The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I see no need to pay attention to distractions when YOU much less any other believer of any other label, lack credible evidence for invisible superbrains floating in the stars.
ugh... I'm getting dizzy on your merrry-go-round Brian
Brian37 wrote:I am sure you have peer reviewed evidence for "god neurons". I am sure you have as much evidence for your version of "god neurons" as any Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.
Sure, though the question is will YOU accept the evidence?
Are you actually still looking for a physical body of God?
Brian37 wrote:Cap, it is all in your head and you merely like the idea of having a super hero protect you. If you can accept that it's all in the Muslim's head as far as claims of Allah, then why is it you still insist that you are immune to the same flaw in logic they use, which you recognize?
I've explained a few times in forums that you've been a part of... I think even this one why I feel they're flawed along with others.
Brain, it's all in your head, you mearly fear the idea of having a power greater than yourself in control of life as you know it.
Now that we've strolled the "assumptions" road.... again.... are you willing to stick to something so we can actually discuss?
Brian37 wrote:I still have hope for you Cap. Nearly 1,000 posts and you keep banging your head against a wall. You'll feel a lot better when you stop doing it.
Disembodied brains are pure fantasy. They are when others claim them, and they are when you claim them.
If I held my breath for you to present me your research, I'd be dead. Looking back on all of our conversations, you cannot claim the same about me.
What are you so afraid of... or angry at... or stuck on that you cannot even stick to a topic long enough to debate the evidences?
1. Getting dizzy? Or just can't provide what you claim you and other Christians claim you have?
2. Are you saying your God never had a physical body? Who was the Jesus you respect so highly?
3. It can be said of you that you need a higher power to control your life so you have no responsinility for anything you do. Why worry about treating people properly when you can be scum and ask forgiveness?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
So if I say, "Cap, look at me, I am slitting my wrist for you". Would you call that love or narscistic masochism?
What do I owe your alleged being when I had no choice of being born? I don't owe your god, or any for that matter, shit.
Giving is done freely without expectation. Morality is not, "I tortured myself for you.....look at me". That is a sign of insecurity and abuse.
The soldiers of WW2 who died saving Europe from fascism, who wont magically come back from the dead, are real and really moral. Your fictional god character is a self serving prick who only cares about people kissing his ass.
I find the entire concept of spending my life just to kiss someone's ass not only absurd, but a complete waste of a life.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Typical tactic, since the atheist as pulled the curtian aside exposing the myth all you can do is divert the subject of your claim by attacking science.
The funny thing is you think your god is special to the world. The reality is that it is only special to your individual brain because you merely like the idea of having a super hero. Your claims are not special to us and we treat them like any other superstition.
Now, when you can get your godsperm in a petri dish and have it AMA peer reiviewed, then you will have something to show the entire world, not just atheists. Good luck with that. You'll find you have as much evidence for your god as Muslims do for theirs and as much as the Ancient Egyptians had in thinking the sun was a god.
Attack 1+1 all you want, all gods, including yours, are merely a product of your imagination. I hope you wise up someday and figure out what we already know.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It is the nature of the justifications for each of the conflicting positions which needs to be considered. When confronted with such a situation, you need to look a bit more deeply at what is going on.
If none of the parties can point to objectively and independently verifiable data, and can't even agree on how to go about verifying and interpreting it, or even what would count as evidence, then 'none of the above' is at least as likely as likely as any of the options put forward.
In the case of religion, where purely internal subjective experiences are given as much or greater weight than any external evidence, then the inability to agree on fundamental aspects of the 'theories' does point to the strong probability that the whole approach to reality, eg, religious faith-based systems, is fundamentally misconceived.
Something analogous does happen within science, and it requires what has been called a 'paradigm shift' to resolve. One rather important difference is that science specifically allows for this situation, so such an impasse does not have to threaten the whole enterprise of science itself - it drives researchers and theorists to explore ever more 'wild' ideas, to re-examine ever more fundamental principles, and so far we have been able to overcome most such road-blocks.
EDIT: Once we find a 'chink' in the wall, a hint that one of these wild ideas may have hit on somethingm then we can start getting more rigorous, devising tests, what other clues to look for, to start nailing it down if at all possible. NOTE: until any left-field idea can be backed up by evidence, it is not accepted.
Unlike in areas not applying the scientific method, where the the overwhelming desire for some 'answer' has people actually running with the first idea that feels like it 'might' be true. "Test it? Hah, no need for that, we 'know' its true", it feels right, or "how dare you question my diveine revelation?", "God gave me the answer personally", etc.
[end EDIT].
The massive progress that science has made overall is a reasonable justification for continuing on this path. Another point to remember with science is that all theories are explicitly recognized to be tentative, provisional, to some degree.
Fields like economics, politics, social policy, etc, fall somewhere in between the extreme subjectivity of faith and the external verification approach of science.
To repeat, if the level of disagreement is very high, especially where each side regards their core concepts as unchallengeable, it really does suggest that the whole approach needs to be re-thought. The longer the impasse continues, the greater the justification for wiping the slate clean and trying something different.
In the case of faith versus evidence, 'supernaturalism' versus 'naturalism', the case is overwhelming, IMHO, that as an approach to understanding reality, religious faith and invoking the supernatural has a proud record of millennia of confusion and conflict to point to...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"Confusion and conflict" are it's only good points. It is exacly what is needed for the brain to accept such a mind scam. If you convince yourself their is no slight of hand(mind) you become capable of fooling yourself into buying any absurdity that comes down the pike.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Taking into consideration for a moment that God is real (or assuming the fact for those of you who wish to ignore the point by arguing His existance), The Christian God would not need to correct Himself. It is understood that he knows enough not to make mistakes in his doctern the first time.
I don't need a whole "full of himself" or "pompus" debate coming from this either. It's just a general understanding of the Christian God. Basically nullifies the above point.
Taking it from a scientific standpoint, sure, nothing is safe from complete revision. So far (and this forum and others I've been in have gone on for quite a while), nothing I've seen has suggested such a revision to the true following.
Maybe modifying terms or adding a more scientific approach to some aspects wouldn't hurt. It could clarify for many the "myth" barrier.
Depends on what you mean by "new". The NEW Testiment isn't named such for publicity. In the grand scheme of things, yea, he's authored "new" books and Jesus is the completion of the Law. Why fix something that's not broken?
Does he need to?
Unless of course your read the part that talks about the scroll that will be opened explaining a new "chapter" in the Law or a part three to the Trillogy if you will.
You bring up the mistakes to be corrected again. What mistakes are you referring to? If you're talking about mistakes people have made, then that's really our job to correct, not God's right?
Actually, CHRISTIANS are told by scripture to always challenge your own understanding. Therefore, it would make sense that a true follower would welcome a challenge to their point of view. Your "asserting infallibility" must be refering to the dispensationalists. Please don't confuse the two.
You're right about religion. This is why I hate religion. It's separatism. Ask any follower who is willing to be completely honest with you and they'll most likely tell you that they have challenged God in many things. Many of them will also tell you that they had later concluded that they were in the wrong, not God.
btw, I wish you'd finish that sentence. I'm dying to know what inside information you have on God.
Actually... neither are followers of Christ. A true follower is constantly looking for new insight or new information. We love geologists and historians who try to dig up the past.
You just pointed out 2 sects of Christianity that have a lot of dispensationalism within their walls. They tend to contradict themselves a lot.
From your post, I'm starting to wonder whether the mistakes you're soon going to present are really God's or just religion.
I know what he was saying. The same debate can go on with scientific topics that haven't enough information to prove. The easy way out there is to say "we don't have enough information yet". The same claim is said about religions in general. "God did it" Same magnitude of "cop-out" except that "God did it" leaves no room for future study. Both settle the score for the time being until the topic is brought up again.
Basically put. Everything that's not understood to be true to a person is probably wrong until otherwise proven to the standards of the recipiant.
It's a state of mind, not a logical conclusion.
Why would you be slitting your wrist for me?
I get your point, but I understand why Jesus died for me. I don't understand why you'd slit your wrist for me. If you thought I like to drink blood, I assure you, it was cranberry juice.
No one said you owe God anything... Jesus gave his life for you to give you the choice of being with God if you wanted to. This isn't the Mafia.
Are you telling me that you'd remember your choice if you had one before being born?
If you're referencing to Jesus, you'd need to take it in context. I don't believe you read any of it after all, because if you did, you'd notice he didn't do it to himself and he actually asked God to not let it happen.
yea, I agree. Someone who would die for me definitely doesn't care about me. You I think are getting dispenationalism mixed up again.
If that's what you think it's about or that it's that way at all, then you definitely need to look over your research again. You missed something big.
The hypothetical entity being referred to as 'God' is defined as the sort of entity which would never make mistakes, of course.
However, when we are talking about human knowledge, it is manifestly capable of being mistaken and requiring correction. There are things which we are unlikely to know anything about with any provable certainty, and that has to include knowledge of the actual existence and attributes of 'God'.
There is no way any category of knowledge, especially anything relating to what we might call the 'ultimate nature of existence' whether that be the 'ultimate' origin of matter/energy, or the existence of supreme beings or 'higher powers', can bypass the fallibility and finite capabilities of our minds/brains.
So all the problems of refining knowledge that science specifically addresses, apply even more to ideas of the existence and nature of God/Jesus/Yahweh etc, and other related ideas.
One can speculate that a God of some sort would not make mistakes, but we can never actually know that, that would be claiming to know something intrinsically beyond our abilities to reason about.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I use a simple comparison and you see it as attacking science.... Interesting.
The funny thing is, no matter how many times we go through this, you still don't understand that I'm welcoming your skepticism.
Another funny thing... you have so many convicting claims... yet you back them up very little. Occasionally you've actually backed yourself up, other than that, it's been air. You know you would be all over me if I used that tactic, why do you think you're any different? Is it because you think you know the truth??? I guess that'd be a good excuse... I mean it works for religious people, right?
you don't listen/read much do you? either that or you're quite forgetful.
Please show me your research. I've been waiting almost 1000 posts on this forum alone for it.
Just for the record, the above statement did not apply to those of you who have presented something for me to look at. There are many on here who have actually given me some information to look at. I have talked about all of it. If I missed something I apologise and please remind me what it was so I can look at it.
From the "godsperm" claims you bring to the table among many others, I'd say it worked for you.
now try getting away from religion and do some legitimate research.
precisely
sure
This is where I think it falls apart. In my experience external evidences are usually the initial approach to leading people to the internal experiences; God.
The inability for "religions" to agree on fundamental aspects is beyond logical research, it's just one group thinking they're more right than another. If it were a scientific approach (which I wish a lot of religions would get the balls to do), at best, the jury could be out for a while on some aspects, but there would not be disagreement.
It's apparently misconceptions that lead you to believe your statement to be true. This is how dispensationalism works.
Except for the big ones of course. Though through the years, Christians have been able to do the same thing. The issue with religions in general is (unlike Christianity) most of them out there suggest hostility toward an apposing view. Some to the extreme of killing the other. That right there should set warning bells off in anyone's head.
A true follower will not only welcome an apposing view, but will take into consideration everything that is said to keep themselves in check with what they understand to be true.
Many people will look at scientific advancements in the past 100 years and say, "wow, we've come along way." Despite the fact that within the past 100 years, a much better understanding of the following of Christ due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a more educated eye, and advances in science and geology, everyone seems to think it hasn't changed.... that is, outside of the following. Inside, the traditions may have been held onto, but the understanding is much clearer.
This is why the number of Christianity sects has pretty much quadrupled in the past 100 years. The ones who were willing to take a new look at the following were shunned by the ones who were afraid of change. Thus division came.
There's much more to it than that of course, but it's the jist of it.
I agree. This goes back to what an individual will accept as evidence and how far they're willing to go to "test" the understandings.
I think my responses above can apply to this as well.
We as the followers of Christ could not agree with you more.
Basically, the whole teaching has been lost. It's why so many people on here think they have a strong case against faith in Christ.
Sure it has, which is why I agreed with your previous statement. There are many of us followers out there that honestly agree that things need to be revamped. Tell that to the sects though... They're happy, so why change?
My point is that you act as if Jesus is in Nam with you and jumps on a granade for you.
WRONG! Jesus's daddy made all of us" according to you" put us here without our concent, and then slit his wrist(body) to save us from the enternal damnation he would subject us to for not kissing his ass.
Your God/Jesus character claim acts like a jilted lover who stalks when rebuffed, "I did it all for you".
NO ONE ASKED HIM TO and we shouldn't be punished for something we had no say in.
Love is not contingent on loyalty. Love is knowing freedom is letting go.
The "God" concept is not about letting go, it is about dictating for "look at me" "worship me" reasons.
Narcissism is only excusable in a baby. In religion, narcissism is deadly.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm sorry, how silly of me to ask an all powerful being to produce sperm, it's not like he could pop a man out of dirt or get a bush to talk.
Funny how parlor tricks seem to be out of the realm of an "all powerful" being.
I guess all one has to do to be a fertility doctor is pass the CASPER exam.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No you are not. You consider me, like I do you, "A CHEW TOY". Which is fine with me.
Both you and I think the other got it wrong. Difference is that just like every other claimant of super hero's in the sky, you have the same amount of evidence as they do.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
ok
Answer me this. If you did not exist, how would you concent to life? Then again, if you actually have a choice before you're born, how do you know you didn't agree to it? Do you remember?
Funny you should mention that. Literally! According to the Bible, we are not punished for something we had no say in. All "sin" as coined, is a personal choice each one of us has made through life. You had every say in whether you "sinned" or not.
by the way, if you're upset about living, blame your parents, not God. They're the ones that chose to have you... or if they didn't choose to have you, then they chose the actions that caused you to be.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I might hold onto that explanation if you don't mind.
Though understand, to add to it, with love comes a loyalty to the one you love because you want them to be happy. You can't desert someone and claim you truly love them.
says you, now try to do some research.
I don't like religion
You really have not read the Bible. I'm convinced of it now. It actually talks about your so called "parlor tricks" and why Jesus refused to do them as well!!!
How 'bout that. Amazing that those excuses have been used way back in Biblical times as well.
er... you haven't stuck on a topic long enough to even consider presenting evidence for it.
I have even tried to get you to stick to a point, but it was futile. When you want to get serious about discussing something specific, then we can talk about evidences.
The biggest hurtle is to actually agree on a source. For a moment a while back I think "Scientific Method" was going to be considered until people started realizing that might require some "personal experimentation!!!" dun dun dun....
And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice. We all know you're just dancing around when you just mention it as being a choice, we know you have specific actions/choices in mind when you say that. Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not. It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control.
I heard something like this not too long ago:
An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.
The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.
The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.
The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"
The Christian replies "no, they don't"
The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"
I see no need to pay attention to distractions when YOU much less any other believer of any other label, lack credible evidence for invisible superbrains floating in the stars.
I am sure you have peer reviewed evidence for "god neurons". I am sure you have as much evidence for your version of "god neurons" as any Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.
Cap, it is all in your head and you merely like the idea of having a super hero protect you. If you can accept that it's all in the Muslim's head as far as claims of Allah, then why is it you still insist that you are immune to the same flaw in logic they use, which you recognize?
I still have hope for you Cap. Nearly 1,000 posts and you keep banging your head against a wall. You'll feel a lot better when you stop doing it.
Disembodied brains are pure fantasy. They are when others claim them, and they are when you claim them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Any action that breaks the laws written in the Bible.
I think I can see where this might stem, remember, you only asked for a concise definition.
....ok.....
Really! Ok. Let's keep focused on the fact that the "choices" we're talking about here are actions. Tell me those actions one does that is not a choice and please explain your understanding.
and yet, anyone who studies the Bible closely can see that evolution is supported.
Interesting conclusion however.
*sigh* dispensationalism at its best
1. Then God sins by your definition.
2. What part of special creation supports evolution?
3. The great commision is dispensationalism? When did that dispensation where the commands of your god no longer apply begin?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
ugh... I'm getting dizzy on your merrry-go-round Brian
Sure, though the question is will YOU accept the evidence?
Are you actually still looking for a physical body of God?
I've explained a few times in forums that you've been a part of... I think even this one why I feel they're flawed along with others.
Brain, it's all in your head, you mearly fear the idea of having a power greater than yourself in control of life as you know it.
Now that we've strolled the "assumptions" road.... again.... are you willing to stick to something so we can actually discuss?
If I held my breath for you to present me your research, I'd be dead. Looking back on all of our conversations, you cannot claim the same about me.
What are you so afraid of... or angry at... or stuck on that you cannot even stick to a topic long enough to debate the evidences?