doi

Brian, I know you're not that dense, but I'll entertain it anyway.

I have actually studied the science of meteorology.  I can describe to you how wind forms.  I can't describe to you what it looks like or exactly where that gust of wind you felt came from or started.  Or whether it was a cold air mass meeting a warm air mass or vise versa in your back yard.  Maybe your neighbor sneezed. 

The analogy was that you can see the effects of God as you can with wind without actually being able to see It or Him. 

Followers know who God is and we can determine when it was God.

This was from another forum when I suggested another to read the book.

Simply put, new Atheism from what I understand is taking different approaches as apposed to long ago.  There is more science involved on both sides, but not only that; There is more using poor-excuses-for-examples to represent Christianity when in fact it's exactly NOT what Christianity is supposed to be.  Usually it's people who don't do things right or appropriately or misrepresent scripture.  I agree with the author that when it comes to excuses on why people don't believe in God, it's those people that are the examples. 

 You mean the way some theists here and the author represent atheism? ( exactly NOT what atheism is supposed to be)

Though I agree with you that the world might be a better place if people took the good parts of Jesus and lived those instead of living like Paul advocated (do what you want! There is no law for the believer in Christ and where there is no law there is no sin)

Actually, depending on which Christian cult you talk to, the Bible is the literal word of the invisible sky daddy. But that wasn't really the point. The point was that air is measurable, testable, even usable. Your invisible sky daddy seems unable to even be detected. Strange since omnipotence should be a hell of a lot more testable than finite energy. We have trouble detecting things because their energy emissions are too weak, not because they are too strong.

But since we are on the subject of infinite energy, just why don't you pray for your fairy godfather to turn on the television? Since the invisible fella is all powerful, it would cost him nothing to serve as a remote control. Goodness knows he isn't doing anything else observable with all his infinite energy pixie dust.

You claim that the ISD is detectable if you are smug, self righteous, and condescending enough.  But since this is a subjective feeling, indetectable even to other smug, self righteous, and condescending people just one building removed from you, don't you think that it might just be your own imagination? Just a thought. Otherwise they would be knocking on your door, asking if you just felt god.

I don't see myself propelling any vampires, because, while there are five times as many vampires as there are gods, five times zero still equals zero.

Back to work, have a nice day of schizophrenic delusions.

 Brian 37 wrote me (539) : "We are not god(s) humans make up god(s). It is a projection of our own failure to accept our own mortality. Our atoms go on to become something else based on energy transfer. The atoms that made up our DNA when we were concieved are not the atoms in us now. BUT that does not make us GODS, that makes us part of an ongoing, uncognative random process." ////

  In my words: All is god, yet religious people make up god(s). Conception and Mortality are part of the transition of all connected deterministic existence, as all is god, as nothing is not god .... as religion separatism is all make believe god fantasy.

Just as it's pretty easy for you guys to claim the latter. 

and you atheist folks always blame God.  I guess someone's got to be at blame other than ourselves. 

note: I never said the evil is all satan.  Do you know who satan is though?

If he's that strong and all powerful, is it so far fetched to think that he could hide that power as well???  if he created us, he also has the power to reveil to us as much of himself as he wants.  think about it.  Don't just speak, think.

If I was holding the remote and I told you to go turn the tv on for me, would you do it?

if yes, then you are my slave. 

If no, then you get my point.

If it really came down to a "subjective feeling" i would not be a believer.  It's actually more dangerous to be a Christian these days than to not believe at all.  So why do I believe?  Back to the drawing board. 

Oh, I see. A deceitful, lying god that deliberately withholds evidence in order to force intelligent, thinking people to go to hell. Gotcha.

Which of course brings to question exactly what proposed mechanism could be used to hide infinite power. But there I go falling into the thinking trap again. Anything past third grade logic is fatal around the invisible sky daddy.

Or, seen differently, I am holding a device with limited energy potential. God holds unlimited energy. My device uses batteries that are detrimental to the world around me. God's energy, being undetectable, has no such adverse reactions. Therefore, not only is the invisible sky daddy deceptive, he is also hostile to life, wishing to create as much entropy as possible in the universe.

I am looking really hard for an answer to my question in there, but it seems damn near as hidden as the ISF's power. Are you not the one that made the claim that a True Believer could feel the ISD? That does make it a subjective feeling. And unless you can demonstrate that another True Believer next door can feel it simultaneously, then it is purely subjective.

How exactly is it dangerous for the majority of Americans to believe in their invisible sky daddy? Do your brains explode from convoluted logic? Does being laughed at for evading questions cause the ISD's wings to fall off? Does pretending to be a minority in order to claim that you are being persecuted lead to insomnia, feelings of guilt, depression, and humility? Oh, no, wait, scrap that last question. That would require a conscience.

Pantheist, hey?

Problem with pantheism is that so much of their ' god ' is absolutely preposterous to worship. Tooth decay is god. Polio is god. Dog crap is god. Radiation poisoning is god. Elisabeth Bathory is god. Testicular cancer is god. Joseph Stalin is god. Toxic waste is god. Fredrich Nietzschie is god. See the problem with this?

I'll take pantheists seriously when I see one of them sculpt a shrine out of dog crap. Till then, I am sure that even they don't believe the crap that sometimes oozes out of the wrong orifice and poses as pantheist theology.

Sorry man, and no offense meant, but the " All is god " crap is bullshit. Of course you can always prove me wrong by buiding that shrine of canine crap. Hell, even a cathedral celebrating the glorious god that is testicular cancer would convince me. All is universe? Sure. All is god? All Hail Toxic waste!

Desdenova. Your above generalization / problem with pantheism is based on what? All labels get misused and change in time. To say "ALL IS GOD" is to me the ultimate slap to any god concept separate from all that IS existence. There is nothing to worship, NO MASTER. All is ONE in transition / thermodynamics.

In this world today, to be honest, I must say I am and atheist, and pantheism is simply "sexed up atheism", as Dawkins coined.

There is no worship, no dogma, no scripture in raw pantheism. Sure, there are loons calling themselves any g-o-d related label invented. New Age quacks abound indeed.

   Getting above the problem of semantics we basically agree, and be more socially helpful, explaining what isn't g-o-d, as all is nature , and that is my point .... as to say any g-o-d concept not fully grounded in real science is human fantasy, defying the laws of physics. Science is the only study of g-o-d.

   The prevailing g-o-d word definition(s), especially of the west and mid east have always been preposterous, as obviously all is one and connected.

   It gets old, telling people I don't have superstitious atom in my body, but I just keep on, as i am god as you.  

The problem is that you are using the word god as a synonym for universe. The two words are not interchangeable, as they convey entirely different meanings to most people. All is universe, but the universe does not fit the normal concept of god any more than canine feces fits the concept of either universe or god. The universe contains canine feces, but anybody would laugh in your face were you to insist that canine feces was the universe. The same goes for claiming that all is god.

Language does change. Words do change meaning over time. But this happens when a consensus of people decide to agree on the new usage. Words do not change on the whim of a single person. If you suddenly decide to call all fruits apples, then go the grocery and ask for apples, are you going to express shock when the man at the counter hands you a bag of red roundish fruit when you wanted the yellow lozenge shaped apples? The grocer, indeed the majority of the human race, has not agreed to your definition of apples, and the language remains unchanged. All you do in this case is confuse everyone around you and make communication impossible.

The bulk of the world has a concept of god that involves an anthropomorphic intelligence. They do not agree that cough drops/dog shit/cardboard boxes/everyone/baseball caps/universe is god.

I guess 1.  It would depend on what you're considering evil.  It's a very general question.  Are you talking about letting a cute fluffy bunny die painfully?  Are you talking about the wars?  What? 

I choose all the actions I take.  Who blames God for that? 

new forum?

Done enough to know that the evidence demonstrates a naturalistic universe without adding a god equation into the mix.

I would have tried claiming the energy was hidden in black holes, but thats what I get for going past third grade.

I don't say that the invisible sky daddy has infinite power. I address the fundy claims that the invisible sky daddy has infinite, though absolutely undetectable, power. I'm just trying to figure out how nuclear detonations register on seismographs around the world, but infinite power is undetectable.

King? I live in a democracy, not a monarchy. Or are you saying that god is Elvis? Makes sense, seeing as believers claim to see both of them.

And yet in the mythical past he parts seas, raises the dead, releases plagues and floods, talks through asses ( still does that one today ) and burning bushes, sends angelic messengers, and tells the Hebrew how to murder and enslave their neighbors. Wow, I guess he ran out of poofing dust or something!

I'm not sure what the long distance rates are to heaven, but since he has unlimited everything, he needs to call me. Kind of hard to have a relationship with someone that isn't there, though. Conversation consists of a monologue, hand holding is out of the question, and don't even think of making him your designated driver!

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe I'll just see a face on a tortilla.

Ohhh, I just love the way you dodge the method for supporting your warm, fuzzy, fully internal feeling. All it would take would be another True Christian next door to confirm your feeling. But, since you and I both know that the feeling comes from you and not an invisible sky fairy, you shift the blame on me. And here I thought that Christians were supposed to be honest. Oh, duh! I forget, I'm not dealing with Christians. I'm dealing with Paulists that pretend to be Christians, and Paul says to lie when necessary to convert someone.

Is that a book? Never heard of it. But if the name is an indication, I could point out that I am talking about the here and now Paulist-ized America. Most Paulist martyrs died when Paulinity was still a tiny cult.

However, if you are talking about current day Paulist's being killed, bear in mind that they were not invited to go to other countries and try their brainwashing techniques on them. I'm pretty damn sure that if I barged into a fundy house uninvited and started explaining the theory of gravity to them, they would shoot my ass. Since you folks are so poorly educated for the most part, how about a little advice? When you force yourself into a place where you are not invited, people tend to react with hostility. I know, I know, its a hard concept for a brainwashed cultist to get their mind around, but believe me, it is true.

It's like children have to be taught that God is not real, interesting.

"There is no such thing as godsperm and dead flesh does not survive rigor mortis."

Just wondering, have you considered seeing a mental health professional about his rather odd sperm obsession you seem to have?

I'm not the one claiming that a deity magically knocked up a girl. Now the only thing that can impregnate an egg is sperm. You need two sets of DNA.

So unless the claimant can come up with godsperm or god's DNA. I'll take Occham's Razor's approach that out of all the given explinations, the least complicated is the most likely. It is made up ancient myth that people like believing.

I can see from your last few posts that you're starting to get stuck in a rut. 

You really think I'm dodging questions.  I'm careful. I've tried to answer questions on this site in the past, but I've learned that unless I find someone who's serious and is willing to be on the same page, it's futile and useless.  I'm not going to answer questions unless I know the person asking is going to take them seriously.  There are way too many phonies on here.  I"m also going to stick to topic more so than not on this forum.  If you're serious, you'll think of a specific idea you want to takle with me and we can discuss.  Otherwise, I will continue as you say "dodging questions". 

I will always try to figure out where you're coming from so I can appropriately and accurately answer your question. 

That's what I see too. It appears this has roots in the early church and got worse with time. Not all Christians were this way, but many in power sure were. This becomes the foundations for some of the worst atrocities of the Church, of course done in the name of God. Ultimately of course it was done by individuals with misplaced understandings of the original intent. This of course gives us the modern day atheists ammo to shoot at believers. Though one should be aware if these early believers weren't Christian they probably would have found another way to justify murder and power. It was a great way of rallying support though you got to admit that, it also worked well for Islam.

In my case I actually liked the Catholic Church over the rigid Lutheran upbringing I had. My departure from faith had little to do with either but more to do with education and knowledge.

In my years of religious study originally I was taught as most Christians the story of the OT being true, God then sent his son to save us, and we need to believe and be baptized. (Very short form summary) In my studies that ultimately lead me to disbelief I saw something else entirely in the Gospels versus Christian practice. This is no doubt where Becky Garrison and you no doubt both come up with the idea of "True Christians". Jesus advocated kindness and love first above all. This is lost today, as it seems to apply only to those in the group and sometimes only for the one hour they are in church or mass. Jesus also seemed to not be concerned about the actions of non-believers only the believers, saying the Father was the judge not man. He took positions that suggest separation of church and state as well. 

Start with that and we'll see where it goes.

I think they attribute the writing to fishermen not goat herders. Perhaps that helps to explain the wild stories. When has a fisherman ever told a story that he has not expounded upon with great embellishment?

Don't get the idea that I'm not aware of the conflicting ideas and themes. I personally think the writing is corrupted, probably on purpose. As this developed in the prolific period for both messiahs and religious writing as the rebellion against the Romans intensified so did the violent themes.  IMO the Jesus story was more about a rebel Zealot and altered through development. The 4 gospels do have many conflicts and contradictions. As these Gospels were written after the Paul letters and during rebellion they were influenced by both at some point. That doesn't mean any of it is true or reality based either.

Unlike a believer I don't see any reason why the text of the NT could not have been edited and redacted as the religion developed to add more in support of the Pauline influences and resultant hope of a messiah. Paul had issues with self worth to say the least. Mark 16 has 4 versions for its end by the 4th century for example.  As no one has 1st century copies and the later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke have far more irreconcilable ideas throughout as say compared to Mark. On the one hand you have a Jesus that promotes love on the other he makes threats to use violence. The 2 ideas do not fit together smoothly.

The mismash of ideas do conflict and create the problems resulting in Texas women killing their children to save them from Satan. Not what the Jesus of Mark was advocating from what I see. 

First off the primary theme you can find is kindness and love. You do have to consider as you read what is likely to have been edited in to the story. Of course you also have wacko Jesus cursing inanimate fig trees. Attacks on the Temple which just so happened to also be the financial center for Judea as well, far from brilliant.  This shows instability in the man and is that which discredits him. Part of the message is love but then you have the hate your mother and father comments and the sword statement. There are other irrational comments as well. I agree it is either legend or myth and I have no real clue if any of it was based on a real person or as mythists suggest on no one. Some of the more violent comments seem to be in the later written gospels and were likely a later development.  In many ways I think Jesus was meant to be part of the Zealots or group advocating repent now (of the evil pagan ways of the Greeks and Romans) for the Kingdom of God is at hand. There were groups who were rebelling against the pagan rule and some of these used force. This also applies to the statements about parents and other relatives being at variance. If they didn't leave the pagan ways Hellenism and all it incorporated then they were not of the group and were disowned.

Of course the whole thing could be nothing more than literature as Rook suggests and then you just have a conflicted author.

Could you please reference your source.  I'm just not sure which part you're referring to.

As far as the sword, if it's the part I"m thinking of, it's talking about the power of Jesus's word and not a reference to violence. 

About turning against your family, I'd have to see where you got that from.

Your fictional sky daddy's alleged son is still of no concern to us. But byvertue of his fans constantly trying to convert us, we have no choice but to be concerned.

But if you truely believe in this alleged being, why are you not following his example? If we are going to do what we want anyway, why not just leave it up to daddy instead of trying to do his work for him?

As Garrison says its the likes of Ann Coulter, Falwell, and Haggard that give you all a bad name today. Though there are plenty of sheep that keep quiet and allow these thugs to promote ideas that are seriously flawed.

And I only said I liked it better at the time though today I wouldn't know as I haven't been in one since my daughter got married 10 years ago. Today, I only know what I read about them.

My point is the basic message is something that is not in itself detrimental to coexistence with non-believers it's their morphed way of incorporating it. Thus the "good neighbor" idea comes with strings. Somehow they missed the part in the "good Samartian" story how even the priests (supposedly pious Jews at the time) walked past. Today they drive by those who are in such plights and ignore. Or they send Bibles and missionaries to poor needy countries with help only if they listen to the "Word". This is not what was intended.

He also sent his disciples out to the cities of the Jews, not to pagan cities to teach. His view can be seen that he is trying to bring the Jews back into the pure law but is not in fact inventing a new religion. The end messages in the Gospels tell them to go preach the word in Matthew and Luke, though John is not clear on this. Mark is another story since it has 4 different endings by the 4th century. Since Mark is said to have originally ended at 16:8, the final verses are questionable. In the commission given here in Mark 16:16 those that don't accept are said to be damned while this is not indicated in the other 2 versions. I hold the end of Mark to be a later addition that does not fit in with the context shown.

Either way, there is no support to force conversion here. In fact all there is a reawakening of Jewish belief and no new concept introduced. Jesus was a Jew and he did show obedience to the law with a typical Pharisaic interpretation. His parables are like what they used for example.

That was made fairly clear in John 4 with the Samaritan woman. Then going outside the Gospels James makes a lot of this clear as well. Though we had to have blue laws passed in this country to enable a day of rest. I can see merit in not having drunks vote on election day but why care on Sunday? How else can one stomach your NFL team's antics if one does not have a few beers.

The believers he is specifically addressing were Jews with few exceptions. Jesus was advocating coming back to the pure law and thus the Kingdom of God would come to you as you cast off the pagan ways. This was not a new religion. Perhaps misunderstanding goes farther than you think.

In Luke 20:19-26 regarding tribute money it says to render to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is his since the coin has Caesar upon it. Apparently believers have never understood what this really means.  Then in John 18:36 he says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence." See also James 2:17 and Zechariah 4:6. All of which lead to the view Christians should be guided by the principles and ideas but no where does any of this suggest force.

I see it this way, you can have a subset within the whole where you voluntarily choose to follow stricter guidelines for your life. If for example prostitution is legal nothing suggests you have to utilize the services, you can choose to not patronize a prostitute. Those not of your moral persuasion can do as they like. If no basis other than biblical origin is given for creating a law or prohibiting an action than it cannot be defended. When harm comes to another such as theft or murder society understands and creates laws to protect all. This however should not be taken to the extreme of regulating what one can do that does not result in harm. If you find nudity to be outside the moral subset you have defined then don't go to nude beaches or nude bars.

Exactly.

Which seems to be lost on many today. This is why we have conflicts over secular views and religious views. I really don't want "one nation under God" in the pledge nor do I want 'In God we trust" on my money. As I'm old enough to remember it wasn't always so. I was in 1st grade when it happened.

Though I see not what you do this does not mean I can't understand what is contained therein. Realize I see worthwhile ideas in the writing of Ayn Rand as well as in fiction. Even the ancient Sumerians had many good ideas. I think the concept of cutting off the hands of a doctor who fucks up is a fantastic idea. Hammurabi code #218 " If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."

Since religious beliefs persist and will no time soon leave all must find a way to coexist. It is to this end I put my efforts. I do not hold god beliefs to be based in the real world that others do I have so noted. I also don't use mayo on my french fries but they do in France. It is when coexistance is threatened and force is utilized that issues develop. I don't really want mayo on my fries, get it.

A good question.  thanks for asking.

I'm on here because God also teaches to always challenge what you know.  That's quite a statement coming from a bunch of story writers who are trying to convince people to follow their fantasy.  Therefore, I'm on here to do just that.  It's my hope that someone here and there might give me more evidence to think about beyond blind conclusions and the inability to fart out cars as proof that there is no God. 

Note:  Jesus' mission for his followers is also to go to the ends of the Earth and spread the good news.  Therefore, I am still following his example, and instead of spreading the good news to the people on here who don't want to hear it, I discuss on their terms.  In other words, i follow their lead.