can totally tell, that those people didn't know so mcuh about science as we do today.
Anyways, have a nice one!
Take it easy, Felden
Dear DavPar1 aka "Target Boy",
A few points to consider:
In the Dark Ages perhaps "95%", if not ALL, of the world's population believed that the earth was shaped like a frickin' pancake. So as we see, "Truth" isn't deduced from popular vote, is it?
Evolution: Evolution is both theory AND fact. Creationism is NEITHER. Your 'murder the neighbor' analogy is quite possibly the most assinine "argument" for creationism/divine morals I've ever read. 1) Modern man has evolved over time to become civilized, thus, most of us have become "intelligent". Please don't compare modern man to a bacteria. Thanks. 2) If you're trying to tell us that there's an objective set of divine morals, you might want to research all of the Christians denominations to date, and when you do, you'll see that NONE of them fully agree on what's "right" and what's "wrong"....they disagree on everything from abortion, to birth control, to the death penalty.
Meaning of life: The meaning of life is up to the individual. Furthermore, the fact that it ends GIVES it more meaning, not less. Your dog isn't going to live forever, does it's life have no meaning?.....maybe you should just kill it, huh?.
Additionally, existing in the clouds for eternity would serve zero purpose, and would eventually become torture...i.e..."Hell"....::wink:: Also, if you're telling us that the reason you believe in the Christian God and his son is because it makes your life "easier", you're not telling us anything we didn't already know.
I'd have to agree with that. Around here, that attitude is exhibited almost daily by the Christian visitors who come to proselytize, not to discuss.
davpar1: "Evolution on the surface seems to be a reasonable explanation for our exsistance on this planet."
I find that the more one learns about it, the more solid it becomes. For example, the evidence at the level of molecular biology is quite astonishing.
davpar1:"However, contrary to your opinion, evolution is still a 'theory' and is not “fact”."
Be careful with those words "theory" and "fact". Contrary to popular opinion, "theory" does not connote tentativeness; at least no more so than anything else in science, where everything is technically provisional. Also, the word "fact" in the context of evolution (as in the phrase "the fact of evolution") does not connote absolute certainty. Rather, "fact" refers to observable evidence (direct or indirect) and/or the conclusions that follow directly from those observations. (Again, everything is provisional.) Hence, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observation that evolution has occurred (as supported by the geological column, among other things), sans any explanation as to how it occurred. The "theory" part supplements the "fact" by supplying a testable idea about the "how".
davpar1:"...Will this generation be deemed uncivilized by the generations to come?..."
I think there is little doubt; not in an absolute sense, but relative the future notions of civility, we will surely be thought to be somewhat "primitive". Here is one example. I am virtually certain that 100 years from now people will look back on this period and shake their heads over the blatant bigotry that society shows toward homosexuals. I am also relatively certain that our penchant for warfare will be seen as barbaric, and our casual acceptance of casualties among soldiers will be seen as strangely myopic. I'm sure you could think of some norms that are likely to change as well. What do you conclude from that?
davpar1:"...Is it not possible that in the 25% you did not learn, that God could exsist?"
Of course. What was the point of all the percentages? You don't need any of that to see that NO empirical statement can be known with absolute certainty; particularly negative ones (e.g. no pink unicorns exist anywhere in the universe), and especially those that involve metaphysical entities (e.g. Zeus does/does not exist). What seems to be at issue is whether there are GOOD REASONS to believe a given proposition; focusing on the lack of a definitive disproof is a red herring.
davpar1: "It is important to note that my belief system is my Choice."
Yes, of course it is. As are ours.
davpar1: "I personally believe in Jesus Christ and an almighty God for one reason alone, I have personally witnessed and experienced in a very real way their exsistance."
Well, I'm sure you know that that kind of statement will not sway anybody here. A good many of the regulars here have "experienced" god/Jesus too, only to realize later that they were deceiving themselves, as hundreds of millions of people do daily with respect to various deities. I've heard countless stories of how god supposedly revealed himself in the affairs of people, but in every case there seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking and truly awful statistical reasoning behind them. Thus, I take them with a small grain of salt.
davpar1: "Remember you have more to lose than I do. If I'm wrong and your right, I've only lost my time here on this earth in an errant belief."
That is simply a variant of Pascal's wager, and it is a fallacy. You neglect to take account of all the possibilities. More on that below.
davpar1:"If your wrong and I'm right, youve lost your choice to eternal life."
Similarly, if you are wrong about the one true god taking human form, and you've blasphemed Allah, you will spend eternity in the Islamic Hell. Then again, maybe the one true god will only save those who had the wisdom to discard any belief system that condones the type of ghastly violence found in the Old Testament. Or, maybe only those whose underwear is festooned with astrological signs will be saved. The point is, one could invent any number of such scenarios; however, without some credible backing, there is no reason to believe a single one of them. Simply hedging you bet by believing the one with the most sever punishment for heresy is specious.
I don't, in fact, claim to know all the answers to life's greatest questions. So lose the strawman. In regards to God---whether it be the Abrahamic, Egyptian, Islamic, Martian, etc, etc---I merely hold a positon of neutrality....meaning, when He/She/It/ make their presence known to me through the physical senses---the same senses I use to deduce that anything ELSE exists--- THEN I will have the undeniable and necessary evidence to have a belief in such a being. However, until that time, I won't suspend logic and reason in lieu of blind faith.....or, a "feeling".
If you say you've "witnessed their existance"?...then peachy, but your personal experience isn't, and will never be, OBJECTIVE evidence for all of mankind. Accordingly, whether you believe your personal experiences with God, Santa, or whoever, are real or not, is immaterial to me. What does puzzle me is how people can use logic and common sense to discount the existance 500 "other gods", but when it comes to their own irrational beliefs, that same "sense" is out the window.
I'm sorry, but ALL religious belief is subjective. And what you have is a conviction---and convictions are the end of knowledge. So, evolution is "not fact", eh?...okay, so talking reptiles, donkeys, and vegetation is what?... a theory?....a fact?....a side show at the carnival, maybe?
And please, Pascal's Wager?..."what if I'm right and you're wrong"?...the oldest Christian sound bite on the internet. All it does is on your part is point out the fact that you do not have the evidence to support your claim. You need some new material.
davpar1 said "...A key ingredient to the theory of evolution is the survival of the fittest, no?
If I choose to murder my neighbor, would this in fact not be murder, but me excersing my ability to survive better than him?"
What *you* as an individual choose to do has little or no bearing on the allele frequencies of the population (i.e. the genetic makeup of the population). Survival strategies that are linked to specific alleles cause a drift in those alleles; that is what evolution is. Moreover, it's absurd to use this principle as a justification for some action as the principle is descriptive, not normative (i.e. it speaks to what *is*, not to what *ought* to be). Here's a loose analogy: Newton's universal law of gravity nicely describes what happens when I drop an object from a high building. It's a descriptive law. Does it then imply that I have an obligation to toss people from tall buildings? That would be absurd, right? Right.
davpar1 also said "Morality and the moral code should have no place in the theory of evolution, if our chief goal in life is strictly survival."
Moral codes are normative; the theory of evolution is descriptive. So, right, the theory does not speak (directly) to what we establish as our codes of conduct. However, there *is* an important connection in that social norms have a biological basis. That is, our laws do not arise from nothing; there is usually a deep resonance with fundamental behaviors that have been shaped by evolution. For example, all societies discourage, murder, mayhem, theft, incest, etc. (while granting various exceptions, of course). We could get into the biological basis of these things, but that is a fairly long discussion.
davpar1 concluded with this challenge: "While you folks would like me to justify my choice to believe in God and his son, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how your beliefs make this life easier and more fulfilling."
First, you seem to have your priorities a bit confused. The issue here is what is TRUE, not what is easiest or what makes us feel the best. Maybe it makes life easy and fulfilling for me to believe that Krishna is the one true god. I think we can all agree that that's generally not the best reason to adopt a belief.
Next, it has been my observation that the more completely and objectively we understand ourselves and the physical world around us, the better off we are in terms of creating a just and sustainable society. Great advances come from understanding the true nature of biological organisms (e.g. via medicine, psychology, and ultimately jurisprudence), while only superficial and transient "feel-good" kinds of benefits come from religious mythology. Proclaiming that "god did it", then inventing, embellishing, and reaffirming tall stories about this being can serve some immediate societal needs, but it cannot compare to the benefits of actual understanding.
God created the world perfect but then Adam and Eve sinned this brought sin and imperfection into the world "the fall of man" after that the world changed this isnt the same world God created it has always been changeing He didnt just make it and say this is how it is and this is how it always will be the world is and always will be changing
what is the purpose of change to make us grow to make us become stronger
and i know someone will reply to this telling me im stupid and dont know what im talking about but it makes me sad to think that u feel so obligated to tell the world that all christians are stupid for believing the bible and in God it sounds like u met every type of christian there is and know everything there is to know oops know everything u want to know about christianity i hope u realize that not every one who says their a christian is a christian and not everything that was done in the name of christianity was true christianity so dont try to group all christians into one category and say they all believe the same thing there are a lot of people out there who say their christians but dont follow the bible but then again u guys dont believe in the bible so u know what just ignore what i said as some close minded person who doesnt know anything
Tell the world? Do you see us going from door to door or building mega churches to preach or handing out tracks on the street corners or breathing down strangers’ backs telling them about gawd? NO!
“it sounds like u met every type of christian there is and know everything there is to know oops know everything u want to know about Christianity i hope u realize that not every one who says their a christian is a christian and not everything that was done in the name of christianity was true christianity so dont try to group all christians into one category and say ......yada yada yada
Then you must me – the True Christian ™. Hey guys, we found what we’ve been looking for.
“...but then again u guys dont believe in the bible so u know what just ignore what i said as some close minded person who doesnt know anything”
Let us see if you know “anything”:
What should a woman’s punishment be if she is raped and didn’t scream loud enough?
Which is the 10th commandment?
What did Moses do with the virgins?
If one desires to be the disciple of Jesus, what should he/she do?
Why would a loving Jesus declare that he would kill innocent children?
Why would an all loving God discriminate against the handicapped?
Answer YES or NO
Would God kill or order the killing of innocent children?
Would God order people to dash infants against rocks and floors?
Would God make parents eat the flesh of their children?
Would God order pregnant women to be ripped open?
Would God kill 70,000 people to punish one man?
Would God order his followers to kill each other?
Would God approve of a vow to kill one’s own daughter?
Would God make people eat feces?!
Would God order the mass execution of unarmed captives?
Well, I guess Somday we will all know the Truth as to the meaning of life, or lack there of. so if You people are so determined to believe in nothing, then nothing I say will change that. *sigh*
and south2003 as for your "Yes/no." question, my answer for all of those is no. no not my God, maybe somone elses, but not mine.
some of you may think it folish of my to be a christian and since that definiton has become very vague i will define it as somone who believes in jesus. that believes he is the son of God and he did do all he said. I do not however Believe this just on faith, or from what other people tell me, altho that is a big part of it. but i aslo believe it because of the miricles I've seen, that science can not explain. I've seen people that i know lay there hands on others and they are healed, and not just under the surface healing but identable visible healing. Ex. somone with legs diferent lengths suddenly have one grow longer to match the other. I've seen people deliverd from demons in front of my eyes, (and it's nothing like the movies)
I can tell you that these people were not "acting" or faking, as i knew some of them personally. however, those are my stories, not yours, so for all you know im just making them up. altho I swear that im not. so I chalange you, see if there is any truth to my words. if not, you lost nothing, if there is, you could lose everything.
now as i have not perposly attacked anyone, only told how i feel. I ask that you will be kinda enough to do the same.
thank you and God Bless
what is the purpose of change to make us grow to make us become stronger..."
Uh, hate to ask the question, but what are we supposed to be growing into, and what makes us weak. If you suggest sin makes us weak, then you have to define sin, but then, sin changes also, depending on who you ask, and what religion. To become more than what someone says they are; suggests there is some 'greater' paradigm of what we should be. So, are you going to tell us what humanity is supposed to be striving to become and how that striving makes one stronger.
To simplify, I don't think we need an example of a monkey doing push-ups. Start with how someone grows stronger 'spiritually', by defining what a spirit is, and how one knows a weak spirit from a nice strong spirit. Oh, and don't use physical terms to describe spirit, as those would be physical attributes, not spiritual.
Isaiah Ch. 45 VS 21 "I am the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and Savior; there is none beside me.
22. "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God and none else."
This is the reason that the Jews do not believe in Jesus, God's chosen people, but you insist in believing in Jesus.
The story of Jesus is a fabrication embellished and faked by Paul to impress his Jewish friends.
The story of Jesus has taken the focus away from the OT God, sending millions of Jesus believers into hell, along with the muslims.
Anita you're worshipping a False Idol called, Jesus, and you're destined straight into hell, renounce Jesus now before it's too late.
I pray that it's not too late, at least I tried, my hands are washed clean if you do not reject Jesus, the false God soul snatcher.
Wow, how amazingly typical of you Anita kat to use one of THE most worn out christian accusations we commonly hear! They are always based on christian condemnation and rash judgment!
Of course, what else should we expect. Way to be another example of how the christian faith leads people to be haters and bigots.
You know nothing about the people here and you will never know just how great the people in here really are, simply because we do not conform to your beliefs.
THEN...
Anita Kat said:"now as i have not perposly attacked anyone, only told how i feel. I ask that you will be kinda enough to do the same."
KIND ENOUGH... to do the same?
Coming from the same person that also just said this;
Anita Kat said:""wow, amazing how bitter some of you people are. really, i kinda feel sorry for
you."
Do not feel sorry for us, Mrs.Condescending Christian Snob.
Check your self righteous attitude at the door next time and deposit your bad comments in the suggestion box.
Won't you be kind enough to refrain from using the same old tired christian reproach.
God-less everyone!
You really should open a school dedicated to saving "air head girls," from what they learned from their Moms.
You could start a whole new movement of women who are not afraid to be thinking, rational, un- superstitious, and real.
Dan
How funny. I do this kind of thing with kids all the time (usually with my arms). It goes over especially well with kids five and under--but even the five-year-olds generally catch on immediately. In fact, I get a kick out of seeing kids that young exhibit skepticism, and insist on checking it out multiple times for themselves and performing little "experiments". I see it as the seeds of genuine critical thinking. Unfortunately, there are always a few who simply accept things at face value, never questioning. Need I say more?
Anita also played the "bitter" card. Is anybody keeping track of how often Christian visitors use this gambit? Anita went on to say that she was attacking nobody (yet she pities us, apparently for being so "bitter").
Okay, I have a deal for you, Anita. If you actually return, and you manage to reply without sneaking in any crass assertions (e.g. remarks about us being angry or bitter), then I'll be happy to do the same. In fact, I'm sure I will not be the only one. How about it?
The school could be called Nature of Change Academy (or something like that, but words of Dave8 came to mind first) and the myths of the world’s religions would be examined as naive superstition, while at the same time we would provide an alternative source for core motivation by volunteering one day a week to hands on learning assignments that ultimately help improve humanity and/or nature.
Could we use the original Pledge of Allegiance, without the “in gawd” part?
Is there a law that states all schools must use the current “dogmafied” version?
My husband is a teacher and there most certainly is a need for a "reality" based school every where in America, but especially here in the Cincinnati area where Catholic schools rein supreme and Christian academies are for the most part, exclusively attended by the children of the privileged and wealthy.
Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted Dano.
Thanks for the lovely compliments.
G’ Day mate!
I stumbled upon this site and found it to be interesting. I noticed one thing, in all the conversations I've read, it's always been the Christian defending their beliefs. So I have one simple question for you: You say there is no God, prove it.
posted: 2/02/2006 12:40 AM EST
You have all of the same things in common with every other Christian who has stumbled upon this site.
#1. You didn't read or understand the name of the site.
#2. You didn't read much, and what you did read, you blocked out of your brainwashed mind.
#3. You don't understand that if you don't believe something exists, you don't have to prove it.
Go back to the Christian sites and quit stumbling!
Dan
You said:
"and there most certainly is a need for a "reality" based school every where in America, but especially here in the Cincinnati area where Catholic schools rein supreme and Christian academies are for the most part, exclusively attended by the children of the privileged and wealthy."
You're lucky Melissa! Down here in "Baptist land," NC, if you tell people that you aren't a Christian, it is like telling them that you have AIDS, leprosy, and are possessed by demons.
Dan
You are either ignorant or insincere by that comment. Christians show up to 'prove their point', whatever that point is, and in 'response' people state why they have a different perspective. So, there are multiple views on any one topic, however, it appears you are too lazy to read arguments against god, and you are attempting to play stump the chump so that you somehow feel better about your belief in a transcendent god.
Anonymous: "So I have one simple question for you: You say there is no God, prove it."
Okay, simpleton, I have a simple answer.
If god exists per christianity in a transcendent reality, then god can not be experienced in this physical reality, especially for those who don't believe 'god' is of this sinful world.
If god can't be experienced in this physical world with clarity, then god can't be 'recognized' in this world.
If god can't be recognized in this world by a person, and they pass away, then they have no standard baseline to recognize a god in a transcendent reality once they die.
Therefore, 'any' god said to exist in a transcendent reality, i.e., mainstream christianity, etc., doesn't 'exist' as they have no recognizable "understanding" of the god concept being discussed.
Now, is there something beyond your simpleton mind that may exist? Maybe. However, you can't say god exists, and I can say for a fact, that any transcendent god you say exists, in fact, doesn't. If you say that you could "guess" and possibly be correct, then your god was based on 'physical' knowledge you obtained while on this earth, and therefore, your "guessed" god is much less the deity, than the one most christianity seems to want to believe.
If you don't want to listen to logic and reason, you can just leave your opinions to yourself, no need embarassing yourself by responding, but, have a great delusional life, and please, by all means, don't open your ignorant pie hole in public when trying to sound intelligent, it really doesn't become you.
" Define what a spirit is: without using physical terms "
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the Bible to answer this question, please be open minded, since I know you don't believe in the Bible.
1 Thes. 5:23 Humans have 3 parts: 1) physical body 2) soul 3) spirit
1 Cor 15:14
- there is a difference between your natural and spirit body
Our spirits have a form and correspond to our physical body ( other people believe this too, not just christians, ask someone who was involved in astral travel )
Rev 4:1-2
- shows an experience that shows a difference between ones physical and spiritual form
Heb 4:12
- there is a division between soul and spirit
- it is through our spirit we commune with God John 4:23-24
3 Area's of the spirit are:
- conscience
- intuition
- ability to communicate with God (ie/worship)
To grow spiritually simply means to grow in Christ, understanding, knowledge, and faith.
I'm not sure if that's what you meant by your question of "define spirit".
Anonymous: "1 Thes. 5:23 Humans have 3 parts: 1) physical body 2) soul 3) spirit"
I asked you to define 'spirit', you in-turn provided the name "spirit" as its own proof. That's kind of like using the bible to prove itself. If I said pink elephants were flying around mars, and you asked for evidence, and I wrote my comment on a piece of paper, and gave it to you, would that be 'more' evidence, or would that just be more information coming from 'one' source - me, and expecting you to blindly accept my words as truth.
1 Cor 15:14
- there is a difference between your natural and spirit body
Our spirits have a form and correspond to our physical body ( other people believe this too, not just christians, ask someone who was involved in astral travel )
Now, you attempt to describe 'spirit' but do so, by saying it has a "form", that is, a "natural" form that we use to "picture" in our mind what a "spirit" may look like. However, I nor you, have ever seen a 'spirit', but you are describing it as if you are able to see it.
Regarding astral projection, are you suggesting there is a splitting of the "spirit" from the body and it goes whizzing around the planet as if it were someones' experience of flying in first person. Does that make sense, even christians don't believe for the most part, that a spirit can just up and leave the body, or the body would surely die. Well, unless people are going to believe that some people don't have 'spirits' and are able to live anyway.
I can see how some religiouns have taken the view that some people don't have 'spirits', like witches, etc., and thus, were to be murdered. Even though, no one can really 'see' a spirit, or prove a spirit does or doesn't exist. Murder, based on pure hypothetical reasoning.
Perhaps, astral projection as experienced by the individual is solely contained within the thought processes of ones' mind, with external environmental influences. Hence, nothing leaving the body, or nothing bouncing around the universe, just possibly, a deeper connection with ones' own conscious awareness, when attachment is discarded and one is subconsciously free to engage in mental construction.
Anonymous: "Rev 4:1-2
- shows an experience that shows a difference between ones physical and spiritual form"
Somehow, I think you failed to provide what the 'difference' was between ones' physical thoughts and a 'spirit'.
Anonymous: "Heb 4:12
- there is a division between soul and spirit
- it is through our spirit we commune with God John 4:23-24"
Okay, still a division, and no description, but even though you haven't been able to describe the essence of a soul/spirit you say that we use it to communicate with a god. Again, if one doesn't have a mind, do they have a spirit. If not, the worshipping god, is nothing short of worshipping ones' own personal cognitive voice.
Anonymous: "3 Area's of the spirit are:
- conscience
- intuition
- ability to communicate with God (ie/worship)"
So, you have not provided evidence for a 'spirit', only speculation. However, it hasn't stopped you from further claiming that the minds' conscience, our ability to intuitively think, and our internal cognitive voice are three separate entities. Again, take a persons' mind away, and there no longer exists conscience, there no longer exists intuition, and there no longer is the capability to communicate with anyone, to include a god(s). So, its apparent the 'mind' is the 'spirit', unless you can show evidence that the mind/thought is somehow separate from the "spirit". If not, then the spirit is subordinate/subject to the 'mind'.
If you respond that people don't have to be mentally alive to have a spirit, then, of course, I'd have to ask, why rocks don't have spirits, termites, ants, bacteria, etc. All organic non-thinking life, and inorganic 'complex' structures would then seem to have some 'spirit' association.
By the way, if you don't know how to definitively explain what a 'spirit' is, and how its different than this natural realm, then why would one go through all of the rituals of religion to 'save' it. Why do people worry about something they can't even define, describe or explain?
I don't think you want to engage in an in-depth conversation on economics, but, I'll throw out that 'fear' is a manipulation tool used early in a persons' life, but eventually, those who continue to attach themselves to this false economy of spiritual salvation, are doing so out of 'greed'. A greedy person is not going to let go of something they believe is 'due them' or 'owed' to them, and thus, they will continue to keep believing they will receive some reward for their effort.
Greed has been suggested to be part of our prime nature, however, some people finally see the destructive nature of greed, as typically, unnecessary attachment. I wonder what Tolkien's message was in the Lord of the Rings, when Smeagol continued to worship the ring of power. Some worship rings, some worship 'spirits', in either case, its greed based benefit.
"I'm not sure if that's what you meant by your question of 'define spirit' ".
By the looks of things, I'd say no. But okay, since you, nor no other fundy can "define" spirit, maybe you tell the class in which part of the physical body the "spirit" resides. Oui? If you say the "brain" or "mind", please tell us in which part of the brain...because the brain is divided into several sections, or "lobes".
John 4:10: Jesus answered her, ‘You do not know the gift of God. You do not know who asks you for water. If you did, you could ask me. I would give you living water’.
And if God was a warrior god, Why then did he not allow abraham to kill his son after he proved his faith?
God saves...I hope you all find faith in him
"Are you tottaly oblivious? I doubt you understand the bible let alone read it."
Again, no one is saying that all Christians are stupid.... yet, by the looks of things, it appears that most ignorant people are religious.
Like, God is tottaly awesome, dude! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Why don't you admit that you're just as bigoted against Jews as you are against Christians? I know, I know, this web site is called "Ex-Christian.net," but if Christianity is disproven by simply reading the Bible, isn't Judaism as well?
All biblical texts and all religions, all of Christianity, Muslims, Jews, Jehovah Witness, Mormans, etc. beliefs in ghosts, spirits, angels, virgin births, miracles, visions, dreams, prophets, Saints, Popes, Preachers, blessings, grace, faith, prayer, oracles, Gods, Lords, Jesus, Satan, Allah, Mohammad, Heaven, Hell, Saved, Baptism, are all complete garbage, anmd a total fraud and a total hoax and scam.
Did I cover everything?
Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Okay, so calling unbelievers bigots is ignorant. I could care less what other people believe, but I'm convinced that Christianity, and all religion in general, is bunk. However, I can speak authoritatively to Christianity, as I was a Christian for three decades. I was not a Muslim, or Jew, or part of any of the other several thousand available religions. This site is tolerant of all viewpoints. Not everyone on this site is an atheist, and not all agree on everything.
One thing we do agree on, however, is that Christianity is bunk. This is a website devoted to discussing this fact. We don't have swords, shields, or greaves.
I suggest you learn what words mean -- crusade, bigot -- before using them. Trying to incite someone with the wrong insult looses the effect that I imagine you were hoping to produce.
http://www.ernestangley.org/
One easy way to do it is to compose in your "Write Mail," then use that spell check, and then copy and paste.
Dan (Homo sapiens, Rationalist)
We don't know, nobody knows, thats it! I think one reason people claim to be an Atheist is, we don't know. Atheist's think, rather than go out on a limb and look under every rock hoping to find faith in something that is invisible and worship imaginary concepts, in hopes that the performed ritual will some day be recognized as a benefit to this imaginary god.
As an Atheist myself, I love god whatever god is, if there is a god and it's shows itself to me some day, I will show love for it, if I know how.
I guess we should all claim to love god, whatever god is, that way Christians cannot say that we are against god. I do not love the god of the Bible, because I do not believe the god of the Bible is real.
Do you "know" most Atheists? I suspect, you know, very few Atheists, and even less know their opinions in regards to pro-life concerns... And, its much different having a logical "self" evaluated belief, as an Atheist, and having a "god" order the destruction of babies, in the most horrific manner. I am going to assume you don't worship any one Atheist, but you in fact, worship a "god", who you "know" per the bible, directs the murder of innocent babies, children, animals, etc., etc.
Regarding, your belief in Zeus, christianity is predominately "all", if not "all", theistic... are you suggesting that you are polytheistic, and claiming christian belief? If you do, I'd like to hear your most eruditious explanation. Albeit, most "all" christians believe in the "devil" or "boogyman" also, who happens to equal the power of god at times in the bible, and so, perhaps, christianity should be redefined as a polytheistic religion, based on the many different gods christians believe in.
Can you define god? No. But, you believe in multiple versions of something you can't define. That's like admission of being polytheistically ignorant... hope to hear from you.
But if someone says 144,000 people will be in Mount Zion and thousands more in other stages of paradise glorifying the Lord sitted at the right hand of God while billions of souls are being tormented every micro second in hell fire , I would prefer to go to hell rather than accepting this unspeakable rational.
This Alpha and Omega God, must have known if you and I will end up in Hell or Heaven .Remember: he is GOD , the knower or past , present and future, any notion given that he has given us a free will to choose and DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE , will not qualify him as GOD !!
If he knows the end result, why create us in the first place ?
If you wish to answer this, don't complicate the subject, say it as if you are explaining to a 6 year old kid.
I was raised Christian (liberal Christian, it's not just the fundamentalists that deconvert). For most of my teenage years I avoided any discussion about religion, I think I somehow knew I couldn't win. I avoided thinking too deeply about my beliefs, trying to quell the questions that were never far from the surface.
Your post outlines and sets out logically everything I now recognise as true, along with some handy citations that I'll be sure to use myself.
Again, thankyou so much.
Well i'm done here if you have something to reply to me dont even bother bacause i'm never comming to this website ever again....and YES I AM A JESUS FREAK!! AND THERE'S NOTHING BETTER OUT THERE THATS WHY I CHOSE TO STAY BEING A "FANATIC" as you may say God loves you all.
God Bless You all.
Mandy
One question. Which of the thousands of gods loves us and will bless us?
Quote "to be given a second chance to go back to God "
Prakash: You didn't get my earlier point , He knows whether I will be accepting this 'chance' or most probable rejecting it within my lifetime. Then why create my soul in the first place if he knows the end result?
Mandy : "you are doing is causing the greatest sin known to mankind and that isnt something to be proud of"
Prakash : Our comments aren't the greatest sin. History proves Slavery, Holocaust , fanatical pressure , narrow mindedness, Chatolics- Protestant war and oppresion, brain washing activities by fanatical Christians avengalist in poor countries is the greastest sin to human kind and your "Word Of God' is responsible for this.
Until you do, you're just another ranting fanatic. You sound no different than any religious Islamic. I challenge you to prove the existence of your god.
So, I take it from your insightful post that you can't offer one shred of evidence?
Hmmm.
Oh, BTW, I never made a single claim about particles, or anything else. I'm willing to admit ignorance when it comes to some aspects of science. I admit I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. However, you claim to have the answers, and those answers are...god.
Since you are the one making fantastic claims, I challenge you to reveal solid evidence for this god of yours. From your posts, I could just as easily say Thor did it, as to say your flying un-dead man-god on a stick did it. There is equal evidence of Thor's existence to that of your god — none.
I'll give a full report on the eclipse.
I just happen to be a person of ethical behavior and strong morals.I don't roam around like an animal,sharing myself with men that could care less about me,and I believe a woman that does has severe mental issues.I do not make up lies.I do not steal from other people.I do not go stomping around,complaining about something at all times,feeling "picked on" by every body,playing the victim for attention and whining.
Neither do I, and I am an Atheist, and I would also be willing to bet 100% of Atheist here, are just like me, so does that mean that we are Christians? Apparently!
Webmaster how much money do I need to send in, to get this Shay asshole booted or scubbed?....lol
I wish we had a delete button for ignorant fundies. Thanks, Ben
There are some good people on this site. Keep your eyes open for them. Everyone tends to get defensive and emotional when defending ones beliefes (or non-beliefs). Our faith in God is just as obsurd to them as their lack of faith is to us.
Dave Poole
Sorry Maam, the bible isn't "evidence" for jack shit. ' Ya know why you and "others" LIKE you believe, Maam?...because you can't fathom your own non-existance, that's why. Look, it's simple--- you're going to die Maam. Yup, one day your heart muscle will stop pumping blood to your brain and the rest of your body; gases and fluids will pool in your lungs and other vital organs, and you will lose consciousness, Maam---PERMANTLY. Nothing t'fear, though, Maam.... you won't feel a thing.
Nope, maybe critical thinking won't cure your ignorant religious belief, but death sure 'nough will...::wink::
R.I.P. Maam.
"Our faith in God is just as obsurd to them as their lack of faith is to us."
Tell me, why is a "lack of faith" absurd? I don't have faith in bigfoot, neither do you, yet, there's "documented" sightings written down in many books on the subject. The same goes for UFOs; the same goes for the Lochness Monster; the same goes for the abominabal snowman.
So, is YOUR lack of "faith" in these things "absurd"? The difference(like it really needs to be pointed out), is none of the above mentioned myths promise David Poole that he can "live forever". You have zero vested interest in believing in them on "faith". If I'm wrong, I'm sure you have the evidence, right? lol
R.I.P. Dave
You see, you're looking for someone to kiss your ass and support your beliefs, but you will not find it here, except the same people that want their ass kissed too, like David Pool and mq49.
No need to get defensive, your lack of erudition is not my doing.
Shay706: "I work in a very busy burn center.We have a large number of employees with a variety of jobs.Their are doctors,pa's,nurses,burn techs,physical therapists,physical therapy assistants,operating room staff,whirpool staff,secretaries,respiratory therapists,pharmacy techs,and phychologists.I think that covers everybody.I work 12 hour shifts on weekend nights with these people,and while we are in patients rooms for hours and hours,we have alot of talking time."
Lets, see, you have time to talk to patients, that's nice. I've done my share of clinical hours, so, lets see how well your discourse holds out. Now, its obvious that you didn't mention what "you" do for a living, in the midst of all of those occupations, would it be rude for me to hope you are not employed as an anesthetist, a few mispelled prescriptions could lead to some dire results.
Shay706: "We discuss politics and religion all the time and have debates about different topics.We have several athiest working on our unit,and also a few wiccans.All the athiests that I talk to at work say that the pregnant woman should be able to decide what she want's to do with her own body,except one of the doctors.He doesn't believe that you should get an abortion for any reason.I'm not totally against abortion in cases such as rape,incest,very young girl,or health problems with the pregnant woman.I think that if it must be done,it should be done as early as possible.I don't think that their is ever a reason for partial birth abortions."
It appears you don't get out much. The topic is morality and ethic based, and typically there are laws that cover such interests. I would ask you if you have a law degree, or some knoweldge of jurisprudence, but it appears, that would require more big words, so, I'll have to presume you are not running for supreme court justice anytime soon. That aside, morality, ethics, and law are debated from different platforms, one form of law is "spiritual law", another is "natural law". The U.S. has states that push common law, or laws common to the people, and typically at the earliest setting of this nation, those "common" laws were based on religious belief, and nothing short of "spiritual law", at the state level.
The religious typically place their moral beliefs in spiritual law, predominately, and those who don't see the need for religious support, lean towards natural law. Now, that is the far left and far right of a spectrum, and in between those two outer limits is the blending of the two in varying degrees.
Now, I really don't care what your opinion, is, as much as I care to hear your logical argument for your opinion. Further, do you believe a person needs to have a logical foundation for their beliefs, when "life and death" decisions are to be made from such logic?
I'll give you my short answer... spiritual law, is based on hypotheticals that can't be falsified, or proven wrong or right, in short, spiritual laws rely on nothing but pure imagination, and the hope that when decisions are made today, that in the future some good will come of those decisions. Personally, basing life and death decisions, on pure speculation/unprovable hypotheticals is insane, if one "values" life. Hence, in my opinion, when discussing abortion, etc., it seems the only logical and verifiable way to produce predictable actions, is to invest ones' time searching natural law, and deriving opinion. That doesn't mean, that all religious people hold to spiritual foundations for their beliefs, but... many do, and many die from their beliefs.
For instance, Jehova's Witnesses, don't accept blood transfusions, as it taints their bodily temple, and thus, many die at car crash sites. A religious mother, who believes a ghost enters an embryo, call it the "holy ghost" if you will, and believes, aborting that "godly" being, is akin to murder, and thus, that mother may die in order to keep to her "spiritual law". Oh, I don't agree with basing any decisions on "spiritual law", period, not one molecular bit, its all natural law for me. Its apparent, that if your debate with all those people at work, didn't lead you to find this pattern, that you obviously aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Shay706: "That is just sick.As far as babies being dashed to pieces on rocks,I found where this is written and to me it sounded like a prophesy of things that would take place in Babylon during a war.I didn't read that this was commanded by God,but that it was a warning about what was going to happen in the future. Where is this verse?Maybe I was reading about something else."
**********************************************************************
Isaiah 13:15-16 - "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished"
These verses foretold the deaths of the people of Babylon. Fortunately not everyone in Babylon (now modern Iraq) fell by the sword or had their children dashed to pieces or their wives raped (just another instance of errors in the Bible). How some people who believe in an infallible Bible can accept these verses as God inspired, or morally uplifting can only give evidence to the blinding nature of unprovable hypothetical belief.
**********************************************************************
Hosea 13:16 - "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Throughout the Bible, God smites those who do not believe in him or those who do not follow his commands. Here we have the grotesque description of infants
dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped up. Whatever rebellious nature an infant's father or mother may have had, it bears no justice to an innocent
child or to an unborn fetus who could not possibly have rebelled against God, much less understood him. Anyone who claims to love such a God, must accept infanticide as one of God's ugly revenges.
**********************************************************************
Psalm 137:9 - "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Uh, happiness to your god, is killing little babies, Shay.
**********************************************************************
Luke 14:26 - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
In order for you to be a disciple of christ, you must "hate" children, and... yourself. Shay, why don't you ask the psychologist at work, what they think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and how this verse impairs the self-esteem needs in a persons' life, and in the lives of children.
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:15 - "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
Uh, that means, unruly children who hit mom or pop, need to be executed.
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:17 - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Uh, execute the children, even if they utter a swear word towards their parents.
**********************************************************************
Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Again, cursing parents, is capital punishment, death.
**********************************************************************
Matthew 15:4 - "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
This is getting boring, however, once again, slay the child for cursing a parent. And, lest we not forget, "Jesus", said in not so many words "father, why hast thou forsaken me?", I'm not thinking that this was a statement to "honor" his father, as a matter of fact, he is calling into question his fathers' motive for allowing himself to be crucified, hence... not "honoring" big daddy, but, perhaps, Jesus didn't have to obey his "fathers'" commandments, or biblical teachings. He didn't obey the sabbath, why bother with the other commandments...
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:7-8 - "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath
betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
When the children get a little older, parents can spiritually whore their children off for profit... if the children do not obey, i.e., honor their parents' wishes, well, then their new owners can resell them to others for pleasure... Shay, have you actually read your "holy" bible.
**********************************************************************
Judges 11:29-39, states, that When "the spirit of the Lord" comes upon Jephthah, he makes a deal with God: If God will help him kill the Ammonites, then he (Jephthah) will offer to God as a burnt offering whatever comes out of his house to greet him. God keeps his end of the deal by providing Jephthah with "a very great slaughter." But when Jephthah returns, his nameless daughter comes out to greet him (who'd he expect, his wife?). Well, a deal's a deal, so he delivers her to God as a burnt offering -- after letting her spend a couple of months going up and down on the mountains bewailing her virginity. Nothing like putting the kids on fire, huh, Shay.
**********************************************************************
Shay, if you want more, I have read the bible, I can get you plenty, the question is, if you are the one who is religious, and believe the bible to be the word of god, then, why don't "you' know these passages by heart, specially, if you are using "spiritual law" to base life and death decisions on, in your life.
Shay706: "As for my believing in Zeus and other gods of the ancient people,God talks about the people worshipping other gods all through the bible.In the book of Genesis,chapter 6:4 it says,There were giants in the earth in those days;and also after that,when the sons of God came into the daughters of men,and they bare children to them,the same became mighty men which were of old,men of renown.Giants and mighty men also mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:28,2:10-11,2:20-21,3:13,17:2-3,2 Peter2:4,Jude 1:6-7.These verses are about giants,worshipping other gods,and angels that sinned and are in chains until the judgement.I believe that they did come to earth and mated with women.The only other place that I have seen the "Sons of God" is in Job where it says that the Sons of God went to talk with God and the devil came along with them.Regular man is called the son of man everywhere else,so since the devil was hanging out with the Sons of God,and they all felt like having a chat with God."
Okay, first of all, the war in the heavens, is not chronicled in the bible, in detail. The whole thing about giant people, being born from angelic conception, etc., is totally insane. Do you not realize, that the bible, states, that "ALL" was created in six days, uh, Shay, that means "HELL" was created before mankind, uh, and pardon to sarcasm, but that means the little dude with the red pitchfork was already hanging out with big sky daddy, much sooner than the "sons of man", hence, why the opening scene in the bible, one of the "two" genesis creation stories, already has a slippery snake in the "Perfect" garden of paradise, waiting to "tempt" gods' "Perfect" creation, Adam and Eve, or... not so perfect, as they were temptable.
Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, let us make man in our image."
Shay, what does "OUR" mean to you?
Genesis 3:22 - "And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
Genesis 11:7 - "Let us go down, and there confound their language."
Exodus 12:12 - "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."
That would be "ALL" gods, Shay, of Egypt, how many gods of Egypt where there Shay? If you need help, I'll provide the ball park figure, I have research documentation with the names, you may want to go pick up some of that reading material yourself, it does wonders for "ignorance".
Exodus 15:11 - "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"
Exodus 18:11 - "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."
Exodus 20:3 - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Exodus 22:20 - "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Exodus 22:28 - "Thou shalt not revile the gods."
Exodus 23:13 - "Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."
Exodus 23:24 - "Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."
Exodus 23:32 - "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."
Exodus 34:14 - "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 6:14-15 - "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)"
Numbers 33:4 - "Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments."
Okay, its obvious, in order for you "god" to execute judgement on "other" gods, they must first "exist", thus, the bible, being of a gods' words, makes claims that other gods, are real, and exist, period.
Judges 11:24 - "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?'
1 Samuel 6:5 - "Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."
1 Samuel 28:13 - "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth."
Psalm 82:1 - "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods."
Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods."
Uh, Shay, we are gods, per your bible.
Psalm 86:8 - "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
Psalm 96:4 - "For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods."
Psalm 97:7 - "Worship him, all ye gods."
Psalm 136:2 - "O give thanks unto the God of gods."
Jeremiah 1:16 - "I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods."
Jeremiah 10:11 - "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."
Zephaniah 2:11 - "The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."
John 10:33-34 - "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Shay, its obvious you haven't read your bible in depth. And, the giant humans coming from angelic conception, yeah, I was told that too, as a bible study story growing up, but then... I grew up, and asked where that story resided in the bible, and guess what... I found these verses, of multiple gods everywhere. Not, angels, not imps, not devils... GODS! EGYPTIAN GODS, etc., etc.
Shay706: "I think that they were something above regular men.I believe that they had supernatural powers,and were living on earth and producing these giant,evil chidren with women,and God said that their violent ways was the cause of the flood.Achilles,Alexander the Great, Helen of Troy,and others were said to have been offsping of Zeus.All of these mythology gods were very immoral beings.I believing that they existed does not mean that I consider them God.I believe that my God is the creator of all things and that he is the one that WE WILL face on judgement day."
Again, show me about giants being born of angels in the bible, Shay. Your bible states there are multiple "gods" roaming the heavens, how do you know Zeus isn't one of them? Let me guess, you choose to ignore the part of your bible, that contradicts what you "want" to believe.
Shay706: "I believe that Jesus is the son of God and was sent here to die for our sins.I believe that these other beings were evil."
Show me in the bible, where these other "gods" are evil. Its plain to see that your god, is "jealous" of those other gods, but where does it say, all of those other "gods" are "evil"? It doesn't, you are totally making this up as you go.
Exodus 34:14 - "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"
Uh, your gods' name... Shay... is "Jealous", why would a supreme god be jealous Shay.
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Something to think about, Shay, is that Jesus' name, was not mentioned in the Old Testament/Covenant, "once", "EVER". And even in the New Testament, per John, above, there is the "father", and "WORD", and the "holy ghost", uh, someone seems left out of the statement, perhaps, "JESUS" was left out.
Shay706: "I believe that satan is real and that these fallen angels are like him in their mission to destoy mankind."
When is the last time, you talked with Satan, or... perhaps your own god? NEVER, but you really seem to have a solid "opinion" on the matter, so, how did you come to this knowledge.
Shay706: "The ancient people probably witnessed their powers and abilities and considered them to be gods,and decided to please the gods and worship them.Different civilizations had different names for these monsters,but they have basically the same story.Ancient Egypt,Babylon,Macedonia,Greece,Rome and other civilizations,probably plenty that we will never even know,were very,very immoral and cruel people.They were sexually immoral in every way.Bisexual,had groups of servant children that's only purpose was to have sex with the adult men,They would have temple prostitutes for their temple orgies to worship their gods.They would have people murdered and have people ripped apart by animals,and considered it Fun Family Entertainment.They would kill members of their own family if they thought them to be a threat to their power.Mothers,Fathers,siblings,didn't matter.I believe that alot of these fallen angels are in chains until the judgement,that alot of them were destroyed in the flood,and alot of them are demonic forces on earth,working with their sidekick satan,decieving and tempting the whole world.Maybe my beliefs differ from the "mainstream" christian beliefs,but I do not take anyone else's word for the meaning of anything.I read the bible for myself and interpret what I read to the best of my own understanding."
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha, you actually believe anyone thinks you "read" the bible, and came up with that conclusion. Which bible are you reading. Your own bible, states that there were "Many" GODS in heaven, before we even got to earth, it doesn't give names, other than there are Egyptian gods obviously in heaven, and it surely doesn't give their purpose or intents. So, how do "you" come up with calling all of these other "gods" in heaven, before Adam and Eve were created, evil. You have got to be kidding. You are using your imagination to make sense of the bible, because, a) You haven't read your bible, b) You are not capable of reading your bible properly, c) You ahve read your bible, and like filling in the gaps with your own religious beliefs, again, going back to spiritual law, and abortion, "You" are not the person I would want making decisions on life and death, especially, if you pick up a book, and "interpret" it the way you want, and not based on what it says. Suppose, there is a d) That you have read your bible, you realize the evil your god displays, and yet, are here attempting to deceive others, on the "words" in the bible, by claiming, you "interpret" the words differently...
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Shay706: "James1:13 says,Let no man say when he is tempted,I am tempted of God:for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man."
First of all, it appears your "god" is "temptable", you need to read your bible... again.
Deuteronomy 6:16 - "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God."
Matthew 4:7 & Luke 4:12 - "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Acts 15:10 - "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Secondly, you believe "god" tempts no man?
Genesis 22:1 - "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
**Some claim that your god was tempted by Satan, to test the faithfulness of Abraham, and its clearly spelled out in the dead sea scrolls as such.
2 Samuel 24:1 - "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah."
Matthew 6:13 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Job 42:11 - "Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with
him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:"
Shay706: "2 Timothy4:5 says,But watch thou in all things,endure afflictions,do the work of an evangelist,make full proof of thy ministry."
2 Timothy 4:14 - "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:"
God will "reward" Alexander for the "blasphemy" of disagreeing with Paul. (See 1 Tim.1:20 and 2 Tim.2:16-18)
And, by the way, your bible says that not everyone should be evangelized to...
Matthew 10:5-6 - "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 15:24 - "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Acts 16:6 - "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia."
Okay, so lost Jewish people were the target audience, therefore, leave out everyone else, including the Asian folks, got it. Obviously, Shay, you need to find out how many people on this site, are "lost" Jews, and ensure, no one is of Asian ancestry.
Shay706: "2 Corinthians 11:13-15 says,For such are false apostles,decietful workers,transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.And no marvel;for atan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the ministers of righteousness;whose end shall be according to their works.DO NOT TRUST THE PREACHER!!!!"
2 Corinthians 11:8 - "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service."
Shay, Paul set an example for televangelists by robbing some churches. You pulled a passage from 2 Corinthians, where Paul robbed churches, and set the example for his followers, as the first "True Christian", and follower of a Jesus. Perhaps, you should have cited another book.
Shay706: "Ephesians6:11-12 says,Put on the whole armour of God,that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,but against principalities,against powers,against the rulers of the darkness of this world,against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:5 - "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto hrist;"
Slaves must obey their masters "as unto Christ." Well, Shay, I suppose slavery is okay as well with your god, yes, yes, slavery went on in those days, but... we are talking about your "gods" holy bible and doctrine, one would think a good "god", not an "evil" god, would renounce such activities. But, it appears your god, does condone slavery throughout the bible...
Shay706: "2 Timothy3:1-17.too much to write,but if you ever get curious,take note on verses,2,4,5,7,8,12,13,15,and 16.It talks about the attitudes of
people in the last days."
2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
Okay, so... "ALL" scripture is given by inspiration of "God"?
1 Corinthians 7:12 - "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."
1 Corinthians 7:25 - "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment..."
Well, it appears that there are some "opinions" that are "NOT" inspired by god, in the bible, and what else do we know about scripture, being changed in the bible, for reproof, correction, or for "ANY" purpose?
Revelation 22:19 - "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Shay, a cliche comes to mind... Uh, damned if you do mess with the word, and damned if you don't... nice religion you have there.
Shay706: "I truly believe all this that I have written about.Modern man/woman are believing that they have too much knoledge to believe this silly stuff,but I believe that you are being decieved.I'm not trying to offend anyone,Honestly,but I do not see you as being that smart if you do not believe in God."
Again, you "believe" everyone is deceived, except you, and that means they aren't smart. Uh, the patented "BIGOTRY" statement comes out, thanks Shay, for showing your most obtuse insights on this site, you are a proverbial "True Christian", if there ever was one, why don't you and Paul, go rob a few churches, and continue to shine the example for the masses - dolt.
Shay706: "Think about the universe,galaxies,planets,stars,moon,sun,so many forms of life,the systems of human beings and the way that they all work,all of our organs and the specific jobs that they do,eyes that see,being able to concieve and give birth to children,and so many other things that I can not begin to understand how anyone can believe that it all just happened this way."
I know, you are obviously being stretched neurologically to your limits, with all of these big words, but... if you want to delve into some physics, math, logic, philosophy, biology, etc., just let me know. The bottom line however, is... that the universe is at it is, because it has evolved into what it has
become, not because it is sitting in a perfect state... Do you have another existence, to present so that we can make comparison... No? Well, then, I suppose we could be living in a pretty dismal Universe without knowing anything "Different"...
Shay706: "And for all the people on this site that claims that they would rather be in hell then with that mean god;All that I can say about that is that it is easy for some people to say things like that now,because you are alive and and because we cannot imagine anything else but what we know,which is our life here on earth."
So, Shay, are you "dead" and speaking from another existence? Or... are you just like everyone else, talking about things you can't possibly know, as you "imagine" that a "hell" exists... Why not "imagine" that a "hell" doesn't exist... in either, case... its all magic, and imaginary, unless you have proof, and... you don't, unless you are going to suggest, that me having to respond to your most uneducated post, is a form of hell, and then... I could see your point.
Shay706: "We can all talk big and bad about the unknown because we as humans cannot concieve the idea of anything bad happening to us until it has happened.We do not feel like we'll die anytime soon and really don't worry about it much.But,if I am right and you are wrong,and you find yourself in hell one day,and realize that God is real,and see that you are going to be in that torture forever,I don't think you will be quite as cocky."
Again, you seem to be wanting to say something as if "you" are somehow "different" than everyone else, as if... you have some objective truth tucked away, hate to break it to you - you don't. You want to use your imagination, and conjur up hell, well, if you're wrong, then you will be burning in Muslim Hell, and its much worse than your piddly hell by far, as a matter of fact, hell per the Old Testament, wasn't the Hell of the New Testament, but... I am sure you know the difference, I mean, you are going to make decisions in your life, based on spiritual laws, so it only makes sense, that you have done your historical research, to make sure you are not being a fool... should I have faith, that you have in fact, done your research, or should I accept your post here, as evidence of your research so far.
Shay706: "I don't think you'll be saying well, I would rather be here burning forever then with that mean god.Then it will be too late.Just because you say that you don't believe in God and Jesus does not mean that you are 100%sure that you are right."
When you finally get to college, and I hope, you are not already in college, as that would mean, you are actually representing the quality of college students now entering educational stitutions... you need to take a few classes in philosophy. Not getting into Platonic dialogue, in depth, but... can you name "one" thing in this Universe, that you, and everyone else in this Universe can experience "equally", without any "deviation"? Why do I ask?
Well, obviously, you can't define "god", and you have never known or experienced "Jesus", so you have no way to even begin to pass that knowledge over to another person. However, lets say... you met god, and Jesus, and they ate breakfast with you... You still would not be able to pass your "experience" over to someone else "equally" and "perfectly" in an objective manner, you would be using language, which is a sad representation of neurological states that are experienced, and each "word" on a language "draws" a different response from people, as people reflect on the "word" and how it has applied in their life, and what neurological states were experienced before with the use of the word. So, in short, Shay... I am 100% sure, that whatever "god" or "Jesus" you "think" you know exists, will "NEVER" be the "god" or "Jesus", that I may think or don't think exists, PERIOD. You build your god, in your own imagination, and that imagination is yours alone, so, attempting to proselytize others using your imagination, is abecedarian, if you are attempting to "pass" on universal "objective truth". Now, obviously, since we all know you can't possibly pass on objective truth, because you live like everyone else with subjective perception, you are appealing to "influence", and asking people to have "faith" in your words, because that's all you have - words.
Personally, I don't buy spiritual law because it has been promoted by people who make claims that their words are objectively true, and thus, they are either ignorant, liars, or deceivers, not the people I would be seeking advice from.
Shay706: "My ethics teacher told us a story about some company in Texas that was making people applying for a job with them,take a polygraph test before they were hired.One of the questions was,Do you believe in God?The people that answered no to the question,the test showed that they were lying.Even though they said no,something in them could not deny that God did exist.Isn't that a nice little story."
Yes, its a nice little "Story". As, its against constitutional law to polygraph anyone on the grounds of religion, if they are applying for any type of gov't job, that means any state or federal job. If a person, attempts to get a job, not based on the gov't, and they are being polygraphed, then its obvious that something isn't right. What, a grocery store owner wants to ensure the bag boy/girl doesn't have a relative living overseas, that could be a threat to the pickle market? Uh, Shay, why don't you tell us what company polygraphs, I am sure, you have that information at your fingertips, or... you don't, and your little story, is a fabrication to scare people into placing their "faith" in you and your "words", without any evidence - seems a pattern is forming.
Shay706: "If you do not want to believe in God,suit yourself,you can get forgiveness for this if you have a change of heart down the road,but you need to be careful about the blaspemy that some of you say on this site,and the pictures,Crrrrinnnge!The devils laughing and saying,"DANCE PUPPETS DANCE"Your choice to not believe in God should not mean that you should hate everything about God and Jesus!You are going to get a wippin for some of this stuff!GO ahead and insult me,call me names,throw pies in my face,I don't mind.I'm just trying to help my fellowman to find his/her way because I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!!Love to you all,shay706"
Well, Shay, if you ever have kids, and you ask them to not drink your favorite soda, and they share one when you are out working... are you going to demand that your grandchildren repent for your children's mistakes, and if they don't, you'll torture them brutally until they die? Well, your god does make those demands, and the torture doesn't stop at death, oh, no, its torture for all eternity, for "ONE" sin, that wasn't even theirs to own. Shay, keep your fear, enjoy living in perpetual anxiety, as for me, I will live a natural life, without trying to imagine how "terrible" hell can be, I'll use my imagination, to imagine, how nice not having a "hell" is.
UFO's are visiting Earth. The Lochness Monster is real. Great is Allah. Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus. Ra is the master of the world. Sasquatch is roaming the Rockies.
You cannot say these are fantastic claims because I didn't think of them.
Christianity is emotional -- there is apparently very little, if any, logic going on when it comes to believing in talking snakes, flying chariots of fire, flying un-dead man-gods, pigs with demons, or people that take three day weekends in the belly of a fish.
It's sad...really, really sad.
Angels get erections? I didn't know they had penises. Do some angels have vaginas, or are they all men? Do these horny angels have hairy testicles too? Is their DNA like ours, or would it be like a men raping chimps to generate a race of King Kongs?
Your posts inspire so many interesting questions.
Ps 137:9 — Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Isaiah 13:16 — Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
Hosea 13:16 — ...they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Remember, HE is the same yesterday, today and forever. HE is not a man that HE should repent, or change HIS mind.
Also, I typically draft a post in an electronically separate location and transfer the data content in a more secure mode to this blog - hence the typos. That being said, it appears you had a compulsive need to target typos, instead of the content, albeit you discuss you have other obligations near term.
Now, when someone focuses and targets another persons' post based on typos, it would seem only an idiot would return reply in a short post, with substantial typos themselves.
Shay706's 4/22/2006 5:25 PM post:
Spacing errors between the following words:
-Mr."BIG
-around.You
-see,I
-personality.I
-that,because
-of.Like
-earlier,Things
-imply.Now
-defensive.Oh,I
-Well,I
-nurse.You
-rooms.I
-patients,I
-me,as
-treatment,which
-people.The
-comas.They
-time.No,I
-prescriptions,but
-KNOWLEDGE.You
-KNOWELDGE.Oh,forgive
-moment.MMMMMM
-OK,I'm
-back.Well,Well,dave,I
-letter,and
-personality."nothing
-fire,huh,shay.Now
-funny.Telling
-Paul,was
-well.I
-read,and
-it.Other
-gods,Egyptian
-gods.this
-me.Me
-unknown.I
-tonight,and
-this,but
-rushed.Any
-times,is
-later,shay706
-errors,but
-too.Out
-time.shay706
Misspelled Words:
-ib
-descpiption
-thay
-plaese
-tommorow
-tommorow
Capitalization errors
-dave
-i'm
-nothing
-i
-this
Punctuation errors:
-shay. - missing quotation mark
-times, - unnecessary use of comma
-shay706 - no period
Improper use of pronoun:
-Me and my... - should be "I" and my...
**I disregarded fragmented sentences.
Shay's grammatical performance:
Words associated with typos: 111
Total words on post: 392
Error Percentage: 28%
Shay706: "No,I do not write prescriptions,but plaese pardon me for pointing out that your "supreme wisdom" just dropped a few points as I have noticed a couple of paragraphs down ,an error with the spelling of the word KNOWLEDGE."
Wisdom - "The quality of being prudent and sensible."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Someone who is being prudent and sensible, most likely regards content as much more important, than typos in informal discussion. However, it appears you have found typos fascinating, imagine that.
Shay706: "OK,I'm back.Well,Well,dave,I just read the rest of your letter,and i'm so happy to see that you do indeed have a personality."
Personality: "The complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
It appears, that one who is involved in the medical profession, would inherently understand that "all" people have personalities.
Shay706: "I have read the bible and still do read,and i do not choose to ignore any of it."
Do you read using eisegesis or exegesis?
Eisegesis: "Personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Exegesis: "An explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Scholars, spend a lot of time, drawing direct meaning from the words of the bible, using historical references and research methods. They are supposed to refrain from painting the words of the bible with their subjective beliefs. In order to filter out as much "subjectivity" as possible, the scholar allows other professionals in their field to "peer review" their material, and search out inconsistencies.
The basic layman or religious leader is not held to the restrictions of exegesis. Such is the reason there are umpteen thousands of different christian sects in the world today, all claiming they have the "objective truth".
You, may suggest you "read" the bible, however, its more interesting to understand "how" you read the bible. If you are using eisegesis as you read your bible, then you are not searching out "truth" in the words, you are searching yourself for personal meaning, by applying yourself to the words and seeing if it makes sense or feels right. Logically, its a game of trial and error.
Those who use eisegesis, and refuse to learn and become more educated are stuck in a perpetual life of subjective truth, as their subjective views change very litte over time. Education and application of exegetical concepts brings one closer to objectivity with the writings of the bible. Albeit, the authors of the bible themselves held subjective views and true objectivity can never be gained.
Those who use eisegesis, and continue to study and become educated, never find objective truth. As their knowledge increases, the words in their bible take on different hues over time. Therefore, using eisegesis allows the layman and religious leaders the opportunity to keep the biblical words relevant, by allowing their followers to interpret the bible as they need. Still, one is choosing to read into the words of a book, what one wants to see, instead of searching for more objective truth.
Those who employ exegesis, and draw out the meaning of the words using critical scholarship, typically are educated enough to know, that the bible was not written by a "god", or divinely inspired by "one" specific "god". However, that doesn't mean one who uses exegesis isn't religious, it just means they are fully aware of the limitations of the bible in the search for god and meaning in life.
As much as I enjoy watching people search for wisdom, I find many follow the path of least resistance, and use eisegesis. I could take quote after quote you reference in the bible, and interpret alternate meanings, using my own eisegesis. What would that gain you or me? Me, nothing (notwithstanding, the amusement of mentally toying with someone who may appear obnoxious, bigoted, and immature), you, perhaps the understanding that your bible is an interpretive piece of literature, and not the perfectly adorned "objective truth" one would expect from a perfect deity.
If you respond to my post, do us both a favor and attempt to refrain from posting apologetic comments or creative interpretations of the bible. If you appear to want to engage in something more intellectually profitable, then I will reply, if not, I may not. Until then.
I think it's time to start compiling a "fundy to English" dictionary, so that we can quickly and effortlessly decode comments such as shay's. I'll start out...
"you people are hateful" --> "I cannot provide any substantive arguments, so I will resort to attacking you personally."
"don't bother replying to me" --> "I've taken a thrashing here, so I'm going to escape with what little pride I have left."
Let me add to the list I began above:
"You people..." --> "I'm a bigot!"
BTW, what's a "lake of fire"?...?...? that's "L-A-K-E"....and what else?...."F-I-R-E" ? Um, did you fail science class, Shay? lol..... I mean, I'm just trying to figure out if I need to take my scuba gear...?...? or my fire extinguisher...?...? so which is it? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Shay, you have bludgeoned us long enough with your stupidity. Unless you can provide the class with *objective evidence of your biblegod; unless you can make illogically stupid concepts like "
hell" and "souls" make logical sense?..... I suggest you "click OFF", 'k, babe?
* When we speak of "objective" evidence, we DO NOT mean "it's true because Shay believes it's true"....::wink::
That's such a puerile remark I'm quite happy to let that stand in all its glory.
Shay: "You seem like a real nice guy NOT! But maybe you can get it straitened out some day."
You know nothing about me other than what I've posted here. When people state their points of view here civilly, I reply in kind. When they are dishonest, hostile, or abusive, however, I show them somewhat less civility. In extreme cases (of which I consider you an example), I tell them bluntly that their presence is not welcome, and try to alert them to how offensive they are. Consider yourself alerted.
Shay: "You are the ones that are biggots because you have such a dislike for the people on this site,FOR THEIR BELIEF IN GOD,that you try to say hurtful things,for that reason alone."
That is patently false. I, and others here, consistently assert that your beliefs are your business. I hold nothing at all against people for their beliefs. What I take offense at is bigotry (casting ugly aspersions at an entire group), arrogance (thinking you are the exclusive holder of truth), condescension (thinking you are a conduit of great insights), and irresponsible credulity (not making any effort to critically examine your own claims).
Shay: "We are only trying to help you,but you have this mean spirit about you,which shows that the devil is at work in your lives."
I do not think your explanation is at all credible. First, if your intention was to "help", you would be concerned first and foremost with communicating clearly, which starts with listening. I see no evidence that you have tried to understand a single point that has been made to you. You seem to be only interested in repeating your dogma. In my opinion, that's usually a sign that you are looking for personal vindication, not the betterment of others. Also, your quip about the devil is an ad hominem attack that carries no weight whatsoever. It's a very poor substitute for rational argument. It's essentially and admission that you are out of ammunition.
Shay: "My hope is that maybe someone on this site will have a change of heart from some of the christians that post on this site."
The vast majority of the Christians who post here make our point far more vividly than we could ever hope to, and you are chief among them. You have consistently displayed narrow thinking and a fetid hostility that, frankly, gives me the creeps (to be perfectly blunt). If there was ever a shadow of a doubt that we have chosen a path of greater integrity than you, you've dispelled it. So, to say that you shot yourself in the foot would be a rather dramatic understatement.
Shay: Good Luck and goodbye.
Bye bye.
My name is Kaleigh Antoinette Lambrich. I'm a christian. I like your site.
Have a nice day.
First of all, can someone "own" pride? Is it possible for you to "hurt" something I own, pride? Perhaps, you are trying to communicate that you believe you have somehow attacked something I associate with my self-esteem and therefore, have rendered a negative effect on my emotional/neural/homeostatic state.
I know this may be hard for you to hear, but your opinion of my grammar has no impact on my self-esteem. In order for that to happen, I would have to regard your opinion as having a higher level of value. I value logic, and thus your opinion has very little value accordingly as you have shown very little capability to form a logical stance for your beliefs.
Projection - "(psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Why don't you take a psychologically positive approach and attempt to overcome what you obviously feel is a shortcoming, instead of taking the negative approach of projection. Is it not obvious, that I posted your typos and then additional logical discourse as well? And, the only content you have focused on in that post is related to your penmanship.
Shay706: "I think that you must be a little on the INSANE side to make this list of my mistakes."
Actually, I responded to your projection, sarcastically, thinking that you as a health care professional would make the connection and self-correct. However, it appears that my non-subtle point wasn't understood, such comes from someone who isn't capable of critical introspection. Sane people, appear insane to those who find themselves behaviorally defined in the DSM-IV.
Shay706: "If you have a wife,I pity her to have to live with a "man" with such competitive issues."
And, I pity you, if you have a husband that allows you to mindlessly go through life with your eyes wide shut. And, not that I want to go further into psychological discourse, but, are you experiencing another episode of projection. Have you spent an inordinate amount of time reflecting on the traits of a husband that you would feel more comfortable with? One who isn't capable of reconciling deeply laden subconscious conflicts is easily prone to finding an enabler to support their behavior(s). Again, not a psychologically healthy position, even for those who have to be exposed to such behaviors in society - or at work.
Shay706: "I hope that everyone sees your share of spelling errors,so they can see that you are not as brilliant as you like to believe."
Kind of sad in a way, do you even realize the immaturity expressed here, and the obvious projection. Need I suggest that you seek counseling from friends, family, professionals who can be frank and more objective with your behavior so that you may attempt to take corrective action? I know, you don't need corrective action, you are perfectly fine the way you are, everyone else seems to have the problem - right?
Shay706: "I,unlike you stated my inperfections,and just felt that you needed to see yours too."
Dave8 Post @ 4/22/2006 4:42 AM: "Now, obviously, since we all know you can't possibly pass on objective truth, because you live like everyone else with subjective perception, you are appealing to "influence", and asking people to have "faith" in your words, because that's all you have - words."
“...because you live like everyone else with subjective perception.” Subjectivity, by definition, means without total objectivity, without total objectivity, perception and experience changes and "perfection" isn't possible. Hence, none of us are perfect, and I included myself in that group, as one of the "all". However, in a society, in order to exist in some semblance of harmony, we agree to support certain values. Values, I might suggest, are not biblically derivative in many cases.
Shay706: "I have been to college,and graduated with an associates degree,and now I am working on my Masters degree.I have decided to retake a few of the original core classes,just because I wanted to brush up on my englishand my spanish."
Good luck. I do find it interesting that you are jumping from an associates degree to a masters degree without completing a baccalaureate degree on the way or perhaps you are in a program that continues through to a masters level certification. I would have suspected a BSN would have been more in order for one progressing through the ranks as a nurse seeking a master’s degree. The bilingual education will provide you more versatility in the field of nursing, but it will not guarantee you higher salary, just a tidbit of advice. You may want to seek out who your future employer will be, and see if your aspiration to have a bilingual skill is more important than completing the basic level of education to get you into the job market where you can continue education at your own pace.
Shay706: "I will check these bible quotes out,because I am so sure that you have added to and took out the whole story."
How can you be so sure, I have taken away or added to a story in the bible? I read them exegetically, according to the literal text, not according to what I may "want" the words to reflect. Associate the words in the bible according to the contextual era, in which they were written, compare the words from one book to another and see how the words are used differently. What this means Shay, is that the bible was written over thousands of years, not overnight or within a year by a perfect god.
If a god wanted to get their point across, one would assert that an omnipotent god could have produced the book without mankind and their obvious subjectivity challenges, and overnight so there isn't a few thousand years lost in the bible creation process. Again, mankind wrote the bible, not a perfect god, and if mankind wrote the bible, then its subjectively weighted and of little use, if one is attempting to find "objective" truth.
Shay706: "Maybe you smacked your parents around when you were a kid,but that is a horrible thing."
It appears that you allude the biblical passages that are posted above that call for immediate execution of any child how hits their parent - warranted. Can you think of any case, in which a parent abuses a child, and a child rebels by fighting off their parent? If so, should that child be murdered or put to death? The bible doesn't make such distinctions if reading the bible literally.
Shay706: "I do not ignore any of the bible and DO realize the existence of other gods,which I am pretty sure I mentioned in earlier comments."
You did mention that you believed in other gods, however, you failed to mention how you can tell them apart when you pray. How do you know you are not praying to Satan when you pray, or when you get a feeling to move you to make a decision, that its not Satan leading your to temptation? You can't possibly know, because you can't define god(s), nor identify them amongst themselves, except by you creating personalities for them and trying to imagine what kind of god they would be. That doesn't reflect what is, it reflects what you imaginatively "think" they are.
Shay706: "I will not be checking with you people for your hateful comments anymore,so don't bother with a reply."
At first, I was going to let your post pass, but, then of course I didn't want to leave you bitter, it appears you need all the help you can get. By the way, some of the regulars have pointed out, that making broad sweeping generalizations is being bigoted, and I agree. I don't "absolutely" associate you with "all" Christians, you have earned the respect due you, based on your posts alone.
Shay706: "You think your smart,but I think that denying THE ALMIGHTY GOD that you will face one day,makes you "where the banner and crown"of stupidity."
Illogical, you state you believe in many god(s), but can't define any of them. Then, you assert your "god" is the Supreme god of them all, and will be taking vengeance out on all of humanity that doesn't agree with your subjective belief.
Shay706: "MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!"
Are you giving your god a direct order? Or, is that something you "hope" for, since you have no way of knowing whether your god is real or not.
Shay706: "For someone to read the bible as you claim you have,and still deny GOD,shows something very strange about you."
Actually, anyone who reads the bible looking for "objective" truth will be disappointed. However, even though the bible was written subjectively by mankind, there are still Christians who claim the bible to be the "exact" and "perfect" word(s) or a perfectly objective "god".
Shay706: "Could you be a Kennite?"
Am I a descendent of Cain? It has been asserted by modern scholars that Jethro, a Kenite, was the 'father-in-law' of Moses. Do you suggest that I am a long lost relative of the man, who assisted in the creation of the Ten Commandments?
Historically, this clan split between the southern and northern tribe of Judah. So, if you want to assert my relationship to the Kenites, please assign a time-frame, as it appears you are woefully trying to make your point, with insufficient information. I could be an El supporter or YHWH supporter, or just one of the descendents, of those who assisted in the creation of Israelite Jurisprudence. Perhaps, you assert that I am a descendent of Cain, who slew Able and was noticed by Balaam in Judges 1:16 and Numbers 24:21-22.
The jurisprudence in the bible, was derived from the Laws of Hammurabi written by King Hammurabi ~1792 Before the Common Era. Moses distilled those laws of Hammurabi, and produced ten commandments from them, so that a primitive minded tribal society could begin their long slow ascent to a more stable and productive society. It appears that that region has never "truly" been stable, even to this day. Thus, many could speculate on the "value" of the Ten Commandments in the evolution of societal social structures over history, as the most instable regions of the world, seems to still reside in the regional area where these laws were enacted. I suppose, moving away from the region allowed a lot of the associated hostility to be removed to the point that society could come to some semblance of tolerance of others. Well, minus those who feel the need to impose their absolutist beliefs on others, and portray their beliefs as "objective" truth, that would be intolerant and bigoted.
Shay706: "By the way, I didn't catch your job title either,Hopefully with your self righteous attitude,you don't have to deal with the public."
Well, coming from someone who has the bedside manner, commensurate with interacting with comatose patients, I am overwhelmed by your insights. Perhaps, saying little is more effective than saying anything for some people. My job title is irrelevant, however, my occupational growth has allowed me to progress as a social scientist, communications engineer, and to a variety of other fields, to include medical. I consider myself "versatile", as I have the ability to span across many career areas under federal employment as needs arise, because I have the ability to make accurate observations and react appropriately.
Regarding my ability to engage people in society. Well, I like many, respect those who are educated enough to be tolerant of others. You know - the golden rule, thing.
Shay706: "You can't help people with yous views."
I can't help people, when I suggest that everyone has value, and the right to live their life freely, with enough liberty to find happiness, as long as they curtail hurting others? Some quietly ask others to be tolerant, and then there are those who are a little more vocal, and "demand" tolerance. I am more of the demanding type, if you treat others like dirt, then, remember the golden rule.
Shay706: "Remember,EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW,EVERY TOUNGUE SHALL CONFESS,THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD."
According to the Jews, Jesus, was never Lord; are you tolerant enough to allow Jews their belief? Peddling fear isn’t a positive approach to gaining trust from others, it may garner short term gains for a religion, but long term, that approach will create mistrust and hatred toward those institutions and the people who promote such activity. Parents, who rear their children through fear, will also reap the backlash eventually - hence, the rule in the bible. I and many others don’t accept your biblical views, because “fear” is a tool for controlling and manipulating others – it’s a self-serving approach, not something many here are inclined to accept and fertilize. There are enough weeds in the garden of life, and it doesn’t take a genius to know the difference between the seed of a weed, and the seed of a colorful and pleasant flower. The key to a pleasant and productive garden is the removal of the weed population, so that real beauty can flourish. Shay, you get to choose how you live your life and how many weeds you grow and how many flowers; don’t blame others for the seeds you sow.
Since you have such closeness with your imaginary God, why not just pray for your patients, since all you need is a little Faith. Then you can just send your patients home and say, God Healed them!
There's really no use for hospitals, when all anyone needs is a little Faith and a prayer,
Jesus will make everything alright!!! He always does...lol
Is that really for sure, Anonymous? How very odd that is, for I'd say that the *negation* of your statement is far more of a sure thing! I say that because there isn't one iota of credible evidence that one can believe ANYTHING at all once one's brain ceases to function, and that is an inevitable consequence of death, is it not?
If you've got something that supports your assertion come on back and share it. Be well.
Somehow I just noticed your post way up there. You're definitely okay. Hope you stick around. (I also encourage you to pick a name for yourself other than "Anonymous"--it's helps to create cohesive discussions.)
Where do you get your beleifs from?...Did you not say you took University and did research?...Is that not forming your own beleif by what other people beleive?"
Latent response, pardon. Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do have to learn from my environment, I take my life experiences and apply it to the knowledge I am given, sometimes, the information provided me doesn't match up to my experiential knowledge.
The point being made, is, there is some information that we are provided that can not, be tested, by its own definition. For instance, someone says, they believe in a transcendent god. How does one "transcend" themselves to verify such information, they can't, by its very definition, to say one can, is illogical.
If I can't test, or compare information to things I have experienced to make educated guesses, and then test for validity, then, I hold that information in abeyance, until further information is forthcoming. Holding information, doesn't mean, I accept the information as legitimately true, it means, I have food for thought, until or if ever, I can connect it with something that I know based on verifiable experience.
If someone says that they have had an experience that makes then sense "god", then of course, one has to ask, how their Natural experience, was able to be touched by a "transcendent" deity, in "any" form. Some people claim they are "born" with knowledge, I disagree with that statement. Thanks for asking, have a great one.
Where's the freedom of speech in a church?
So after 4000 years, they decided to offer God the ultimate offering, a human being, since this had never been done before, and Mary slipped by being stoned to death by having a baby out of wedlock, they put their insights into Mary's baby, to be the ultimate sacrifice.
They told Mary that her baby was sent from god and it was blessed, and then they told her baby named Jesus that he was blessed and he had no choice but to believe it himself.
So now since the ultimate human sacrifice was offered to god, we no longer have to send burnt offering daily to god to atone for our sins.
Thanks to Jebus!
Fear, mortals! Upon thee I shall call the grim and frostbitten kingdoms!
It's all bunk, if Christ was real, then why does anyone need faith?
We need faith from what someone wrote 2000 years ago, that Jesus performed miracles?
Why do we need faith? Jesus supposedly said, if one had as much faith as a mustard seed you could say mountain fall into the sea, but yet he never performed that feat, to prove it to be true, yet we are to have faith it is true, so if you believe what Jesus said to be true, then cast a mountain into the sea, I'd be willing to accept an ant hill, apparently what Jesus supposedly said was not in any way true, and neither do you have as much faith as a mustard seed.
Then 2000 years ago, any woman with child out of wedlock got stoned to death immediately, unless of course there happened to be a virgin birth, as invented by her rapist, her priest, it was all a hoax invented by her rapist priest, and people sre still stupid enough to believe such nonsense.
You must remember although I know you do not want to admit it, but people 2000 years ago, did not think like we do today...duh
They thought diseases were caused by demons!
They thought that the heart was the center of all thought and emotions, surely God would have known it is the brain that is the center of all thought and emotions, this statement alone proves that the Bible was not written nor inspired by a creator God.
They also thought, like you, that the heart had strings. per. God tugging on your heart strings, how freaking ridiculous.
They also stayed drunken on wine and drugs, of course it's not mentioned in the bible, do you think they were that stupid to mention their vises?
Also Jesus was without sin because he was not born by Joseph, yet he was born of a woman, a evil, wicked, nasty, filthy, woman, less than man, according to your stupid idiot bible.
A woman was considered unclean with her ministration cycle, she was to be put in a holding cell for 7 days, and not looked upon by a man, if a man looked upon her then she shall be unclean for 14 days!
People say that a woman has more ribs than a man, that's simply not true they have the same amount of ribs, look it up yourself, I know you do not want to.
Then Jesus never sinned, but on the cross he supposedly said Olias, Olias, why have thou forsaken me, if he was god incognito, why did he loose his faith in his own god the father of himself? Fraud!!!!
Then Jesus never wrote any part of the bible, yet we are to have faith that the things written about him by other wino's accounts are true, it takes more than faith, it takes a huge wanton belief, more than any faith can provide.
Why don't you try to think what it was like 2000 years ago, there was no phones, no conveniences, no reliable form of communication, only heresay and rumor, and superstition, science was considered to be evil and of the devil.
You're trying to believe a myth that is impossible to prove, much less try to believe.
If there really was a god, that could create the whole universe in 6 days, yet he cannot create a book that can be proved with 100% certainty, without confusion and doubt and an overwhelming abundance of faith which according to Jesus, cannot be achieved, otherwise he would have demonstrated it for those idiots.
And then, if there was a God, why did he leave it up to man to explain his plan of salvation?
And how come it took this God 4000 years to come up with the Jesus salvation plan?
A god nor Jesus never wrote any part of the bible, yet we are to believe what those 2000 year ago imbeciles, wino's wrote without question.
If you really wanted to think about the whole thing you would soon realize it's all a bunch of bunk.
But you are a scared person, you are afraid of death, you are afraid of a hell being true, you're so afraid that if you see how ignorant the bible really is that you will go to hell.
I can tell you right now there is no hell, this is man's invention to keep you weaklings scared.
There's nowhere in the bible that says that a god created a hell, it's not writrten by a god nor jesus.
I put all my faith in what god and Jesus wrote in the bible only, which they never wrote any part of the bible, so I have no faith in a god or jesus.
You can believe all that nonsense all you want to, that is your right, but you cannot make any of it true, nor can you or anyone else prove one word of be bible to be true.
It never has been proven to be true and never will be proven to be true, you cannot prove a lie or myth, to be true, it has never been done, and you haven't proven one damned thing, except that you long for, you hope for, you wish for, you desire for, a myth and a man's fantastic lie, to become true.
You're not living in todays reality, you might as well start believing in and worshipping Harry Potter, because both are fiction of human's.
Sorry.
Atheist logic-
I mock God'
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Hey, you can't argue with logic like that.
God is Omnipotent.
God is Jealous.
God is easy to Anger.
I mock God.
God doesn't respond.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Hey, you can't argue with logic like that, well, unless your god is a pussy - I'll buy that. My God beats your gods' ass on the cosmological playground, and my dad is better than your dad, and...
God, of most holy gods, or any other god for that matter, fuck off... I'll wait for a response...
-Wes(at)vip(dot)net ; because I have more balls than you so I will post my name and e-mail address...
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Think about that. Think about what that implies.
Truth and knowledge can only be called such if it is testable. The existance of God cannot, as of yet, be tested and therefore it cannot be said that anyone knows God is real. They are free to believe it.
Judaism and Christianity are testable. We simply look at our natural history and can see that the stories of creation and creation of man do not line up. They are wrong. Or... Untrue.
The scriptures themselves are riddled with problems. I challenge anyone to research the origins of the scriptures. You will find that we do not have ANY original documents. You will also find that the documents that we have vary greatly from each other. There are additions and plain old typos riddled through the whole of the New Testament. You will also learn that the New Testament was compiled by one sect of early christians -- the sect that one the majority of followers.
Likewise, the Jewish scriptures are also full of typos and additions/ommissions. Genesis, for example, was not written for hundreds of years after Moses. Think of it as a living document. It was put together at the same time as other documents to support each other.
Now think about this.
If it is not true it is not God's Truth.
The Bible tells us that the scriptures are 'God Breathed' and are useful for correction and instruction. (paraphrased). They are not. They were written by flawed men. mistakes are there and also personal motives.
If it is not true it is not God's Truth.
Since this is a comment, I apologize for the brevity,
"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
2 Corinthians
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
I would have to object; do not forget the millions slain in the 20th century in the names of Darwinism, Nazism, and Marxism.
I have found the entire Bible harmonous, even though it was written by many different writers over a period of 1,500 years.
That alone tells me the Bible had to be inspired.
I have heard many, many people say that the Bible has errors and that it contradicts itself. I have asked them to give me an example. They never can. They admit that is was something that they had always heard. So, here goes:
If you think the Bible is in error on any subject, or that it contradicts itself, PLEASE let me know. I guarantee I will give you a correct understanding.
iam_sweet
Then take a few minutes with everything in this nice handy pamphlet: http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet_bible1.htm and here: http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet_bible2.htm
Please don't skip anything.
Then, for kicks, go to this page:click here.
Jehoiachin's Age at Royal Ascension
II Kings tells us that Jehoiachin became king when he was eighteen while II Chronicles alleged that he became King at age eight:
II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned three months in Jerusalem
II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.
===========================
ANSWER:
The "Codex Alexandrinus", Greek, dated in the 5th century, C.E. now located in the British Museum, shows that Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old.
The "Septugint", also written in Greek, a copy now locted in Gottingen, Germany, also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN.
The "Syriac Peshitta", dated from the 5th Century, C.E., also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN.
2 Kings 24:8 also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign.
=========
All of the early copies of the Bible were copied by HAND. (There were no printing presses prior to 1450) It was easy for one error to be multiplied for each copy of the erroneous manuscript.
=========
Conclusion: The original Bible writings are not in error. This is what is called a "copy error".
=======
Suggestion: I would like to answer all that you have listed. This will take a lot of my time. Please select one for me to answer that you feel is the strongest one that contradticts the Bible.
==============
To Jeff:
I will answer your 'Contradiction" next. Please give me a little time.
===========
iam_sweet
Okay, carry on Soldier for Christ! lol
I looked at the scriptures you indicated on the subject of "love".
You imply that there is some contradiction between them. Could you please me more direct in pointing out the contradictions, this is so that I can be more direct.
Below are some facts on Noah's ark:
Design and Size. The ark was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.
In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
Ample Carrying Capacity. The passenger list of the ark was quite impressive. Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each,” were to be taken aboard. “Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by God were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
Go away RETARD!!! you lose!!!!
This exercise, IAS, is for you. Don't be a typically mentally lazy Christian -- learn something.
Naah. Answer them all, please. Or wait.....or are you saying that your "time" isn't worth reconverting a whole website full of backsliden heathens in the name of Christ your Lord? God would be displeased if you attempt the easy way out. It'd be great if you could address these:
Please explain how snakes, smouldering shrubberies, and a donkey, spoke the human language.
Waiting.
To your request, "Please explain how snakes, smouldering shrubberies, and a donkey, spoke the human language."
Did you ever hear of Edgar Bergin and Charlie MaCarthy. Charlie was a 'dummy', but Edgar Bergin was so clever with speaking with out moving his lips that it sure looked like Charlie, the 'dummy' was speaking.
The Bible tells us of many Spirit Creatures (angels and demons) all of them invisible, the chief demon being Satan, the Devil.
Being invisible, it would be very, very simple for Satan to move the snake's mouth and make it appear that the snake was talking.
Therefore G-O-D is all things, past future and present.
A god can be made to be present for all things that has ever happened and will happen whether for good or bad.
To the believer, god is all things and god is envolved everywhere, to a believer a god cannot be disproved.
To a believer, their imaginary god will always provide the necessary answer that they seek and want for their own convience, so as not to disrupt their imaginary belief in their imaginary god friend.
If you were walking in the deep forest and came upon a large beautiful home that was nicely taken care of; would you believe that it just came about by accident?
The Apostle Paul reasoned similarly when he stated: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." Hebrews 3:4
Do you agree with his logic? Mankind has experienced some 2000 years of scientific advancdment since that verse was penned. Does anyone still think that the design evident in nature requires belief in a Designer, a Creator--God?
Even in industrialized countries many people would say yes. In the United States, for example, a survey conducted by Newsweek magazine in 2005 found that 80 percent of people "believe that God created the universe." Is this belief due to a lack of education? Well, do any scientists believe in God? The science journal "Nature" reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers.
So much for the validity of majority beliefs.
2000 years ago, the majority believed the earth was "flat", but the Bible said that it was "round" (like a sphere). The majority also believed the earth was held up by a Large Turtle, but the Bible clearly stated that the "earth hangs upon nothing".
As to Demon Voices:
A book, "Evidence of Satan in the Modern World", tells of many factual accounts, not only of demon assaults, but also of angry conversations between attempting exorcists and the wicked spirits.
In many cases the demons harass people by talking to them; such persons report hearing “voices.” This is called “clairaudience” in spiritistic circles, and spiritists have written a number of books at the dictation of demon voices. But these voices harass many persons, inducing them to violence, murder and suicide. A Singapore man heard a spirit voice for four days telling him to commit suicide. He did. His wife said that her husband had told her of the spirit’s commands, but she treated it as a huge joke.
The Chicago News made an investigation of spirit phenomena and reached the following conclusions: ‘As to the voices that so many are bending ear to catch, I have learned that they are more likely to suggest evil than good. . . . Once a communication is established it takes a positive thought to fight off these “voices” or forces of evil. . . . It is never safe to yield your will, your soul or individuality, into the keeping of these unearthly powers. . . . I found one woman who was led by the “voices” to kill her little girl by drowning her in a bath tub. . . . I found a man who said the voices told him to strike a young man that he met coming out of a restaurant. He did so. . . . There are hundreds of similar instances.’”
Verse please...please provide the exact verse referencing those exact words. Here's what I found with minimal investigating:
Isaiah 11:12
" And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH." (KJV)
Job 38:13
"That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" (KJV)
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can NEVER BE MOVED." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)
"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its PILLARS TREMBLE." (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)
"He sits enthroned above the *circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)
(*not "sphere"; not "round"..."circle")
iam_sweet: "As to Demon Voices:
A book, 'Evidence of Satan in the Modern World', tells of many factual accounts, not only of demon assaults, but also of angry conversations between attempting exorcists and the wicked spirits."
Yes, there's gaggles of factual accounts of schizephrenia. And yes, the people are convinced of their experiences, but there's effective drugs for that.
iam_sweet: "I found one woman who was led by the “voices” to kill her little girl by drowning her in a bath tub."
In South Carolina, Susan Smith drowned her two boys by buckling their seatbelts and pushing the car into a lake. Ironically, she did it because she heard "God's voice" tell her to do it. Do you condone this?...since it's supposedly "saving" them from "the demons"? ' Didn't think so. Some people are just mentally ill, it's got NOTHING to do with "spirits". You can let go of your blankie.
The circle you're speaking of is still a flat earth. It was thought the earth was shaped like a coin, with oceans surrounding the land, and anyone who who dared sail to the end of the earth would fall off into an abyss or into the mouth of some monster.
God supposedly sat enthroned above the the circle of the earth, above an imaginary "firmament" which supposedly held back the waters above the firmament — hence the blue color of the sky.
Modern Bible versions have decided to go with sphere in their translations because we all now realize that the earth is a ball floating in space.
The webmaster stated:
Modern Bible versions have decided to go with sphere in their translations because we all now realize that the earth is a ball floating in space."
Notice what was posted:
"The Hebrew word chugh, here translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.” Other Bible translations read, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version)"
The book of Isaiah was first written in Hebrew. That particular word in Hebrew "chugh" could have been translated into the English language by the word "globe", as was done by the Douay Version of the Bible, which was translated around the year 1610.
The conclusion is that the original Hebrew text by Isaiah is as correct today as it was when he first wrote it.
One writer, commenting on the Dead Sea Scrool's of Isaiah had this to say, "This scroll and an additional copy of parts of Isaiah found near the Dead Sea “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”
Therefore, when reading the Hebrew Scriptures today, you can be confident that your Bible is based upon a Hebrew text that accurately conveys the thoughts of God’s inspired penmen. Thousands of years of painstaking professional copying has assured what God long ago foretold: “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”—Isa. 40:8.
It is not my desire to quibble over words. If you have, what appears to be a contradiction, I will respond.
Yack, yack, yack...who the f%ck said it's "rendered sphere" ????? WHO, iam????? WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO WHO???? Provide the reference, please. Provide the lexicon, please.
iam_sweet, you have thoroughly bludgeoned us with your "interpretation" weasle-wording. Your f%cking "God" is "perfect", right? Yes? Well, a "perfect" being would know the difference between a f%cking "sphere" and "circle"...do you under-f%cking-stand? Your "omniscient" biblegod is presumably leaving a legacy, right?---GOD'S "word"; GOD'S wishes; GOD'S desires for ALL of humanity..... for-f%cking-EVER!!!! It seems a "perfect" being wouldn't envision "His" creation---THOUSANDS of years later---bickering over such trival crap. A perfect "God" would not leave such ambiguity in his "WORD". So stop your bullshit weasle-wording. You are blantantly carving the corners off the square to make it fit in the round hole. You are NOT convincing ANYONE but yourself. You are wasting your time here. Your argument, like David Poole's, like Jaybird's, like CC's, like all of the other "defenders of the Christian Faith" amounts to "I believe". That's it!!!! Great...very lovely...now go "believe" somehwere else. Take your apologetic ass OUT OF HERE!!!!!
"Oooo...Atheists are angry!"
Shove yourself up your ass, 'k?.
This response is so absurd and ludicrous it makes you wonder about the state of iam_sweet's mind. Seriously folks, how do you argue with somebody as brainwashed and delusional as this person? In this day and age, there are adults who believe the characters in fables and mythology are true. This person is clearly not playing with a full deck. I can only hope iam_sweet breaks away from the mind virus (meme) called Chrisitianity---he/she is clearly in denial.
Cheers
Iam, do you know what year Copernicus presented his theories on how the solor system worked?
Regardless, please look at that link. And then expain how someone sits "ABOVE" the earth. Which direction would that be, exactly. Since there is no up or down in space, I'd just like to know where the hell above might be.
Now we're going to find out that "above" could be translated "around."
The regular extians do make an extraordinary effort to provide information to those who can't seem to see another valid point of view - and in a most eloquent way.
I am proud to be part of such a crew of open minded thinkers and professionals. Thanks for the kindness, Cheers.
OK, we might define god as that which is uncreated, that without beginning and that without end. My general chemistry text states the 1st law of thermodynamics as "energy is neither created nor destroyed, only interconverted." So, then we can define god as the infinite (perhaps) sea of energy; god is all. All is god. This definition of god obviously is not what christians have in mind. And before you say, "Oh, you have faith in the 1st Law!" Well, no, if it were shown somehow that energy could be extracted from nothing, I would reconsider the validity of the 1st law. It seems reasonable, though. Something can't come from nothing. Yes, I'll agree. Something (energy/matter) cannot come from from nothing (nonenergy/nonmatter).
As far as the universe being intelligent, I'll agree. Permeated with intelligence. It's just that we need to define intelligence. It's not such a simple word. Its definition requires expansion. A broad definition of intelligence might be "the ability to sense/perceive and respond to something; awareness" Would we agree? Consider two electrically charged particles, a postively and negatively charge particle. Somehow, through space, the positive particle "senses" the negative particle is nearby, and vice versa. They are attracted; and like charges repel. This is a kind of intelligence in the broadest sense of the word. Scientists--before you simply say, "it's just the electrostatic force," know that nobody knows what a force is...that is, nobody knows how or what it is that imparts that force...or said differently, nobody knows what it is that communicates thru space to the let the proton know that the electron is nearby. Forces are constructs that explain an observable effect. So, the concept of forces is not incongruent with the definition of intelligence that I have used. It can be said that there is nothing but intelligence or consciousness. That's basically true, I think, but it has nothing to do with any personal "god." It's just that if there is no underlying foundation of intelligence of which we are one with we could not be "the universe become aware of itself." That is, if we are indeed intelligent, our intelligence is based upon, enmeshed in, and one with a fundamental "intelligence" in the broadest sense of the word.
Cheerz,
Gooneybird
*Onara*
I would be willing to bet that you've heard the expression "God Loves You" a thousand times more than from your biological father directly from him?
Ever noticed most all churches have on their marquee "God Loves You!"? But they never have "Your Biological Father Loves You!"?
The imaginary God will always love you, the god envisioned by so many people whom are missing real genuine love from their own biological fathers.
It doesnt matter who you are, there have been more human deaths on this planet caused by both religion and tobacco than of ALL other causes combined, mostly from ignorance of reality. Yet, the majority of humans still follow the same crooked path. I do not see any intelligence displayed there!
I discovered this site just tonight, after coming home from work. I wasted my entire Friday night. The whole town went its merry way, drinking and the like, right outside my window, as I simply read and read until I finally reached the bottom.
Gentlemen, and Ladies, and...everyone...
I am honestly stunned and moved.
I so so respectfully take my hat off to the eloquence and quite obvious respect for reason which is here displayed like jeweled scepters by the likes of (but by no means exclusive to) dave8, webmaster, jim arvo, boomslang (though fiery at times), dano, cdmon, and Melissa!!!
Please, I implore each and every one of you to feel good tonight! Your techniques, your patience, your data, vocabularies, wisdom, humor, all of it… I am truly and utterly inspired. I, like some here, am an eX-Christian, and I can hardly stomach now the awful attempts at some of the Christians who post here. How can the honest attempts of Jim Arvo to floor a meaningful, non-visceral debate go un-lauded by every single human being who visits this site?
I am speechless. Is there not one well-informed, open-minded Christian who will go idea for idea here without getting irrational, insulting, dogmatic, desperate, or just plain weird? I can’t believe it. I can’t believe that absolutely every one of them eventually takes some “unforeseeable” argumentative exit ramp… It is truly disheartening.
And it’s awful how so many of the Xtians think atheists are out to destroy God. That we hate God. That we are only disobedient children who simply would do anything to not have to obey God’s commands and the like… when that could not be further from the truth. I suspect that, like me, many of you wish dearly that God, or something like God, were real. Time and time again, the Christians don’t seem to understand or want to understand that it is not our desire for God not to exist that fuels our atheist convictions, it simply is that we have not encountered evidence which speaks for God’s existence. Nothing more, nothing less. And they seem to miss this time and time again, and instead hammer on some notion that we are willingly rejecting God out of spite. Ridiculous, my friends. Ridiculous. But then, so much of this ”debate” with Christians is.
I would like to encourage everyone, if you haven’t already, to watch the Atheist Tapes by Jonathan Miller featured on Google Video, as well as his three part series, Atheism: A rough history of disbelief from which the Atheism tapes stem. My personal fav is the one with Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg.
Besides that, I would like to post below something I simply thought up this evening and felt I had to write in a sort of brain-storming, shoot-from-the-hip style. It may all be elementary or simply not relevant to you, but I thought I’d toss it in. Not scientific, but:
It would seem that the very vulnerable position of man in his original/natural surroundings is the very thing which precipitates his need for God. Therefore, if a man is removed from those surroundings and placed instead in a less-threatening and, as it were, more comforting environment, his need of the God figure is diminished. This inverse relationship goes a long way in explaining the adage: there are no atheists in fox holes. If belief in God is rooted in man’s transient, variable, and malleable degree of security and comfort, what can we expect in the future should man finally be able to alleviate himself and all his brothers from all major worldly suffering? In short, the notion of God itself is quite equal to human suffering. It is in fact self-perpetuating. Ultimately, spiritual leaders must be very careful not to undermine their followers’ feelings of helplessness. This is why, of course, Christians must be taught that all humanity has been broken since the time of Eve and that there is absolutely nothing they can ever do to repair that brokenness. Their wounds must be pointed out to them – rarely is a person actually born feeling this deficiency, it is something which must be taught and which spreads virus-like from the infected, for you cannot have a need for God unless a person first believes in his own emptiness and transgressions for which, although he did not commit, he is responsible – so that even if they wind up living lives of untethered excess in first world nations, they will not catch sight of the fact that their carnal requirements are very much met and thus realize they are no longer in need of an unquantifiable, invisible top-down supplier. God is necessary for the development of man throughout history, but wanes very seriously the moment man gains a serious foothold over his surroundings, after which, like the child who must eventually come to understand that his biological parents are not the all-powerful, infallible beings he once mistook them for, man must also shoulder the tough-as-nails responsibility that the shearing off of God exposes: that man’s wellbeing and survival are guaranteed by nothing (as they actually never were), and are of absolutely no concern to nature or the universe or indeed anything beyond the six billion other tragically-destined beings who are caught in the same inescapable predicament.
A God that's ready and willing to save us, whenever we put ourselves into a position that we should have never been in, in the first place.
God, man's invention to save him from himself, yet he's willing to kill all of humanity to prove that his imaginary God really exists.
Man is the eccentual fool on this planet! Great observation, BTW!
First, I thank you for the kind words. I actually think a few of my responses above were more pointed than they needed to be, but I sincerely appreciate your comments nonetheless.
I too feel that there is definitely some truth to your observation about fear precipitating a belief in invisible protectors, but I also strongly suspect that it goes much deeper than that. I say that because the notion of invisible deities all over the world, and throughout recorded history, have some common attributes. This suggests that the very idea of a deity draws upon some of the mental machinery that we all share as humans--that is, the idea does not come out of the blue, just to make us feel safer, but rather from common patterns of thinking and interacting that are common to virtually all humans. For example, nearly every deity invented by the human mind is intimately concerned with human affairs, and is privy to all sorts of sensitive information about us. They also share human foibles and emotions, and can be "bribed" by certain behaviors such as offerings or displays of homage and loyalty. They are all capable of intervening in human affairs, but by oddly unspecified means. The list is actually quite lengthy. These attributes seem to be reflections of our "social" selves; that is, they are rooted in the same mental machinery that make us highly social animals who are intrinsically concerned with the behaviors and intentions of others. Couple this with our lengthy childhood and total dependence upon parental figures for protection, and it's much easier to see where the notion of a fatherly (or motherly) figure who knows all might have come from.
But then, those are only the seeds. Once the idea gets started, countless believers embellish the picture of their invisible protector, invent a history for him/her, declare certain doctrines to be set down by this deity, and often show great hostility toward those who do not hold the same beliefs. These embellishments do indeed spread like a virus; of course, some are more effective at spreading than others. The Christian virus is quite well adapted and is likely to survive into the foreseeable future to some degree, in my opinion. It has built-in defense mechanisms (e.g. maintaining a somewhat closed community that does not welcome dissenting views), as well as explicit mechanisms for spreading (e.g. proselytizing, "witnessing", indoctrinating young children, and in some cases having many children).
Anyway, I think the more we learn about how the mind works, and how it came to be this way, the more light it sheds on one of the most widespread and puzzling behaviors of man: religion. I think the veil is finally starting to be lifted, and it's possible that this will be instrumental in relegating all religions to the status of quaint superstition, but I don't expect to see this happen in my lifetime. I like to think that I'm doing my small part to push in the right direction, however.
http://www.control-z.com/pgs/pers_state1.html. The article is lengthy but well worth the time it takes to read it. As I have been reading many of the xian postings above, they use the word “sin” over and over again. I have to wonder: Whose idea was sin? What did WE do that is considered a sin against some omnipotent being (God)? Is it our mere existence? If the xian bible is any guide, since Adam made God angry, then everyone is guilty from that point forward and that guilt is punishable by death, no exceptions. Adam supposedly ate fruit Eve gave him from a garden God put in their midst and then pointedly told them not to eat from it, thereby advertising there was something there that they could not be a part of, with no good reason for avoiding it. (Why put it there then? How hard would it have been to locate it somewhere where Adam and Eve couldn’t even find it? God didn’t realize they would stumble across it?) And then a serpent, you know, one of those creatures God created (Again, He didn’t see this coming? Who is superior, God or Satan?), talks…TALKS…(a serpent is given the ability to converse!!!)... Eve into taking fruit from that tree. It seems stupid to me that an omnipotent, omnipresent God would create the whole Genesis scenario and then not know what was going to happen. And when it did, every future generation was condemned for it and God finds this “good”. Later on he comes in human form (Jesus, but it is still God), and allows himself to be killed in order to change a rule that he created because someone didn’t mind him about 4 thousand years previously and he didn’t know it was going to happen. Now, if we just believe in him for dying and coming back from the dead we can sin all we want (but we’ll supposedly not want to sin much anymore) and when we die, we’ll spiritually go to heaven and be with him forever. And the ONLY thing that makes this information available is the Bible, which was supposedly inspirationally written by that very same God! How convenient! If, as some biblical apologists insist, the story of Adam and Eve is a parable, then is the original sin just a parable? We aren’t actually guilty of anything? The whole sin concept is based on this story. If it isn’t true, then humankind being guilty of sin by proxy isn’t true either.
How can bible apologist read the bible from cover to cover, or just the first few pages of Genesis, and still believe it is inerrant? Not blind faith…blind gullibility!
Disheartening is, however, that we see so many reject scientific results and suggestions – even the data itself – simply because it does not jive with their beliefs. There might someday very well be some form of a “war on science”. Hopefully the fact that people are living lives steeped in technology which was built upon the science they are fighting will go at least some way to keeping things in check.
Lastly, could anyone recommend other pages on this site where a good discussion or debate is taking place? Or in fact, on other sites? I much prefer things as calm and rational and helpful as possible, not word trickery, ad hominem attacks, or personal thrashings, so I’m looking for a place where that is as close to what’s happening as possible.
I wish everyone who appreciates the same the absolute best of luck!!!
fjell
You might try joining the open forums. Click here. You must first register (it's free), then you can post there.
I would guess that Shay706 simply found some excuse to justify the failure: lack of faith, inapproriate request to deity, not God's will, etc.
Religious fervor is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
If God was around before you where born, how come you never talked to a God until after you were born?
Do you think your father or mother had Jesus and your eternal salvation on their minds at the exact moment of insemination (your fathers orgasm) into your mother?
The only place a God or Jesus exists is in your mind, you're just repeating things you've heard other monkeys repeat.
Now, I can prove to you that God and Jesus only exists in the conscious living brain, this also includes all man made envisioned entities.
1. God and Jesus disappear when you are asleep. (Where do they go?)
2. God and Jesus disappear when you are unconscious or in a coma. (Where do they go?)
3. Thoughts of God and Jesus disappear when you're under anesthesia, during surgery. (Where do they go?)
4. All Gods and saviors disappear when the mind is unconscious.
5. Therefore, all Gods and saviors and man's inspired entities disappear, when the mind is dead.
6. All the things that you've been told to believe, will quickly disappear the exact moment of death.
You might as well learn it now, so get over with talking to yourself, and calling it from a God, its just your mind repeating just what you like for yourself to hear.
However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4
In nearly all religions, salvation is attained through human effort. Only in Christianity does salvation come solely as a gift from God5 - it cannot be earned through human effort.6 Clearly, in doctrines such as the nature of God and the way of salvation, there is very little common ground between Christianity and the religions of the world.
The God of Christianity also differs from the gods of the world's religions in terms of His nature and existence. Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe. In many cases, these gods even have parents. Both of these attributes are logically inconsistent with the reality of our universe. Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time, like the God of the Bible, is logically possible.
Please take your idiotic straw-man arguments somewhere else. Your cut-and-past drivel is a litany of fallacies, unsupported assertions, and pedantic nonsense. You ramble on about how nothing in science is certain, apparently unaware of how painfully obvious that is. OF COURSE everything in science is provisional, because it's perpetually SELF-CORRECTING. If new data comes along that contradicts or casts doubt on previous conclusions, then guess what; those conclusions are tossed out or modified. Similarly, all of your assertions about what "atheists" believe are classic fundy claptrap. You are the one building straw men, then attempting to knock them down. If you want to address the REAL issue, then produce some concrete EVIDENCE (not "proof") for the existence of your invisible deity. To make it simple, pick ONE attribute that you claim is possessed by ONE supernatural entity, and produce some concrete evidence for it. Once you do that, we can discuss it if you wish. But please, spare us the cut-and-paste nonsense.
Well, in that case, there is nothing I need to worry about! If "salvation" is solely a gift, then there is nothing I can do to obtain it. It is either given or not. I either have it or I don't.
When I was born, I didn't have to accept the free gift of life. I hit the cold air after growing in my mother's womb and sucked in a lungful of air. I was given the gift of life and I did nothing to obtain it.
If that's how it is with being born "again," then that is a gift indeed! However, if there is some requirement, like accepting the gift or repenting or believing or changing personal habits or attending church or anything else, then I am earning my salvation. No matter how small of a requirement there is on my receiving this so-called gift -- even the tiniest rule or regulation on obtaining it -- my efforts give me a hand in earning it.
And if I have to do something, anything at all, to earn this "salvation," then Christianity is no different than all the other religions.
Okay, cut-n-paste Fundonymous said:
"Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time, like the God of the Bible, is logically possible."
On the contrary---a "being" that is both omniscient and omnipotent is "logically" IMpossible. If your "God" has a "plan" for mankind and knows the future(omniscience), then said god cannot change the sequence of events leading to the future, or else it was never a "plan" in the first place. If said God is powerless to change what was "planned", then said God is NOT omnipotent. If said God changes it's mind, then it never knew the future. Also, if biblegod was "omnibenevolent" and "all loving", then there wouldn't be a need for a "hell". If receiving God's love has "strings attached", then God isn't "omnibenevolent". If God punishes infinitely for finite/temporal "crimes" such as being skeptical---mind you, the SAME skepicism that ALL Christians use to deduce every OTHER god is non-existant---then God is not "just".
As we see, contradictions abound, so no, the existance of the God of the Holy Bible is is NOT "logically possible".
Fundonymous: "Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe."
Jesus: "I and my Father are one".
I just went over this recently. If Jesus and God are "one", and Jesus existed in this natural universe, then God is/was OF the universe. Simple math.
The deity of the Christian Bible is non-existant. It's man-made mythology, like every other deity from ancient history.
Good day.
What purpose could there possibly be? To please god? Is that a purpose? If that's what you call a purpose, then what a silly little universe we live in! PLEASE ME, FOR I REQUIRE PLEASING!
Seriously, in your dualistic thinking, you are separating yourself from the universe, as if you weren't totally enmeshed in and one with it. We are the universe become aware of itself, pure and simple. This is an absolute truth.^0^ The universe is only interested in if there is life in it to the extent that we (and all beings) are interested in this.
Anon: "Logically, we should not be here."
How is that logical? We are here. That is all. Accept it and move on.
Anon: "In fact, modification of laws of physics almost always results in universes that don't even contain matter!"
Well, perhaps the laws of physics are as they should be and don't require "modification." Is it just possible that the equations describing phenonemon are the way they are precisely because they accurately reflect the reality they attempt to describe? What are you talking about with this "modification" nonsense?
Anon: "Our presence in the universe suggests that we are not here by accident."
It's no accident. Ooops! Again, we're here. That is all. Move on.
Anon: "In fact, the atheist must address the question of *why there is anything at all*. Why should there be a universe instead of nothing?"
No. You are VERY confused. The atheist doesn't have to answer this question any more than the christian person has to answer "why should god exist at all?" You'll say god is uncreated and eternal. I'll say energy is uncreated and eternal. 1st law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed, only interconverted...implies energy is uncreated and eternal. If you wanna call the infinite sea of uncreated energy god, then I'm with ya. If you wanna talk about god something apart from energy/matter/everything, I'll ask you what that thing is. Does it look like the smell of one hand clapping? Or does it resemble the sound of your eyes before you were born?
Threats of hell and damnation.
You're god really can't take disbelief, can he. Really pisses him off.
What a loser god.
"He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins and this is how you repay him."
HE sent HIS SON?
"I and my Father are one."
Explain to me how something that is unified is two. Your word "sent" indicates that there are two. Of course, we all know there are three, but really just one. Pretty confusing.
"Your comments will be replaying in your mind for eternity while your soul finds no rest."
Will you finally feel some satisfaction then?
Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing? Or is it that you somehow recognize deep down that Christianity is the most important thing, even to attack? (There must be some reason you're not attacking the abuses in Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, for instance.)
Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?
Yes there is, and thanks for asking. I see the occasional hijab-wearing Muslima in the mall, but the extent of our conversation is a smile or a polite nod. I sometimes buy spices at an Indian market, and enjoy looking at the brightly painted statues of Hanuman and Shiva and Krishna and Saraswati. And the only follower of Ahura Mazda that I've ever knowingly been in the same room with was Freddy Mercury of Queen (January 1977, Montreal Forum).
How...ever...
I have had evangelical Christians come onto my property, ring my doorbell, and insist that they know some magical secret truth about Life, the Universe and Everything. And they generally try a Pascal's Wager-type parting shot when I tell them that I'm not interested.
A neighbour's son has been harassed and ostracized at his junior high school because he doesn't belong to the prayer club.
My own daughter has been called a "demon child" by Christian classmates.
And evangelicals are constantly trying to force their version of morality upon the rest of society.
I'm indifferent as to what you believe in private. I care passionately about what you and other believers do to me and my neighbours. If you want respect, start practicing it.
Here's my response: CLICK HERE
Yep, check in to all of the over 10,000 christian denominations, and over 3,492 gods that have been identified throughout recorded history. Let us know what you find, after you "look" into the matter.
EMP: "Nobody has ever spent this much time and energy attacking something that was an obvious and transparent lie."
Its unfortunate that society (at least the more intelligent side), has to defend themselves from the onslaught of lies, pushed by insecure individuals who need to find some comfort in their miserable lives. Personally, I defend myself from any lie, so... don't consider your lie to be somehow more worthy of inspection... As well, the more people that defend themselves from a "lie", doesn't make your "lie" somehow more valuable.
If "any" reaction, to your lie, supports your belief, then... the lie isn't as important to you, than the "reaction"... thus, you are just craving attention. Do you get attention by stepping into someone elses' virtual domain, and lying... sure, but most people realize that you are just an insecure liar looking for attention.
Your life is defined by a lie you were told by someone else, and you measure your lie, by how many other people say its a lie... basically, your entire life, and belief system, is based on what other people have told you. Here's a novel idea, grow up, and become more intellectually independent.
EMP: "You all are willing to spend an incredible amount of time harping on this Jesus thing, so there must be something to it."
If you kept your lie to yourself, then I personally wouldn't care what you thought. Unfortunately, your lie, seems to be used by clergy to make money, lie peddling, and in order to perpetuate the lie campaign, those who profit from lying, attempt to make laws that will keep them employed. Using, such excuses like... hey, without this "religion" lie, the country would go morally bankrupt... which is a lie, used to support another lie.
EMP: "Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing?"
Because in less than five minutes, I can call you a liar, and publish it to the world online.
EMP: "Or is it that you somehow recognize deep down that Christianity is the most important thing, even to attack?"
There we go with the ego, and wanting to be considered the most valuable "lie".
Yeah, throw a chunk of coal in a lake, and admire the ripples. The greater the wake/ripples produced the more likely your coal is to be a diamond, right.
EMP: "(There must be some reason you're not attacking the abuses in Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, for instance.)
Actually, if you weren't so illiterate, or myopic, you'd read a few articles and see a pattern form. You know, that when anyone presents an invisible solution to a physical problem they are challenged to produce evidence.
EMP: "Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?"
No, but a mortal whiner, proposing lies will. Nice to meet you.
Wow!...it's always amusing to see a skeptic calling others "skeptics". Emp--you are a skeptic too! Yes, YOU are skeptical of Osiris, Toth, Buddha, Allah, and literally, THOUSANDS more "Gods". 'Silly skeptic, you!
EMP Nobody has ever spent this much time and energy attacking something that was an obvious and transparent lie.
Better yet, it begs the question of why would anyone CARE how much time the non-believer "wastes" doubting the existance of something, if the existance of said "thing" is so obviously "real"? Seriously, if someone started a website doubting the existance of "trees", honestly, who would waste time hanging out on that website defending the existance of trees? So really, I think just the fact that YOU are here, shows that there is doubt in your Jesus belief. Tisk tisk!
EMP Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing?
Who said we have, or should have, "better things" to do with our lives? Who?...you? Hell, abolishing legendary thinking from the face of the earth is one of the most important things any of us will ever do in our lives. Furthermore, speaking of "bashing"--- the "God" in your holy hand-book does more "bashing", "dashing", and "smashing" than anyone I've ever heard of. His nickname should be "Bam Bam". Why don't you actually try reading you Holey Babble with an objective mind for a change, instead of "buffet" style.
EMP Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?
Take 9/11 for second---are you "mad" at Allah? Seriously--are you "mad at Him"?...OR.... are you concerned that people living in the 21st century are killing people who disagree with their beliefs? Exactly, that's what I thought.
So, if I read you correctly underneath all the argumentum ad hominem, (though there is almost nothing left of your "responses" once you take that out) your objection is that the message of Christianity is foolishness to you.
I agree. Did you know that the Bible says exactly the same thing about itself?
1 Corinthians 1:18 gives the conditions in which this is true; look it up if you're interested.
Just passing through. (Sorry to disappoint boomslang, but I found you by searching for something completely unrelated on Google, which I found elsewhere, so I doubt I'll be back. As to who said you have better things to do, your own original post did. I too have better things to do, and unlike some, shall now go do them. Peace.)
Did you ever stop to consider why Paul wrote that only those with darkened minds reject his gospel? Do you think it might have been because so many were rejecting his message?
All cult leaders say similar things. That's nothing new. Paul was an apologetic preacher, intent on making and keeping converts.
Anyway, the whole concept doesn't even make sense. If everyone is spiritually blind before coming to Christ, then how does anyone ever come to Christ? Weren't you blind before coming to Christ? How did you get your sight? Or are you still spiritually blind, but just believe anyway? Can a blind person choose to see? Does it work that way? You point your virtual finger at us, saying we are spiritually blind as if we could just somehow choose to believe. Can a person just insincerely choose to believe something nonsensical? Or is it more likely that a person is deceived into believing things that are nonsensical?
Anyway, since we are so sensitive, you are leaving in a huff, so I guess it's au revoir. Have a wonderful eternal life in a city paved with streets of gold while the bulk of your fellow humans shriek, scream and cry out in horrific torment, forever, in the eternal torture chamber of your loving heavenly father.
Sadistic punishment for lacking belief in a god is not enlightened justice.
Post a Comment