Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Posted on: August 18, 2008 - 1:28pm

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:00am #2201

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

caposkia wrote:Just to point

caposkia wrote:

Just to point out that i'm not ignoring your posts, i had a reply up to this point and lost it. i'm not going to go back through and repost. the general idea is if you want a debate, stop wasting time here and debate me. if i'm not a credible person, then a debate won't work and there's no point in either of us continuing.

redneF wrote:
caposkia wrote:
ah, so you're a 'gods can only exist if absolutely necessary scientifically speaking' kind of person.
No.
I never said that.
Gods could exist, even if they weren't necessary.
by stating what you did, one would have to conclude that you believe gods can only exist if absolutely necessary. By saying that Gods could exist even if they weren't necessary is to suggest that there could be other means of creation and there would be no burden on my part to prove that there was no other way.
to add to this, I believe that it makes sense that God would create within the confines of the universe he created... why? it makes logical sense that it would be easier to create within the confines of scientific law rather than break those each time something new is added, then try to stabilize the imbalance caused by the creation.
redneF wrote:
caposkia wrote:
statistical probability of life happening in the universe itself suggests scientifically speaking that life is not a plausible occurrence.
Patently false.
Patently absurd.
That canard has been debunked on the internet so many fucking times it's not even funny.
You really are fucking ignorant if you think you've done your 'research'.
Read up on Computational Mathematics, or Quantum Mathematics.
ya, it's been debunked by saying life happened. The statistical odds of life happening are so low it's a scientific improbability. It'd be like me telling you to invest your life savings into winning the lottery. Why? You could win. Does that mean you will? of course not. Many people have gone bankrupt with lottery addiction and they went bankrupt because the statistical odds of them winning are to low to guarantee anything. To suggest life is possible statistically speaking is to suggest you will win the lottery 100 times in your life guaranteed if you just buy all the tickets you possibly can for the rest of your life. It' just not that simple.
caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
I'll remain where it's most practical and safe to be. I hate being wrong, and wasting my life being it.
Does this mean then that if someone points something out that you might be wrong about, it's going to be difficult for you to accept the fact that you're wrong?
Huh?
How the fuck did you come to that conclusion, based on my statement????
You really must post when you're not sober.
I'm not 'dogmatic', or emotionally married to 'ideas'.
If someone demonstrates that something is correct, and it contradicts and idea I had, I'm thankful for the truth.

I'm just making sure. You present yourself as one who would deny the truth if it was in your face. I came to that conclusion by your statement of "I hate being wrong" and how you've been presenting yourself on here up till now. it was a very logical and rational question for you. i just needed to hear you'd be open to new ideas. in other words, you're willing to reexamine your understanding just as I.

redneF wrote:

The topic isn't merely something trivial. Otherwise you people wouldn't be so emotionally invested in the topic, and pattern your entire lives around something trivial.

caposkia wrote:

neither would you

Huh?

I don't pattern my life on whether or not gods are possible, or probable. Because it doesn't matter.

If God didn't exist, it wouldn't matter to me, because i know he does, I of course invest in Him.

redneF wrote:

Not if they're skeptics, no matter their IQ.

skeptics are intelligent because they can't accept an understanding without investigating it themselves... this would make me a skeptic. In this case, it would be of your belief.

You don't present yourself as a skeptic, you present yourself as brainwashed. instead of calmly discussing both sides of the topic, you are emotionally attached to the idea that I'm delusional because you see no reasoning to accept what i believe. If not, then stop accusing me of anything and start discussing. the greatest way of shutting up a brainwashed individual is by making them face the truth about what they think they know. Calling them delusional will only make them more hardheaded and less able to hear what you have to say.

If I am truly brainwashed... make me see the truth.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:18am #2202

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote: Actually I

TGBaker wrote:

Actually I am not. This is universally accepted logic by such Christian philosophers as Plantinga etc.; What it does better than an ontological proof of god is allow the actual world to be one of the possible worlds. Since an all loving all powerful god could remove suffering or create a world without suffering it means if there is a god he is not all loving or all powerful.

the problem with that conclusion is that he did create a world without suffering. instead of us being complete robots, he allowed humans to have choice. choice led to suffering. How does suffering then lead to a conclusion that God is not all loving or all powerful? The only way by this standard then that God could be all loving and all powerful is by allowing us to have as much choice as a home computer to act and think for ourselves.

TGBaker wrote:

iT DEMONSTRATES that the classical theistic god simply does not exist because there is suffering of the innocent or anyone for that matter.

suffering of the innocent or anyone doesn't suggest or demonstrate that a god doesn't exist however. The classical theistic god i guess would have to depend on what you're referring to... is it Biblical or religious?

TGBaker wrote:

The nature of possible world scenarios indicates that the argument covers both a transcendent and imminent god. Neither of which is compatible with the world as it is.

how so? because it happens and gods supposed to stop it? What would God have to do to us in order to stop the bad? would he be a loving God if he didn't allow us to live with choice? Basically we'd have to lose choice in order for the world to be perfect... there's always going to be someone who makes a bad choice. There are natural consequences for bad choices and spiritual ones as well.

TGBaker wrote:

There is certainly room to discuss a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient and all loving god. In fact CALVINISM WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLLY TO PRESENT GOD AS NOT ALL LOVING. A Calvinistic god is a god who prior to creation plans to create evil people (non-elect) along with the elect. A dispicable god that should live in his own hell he created. I would look at contemporary theology and various models that have been constructed of the post theistic god such as Pannenberg, Hartshorne, Whitehead, TIllich,etc.;

Ok... None of this still answered my question of where I'm not giving you a strait answer.

So many people think because bad things happen to good people the God of the Bible couldn't possibly exist. But then why is there bad things written in the Bible? Sure, God could have slapped eve's hand before she grabbed the fruit and said "no! Bad". but then we are deduced to having the freedom of a 2 year old in life... which is quite constricting if you think about it. You're only allowed to do what mommy and daddy say you can do, not make your own choice yet because you're not capable of doing so. In other words, if if your'e looking for that kind of restriction, then you wouldn't even have a choice to deny God.

God knows we have a mentality much more mature than that of a 2 year old and therefore he allows us to make mistakes and pay the consequences.

You mention a hell he created. That is a very dispensationalist point of view. denominational dispensationalists use hell as a crutch and say repent or die! Yet there really is no support for a fire and brimestone hell. My theory from what I have seen in scripture, hell is simply complete separation from God. What does that look like/feel like? It's understood to not be pleasent, but fire and brimestone? That stems back to the belief that all the dead souls that go to hell are dwelling in the molten hot center of the earth. That's not biblical. I also believe hell is a choice. If you really don't want to be with God and deny him, he will not force you to be with him and completely separate you from himself.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:26am #2203

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
God is understood to be a factor outside this world.
That's complete dishonesty and misrepresentation of facts.
You know well that there's only a legend and folklore, and that there are hundreds of millions of people who understand that it's nothing more than a rumour.
An honest person would admit that there's no actual evidence, but they still are willing to believe the assertions in the literature.
But it's completely dishonest to posit that "God" is 'understood' to be one thing or another, as if it's a universal understanding.
So, you're a fucking liar, and merely 'posturing' that you are 'sincere' and authentic, in your 'inquiries'.

Typical, garden variety theist.
Just like I concluded in our 'debate'.

without reason to believe, there's no belief and nothing to have faith in. Literature alone is not a reason to believe. It's one thing to say you can't understand my point of view... it's a different story to call me a liar. You're making yourself out to be fearful of what you hear from me. It's a kneejerk reaction to call someone a liar when you hear somthing you don't want to.

If I am so a liar, then confront me about it with rational counters... you know... like a good debater would.

So far, to make yourself feel better it seems, you have tried to deduce me to a garden variety theist... which would make you a garden variety anti-theist.

If I am a liar, then how do you intend to debate me? The problem with debates is both sides need to be honest. Where do you stand on this? If you really think I'm a liar are you going to quit the debate?

Why don' you prove to me that I'm a liar in the debate... this way, all the credibility I have built on here with the alegedly gullible atheists can be debunked and everyone can move on.

BTW, i'm not calling anyone on here gullible, only suggesting an inference of that by rednef. I believe most of you are quite intelligent and are careful about your conclusions. It seems to me the only way rednef can defend himself at this point.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:27am #2204

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

I'm intrigued, cap.You claim

I'm intrigued, cap.

You claim to know that your god exists and that you love and have a personal relationship with him. You also claim to have no emotional investment in your God and came to him solely by investigation.

How does that work?

"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

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:34am #2205

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

redneF wrote:Take it up with

redneF wrote:

Take it up with Bart Erhman, and Tom Harpur.

I'll look into them.

redneF wrote:

I doubt you're more knowledgeable than either of those two.

dont' know... probably not

redneF wrote:

Even William Lane Craig has no choice but to admit that there are over 1000 words that could not be successfully translated, or transposed, from the ancient scriptures, into english.

and rightfully so in over 66 books with an incompatible language barrier. The problems is both the Greek and Hebrew dialect used is no longer used and makes it more difficult to translate. Both languages also have specific words referencing to points such as a past, present and future tense that English needs a sentence or phrase to explain rather than one word. Simply put, there are just words used that simply cannot be translated because there are no words in English to use. Therefore, instead of sucessfully translating the word, one would rather have to define what is otherwise not translatable.

inability to translate in no way suggests theses stories are not true or actual happenings in history.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:36am #2206

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm intrigued, cap.
You claim to know that your god exists and that you love and have a personal relationship with him. You also claim to have no emotional investment in your God and came to him solely by investigation.
How does that work?

i had no emotional investment in my research that helped me find him. I have an emotional investment in God and i stated that in a previous post I just put up.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:38am #2207

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

How about having no evidence

How about having no evidence of these happenings? Doesn't that affect whether the stories are true or actual happening in history? The God of the OT was not what I would call subtle.

"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

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:56am #2208

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:OK I think I'm

TGBaker wrote:

OK I think I'm done. Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark I did not say Mark changed anything if I did was dyslexic.

alright, i get that. You accept the theory that mark was a reference book along with the unknown Q.

TGBaker wrote:

I assume the Markan priority because of years of research.

and logically so

TGBaker wrote:

The BIG DEAL about the donkey is that the author of Matthew relies on the LXX and causes the two animals where in Mark there is one. THis means the author was NOT an eyewitness. But then you have me repeating myself. I am remiss in what to say about the fact you do not see the significance of the changes to the text.

what i see is that if Matthew in fact was an eye witness and Mark was not which is likely the case, then it is very possible that there were actually 2 animals and not one then again, if Matthew wasn't an eye witness, we have no idea what Q says and therefore it could be that Q allowed Matthew to suggest an extra animal... but how would you conclude either way unless you were there?

i ultimately see a difference in perspective, i do not see evidence of "changes" in the text. The only way we could conclude that assuming we're taking the point of view that Mark is a source is to also ahve access to Q, which we do not have.

TGBaker wrote:

As to you wondering how much is my own interpretation I have studied under some great scholars and have a long time friend who is a Christian scholar. Now that I have typed this I am a little less insulted and should not but will do a little of your work for you.

sorry if i insulted you, but just as you would need. i would need more than just your word on any conclusion that i do not accept.

TGBaker wrote:

Buy some commentaries....off the top of my head: F.W. Beare on Matthew, Vincent Taylor, an evangelical scholar on Mark, Luke get an evangelical like I.H. Marshall; on John get Raymond E. Brown. I am giving you professing Christian commentaries that are on a scholarly level rather than popular. You will still see these issues.

Thank you. Though i have used many reliable sources, i have been looking for some credible commentaries. I will look into those. that's not doing my homework for me, that's giving me references just as i asked. I will do the research.

TGBaker wrote:

It would be good to intentionally by conservative and liberal on each gospel. The parts of the gospel you mention having more details are additions that Matthew or Luke added as they redacted Mark.

it is at best a theory that mark was used as a source... even so, if Mark was in fact a source, then it is widely concluded that there had to be another source... thefore to conclude they changed anything is to conclude they also changed information from Q... as to which we have again, no access too, therefore, it is not logical for you to conclude such without both references at your fingertips.

TGBaker wrote:

Sometimes Luke or Matthew will shorten the Markan story as they edit. Look at the difference of meaing again the passage where Jesus says Why do you call me good, There is none good but God, That's MArk. look at how the meaning of the passage is changedby why do you ask me concerning the good. The theology of Mark was not sufficient for MAtthew and Luke so they alter the saying . It really iis that bloody simple.

Don't get me wrong, I see your perspective. I'm not discrediting your conclusion... yet... I'm only trying to further understand why you concluded as you did so that i can better understand whether i should agree with you or dismiss it with logical reasoning.

Looking at Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:18 in context, it is showing both instances that Jesus was allowing the person in question to reflect on themselves... or at least that's what it seems... If not, then you'd have to also conclude that all the sins that Jesus lists off in Mark are sins that Jesus himself was admitting to committing. If this was so, then why did the man then reflect his response on himself telling Jesus that he kept all those commandments himself?

What I get out of it is Jesus is confirming that the person really knows who he is. In order for the person to truly call Jesus good, they would have to know that he is the son of God.

Someone of your expertise would know that context is extremely important in translating scripture and therefore you'd have to take the context of the whole passage into consideration. With the context, there is no contradiction that I can see. Again i will look into the volumes you mentioned.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 8:59am #2209

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:How about

jcgadfly wrote:

How about having no evidence of these happenings? Doesn't that affect whether the stories are true or actual happening in history? The God of the OT was not what I would call subtle.

there is support in history, archeology and science to suggest that Ot stories could have happened without disrupting the historical timeline... In other words, it fits within history. I had a short science vs. religion thread that is long dead... still out there I think. Then there is a history thread I'm currently a part of that covers historical accounts if you're curious.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 9:37am #2210

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Actually I am not. This is universally accepted logic by such Christian philosophers as Plantinga etc.; What it does better than an ontological proof of god is allow the actual world to be one of the possible worlds. Since an all loving all powerful god could remove suffering or create a world without suffering it means if there is a god he is not all loving or all powerful.
the problem with that conclusion is that he did create a world without suffering. instead of us being complete robots, he allowed humans to have choice. choice led to suffering. How does suffering then lead to a conclusion that God is not all loving or all powerful? The only way by this standard then that God could be all loving and all powerful is by allowing us to have as much choice as a home computer to act and think for ourselves.
TGBaker wrote:
iT DEMONSTRATES that the classical theistic god simply does not exist because there is suffering of the innocent or anyone for that matter.
suffering of the innocent or anyone doesn't suggest or demonstrate that a god doesn't exist however. The classical theistic god i guess would have to depend on what you're referring to... is it Biblical or religious?
TGBaker wrote:
The nature of possible world scenarios indicates that the argument covers both a transcendent and imminent god. Neither of which is compatible with the world as it is.
how so? because it happens and gods supposed to stop it? What would God have to do to us in order to stop the bad? would he be a loving God if he didn't allow us to live with choice? Basically we'd have to lose choice in order for the world to be perfect... there's always going to be someone who makes a bad choice. There are natural consequences for bad choices and spiritual ones as well.
TGBaker wrote:
There is certainly room to discuss a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient and all loving god. In fact CALVINISM WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLLY TO PRESENT GOD AS NOT ALL LOVING. A Calvinistic god is a god who prior to creation plans to create evil people (non-elect) along with the elect. A dispicable god that should live in his own hell he created. I would look at contemporary theology and various models that have been constructed of the post theistic god such as Pannenberg, Hartshorne, Whitehead, TIllich,etc.;
Ok... None of this still answered my question of where I'm not giving you a strait answer.
So many people think because bad things happen to good people the God of the Bible couldn't possibly exist. But then why is there bad things written in the Bible? Sure, God could have slapped eve's hand before she grabbed the fruit and said "no! Bad". but then we are deduced to having the freedom of a 2 year old in life... which is quite constricting if you think about it. You're only allowed to do what mommy and daddy say you can do, not make your own choice yet because you're not capable of doing so. In other words, if if your'e looking for that kind of restriction, then you wouldn't even have a choice to deny God.
God knows we have a mentality much more mature than that of a 2 year old and therefore he allows us to make mistakes and pay the consequences.
You mention a hell he created. That is a very dispensationalist point of view. denominational dispensationalists use hell as a crutch and say repent or die! Yet there really is no support for a fire and brimestone hell. My theory from what I have seen in scripture, hell is simply complete separation from God. What does that look like/feel like? It's understood to not be pleasent, but fire and brimestone? That stems back to the belief that all the dead souls that go to hell are dwelling in the molten hot center of the earth. That's not biblical. I also believe hell is a choice. If you really don't want to be with God and deny him, he will not force you to be with him and completely separate you from himself.

The idea that god could have created a world without suffering if he is omnipotent. Suffering exists. So you want to blame it on Adam and Eve and original recipe sin. Well fine as god I'd let them die, forgive them or undo my making and try a different possible world. I'm sorry but I have seen these exact sentences of yours flow out of my younger mouth and they are just so much indoctrination. In fact you can get flashcards for them. As for as suffering it is seldom from mistakes. Typhoons, Tsunamis, forest fires, volcanoes, animals killing others for food, humans killing others for profit, religion,anger, etc.: The idea that god could have slapped Eve's hand is not needed. He could have simply not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Your theory that hell is complete separation from god is not your theory. It is taught in most seminaries. The idea of Hell comes from Jesus speaking about ones final state. He compares it to Gehenna, jerusalem's garbage dump. The Book of Revelation is where the idea gets added fire and brimstone.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 9:40am #2211

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
How about having no evidence of these happenings? Doesn't that affect whether the stories are true or actual happening in history? The God of the OT was not what I would call subtle.
there is support in history, archeology and science to suggest that Ot stories could have happened without disrupting the historical timeline... In other words, it fits within history. I had a short science vs. religion thread that is long dead... still out there I think. Then there is a history thread I'm currently a part of that covers historical accounts if you're curious.

there is support in history, archeology and science to suggest that Ot stories could have happened without disrupting the historical timeline...

...and that Yahweh performed those actions...

...and that aliens performed those actions...

...and that men performed these actions and they were embellished by the writers...

...and that these actions happened naturally...

In other words, it fits within history.

Puzzles should not have multiple pieces that fit equally well.

"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

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 9:58am #2212

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:The idea that

TGBaker wrote:

The idea that god could have created a world without suffering if he is omnipotent. Suffering exists. So you want to blame it on Adam and Eve and original recipe sin. Well fine as god I'd let them die, forgive them or undo my making and try a different possible world. I'm sorry but I have seen these exact sentences of yours flow out of my younger mouth and they are just so much indoctrination.

I agree with you. My point wasn't that they are the sole reason for bad things in the world, but that God could do that for each one of us for every little thing we do wrong in his eyes, but we are then again deduceed to 2 year olds.

TGBaker wrote:

In fact you can get flashcards for them. As for as suffering it is seldom from mistakes. Typhoons, Tsunamis, forest fires, volcanoes, animals killing others for food, humans killing others for profit, religion,anger, etc.: The idea that god could have slapped Eve's hand is not needed. He could have simply not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Your theory that hell is complete separation from god is not your theory. It is taught in most seminaries. The idea of Hell comes from Jesus speaking about ones final state. He compares it to Gehenna, jerusalem's garbage dump. The Book of Revelation is where the idea gets added fire and brimstone.

the problem with hell being fire and brimestone based on Revelation is that hell itself is thrown into that lake of fire concluding that the lake itself is not hell. It makes sesne that seminaries would teach what i understand of hell. It makes sense when you research it.

Everything has a cause. i refer to the butterfly effect. the causes might be unknown, but there is still a cause. nature needs a balance. animals need to survive and protect themselves. etc.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 10:01am #2213

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:there is

jcgadfly wrote:

there is support in history, archeology and science to suggest that Ot stories could have happened without disrupting the historical timeline...
...and that Yahweh performed those actions...
...and that aliens performed those actions...
...and that men performed these actions and they were embellished by the writers...
...and that these actions happened naturally...
In other words, it fits within history.
Puzzles should not have multiple pieces that fit equally well.

they don't... doesnt' mean you can't force a piece in like you did here and make it look like it fits. The catch is once the puzzle is done, the picture doesn't work. Only works one way no matter how many different ways you want to put the puzzle together.

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 10:58am #2214

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
there is support in history, archeology and science to suggest that Ot stories could have happened without disrupting the historical timeline...
...and that Yahweh performed those actions...
...and that aliens performed those actions...
...and that men performed these actions and they were embellished by the writers...
...and that these actions happened naturally...
In other words, it fits within history.
Puzzles should not have multiple pieces that fit equally well.
they don't... doesnt' mean you can't force a piece in like you did here and make it look like it fits. The catch is once the puzzle is done, the picture doesn't work. Only works one way no matter how many different ways you want to put the puzzle together.

How did I force a piece to fit by listing the way people use what they believe is historical evidence and the Bible to create their own conclusions?

At least they actually present what they think is the historical evidence - all you've done is make the claim.

"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

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 11:01am #2215

robj101

Posts: 2481

Joined: 2010-02-20

Offline

Did I mention I own this

Did I mention I own this book and couldn't get past the first chapter? It is so retardedly faith based. Bashing Hitchens and the gang with suppositions, so mature.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 11:02am #2216

robj101

Posts: 2481

Joined: 2010-02-20

Offline

I would strongly recommend

I would strongly recommend atheists to look for a book called "difficulties in the bible" and just read the forward. It is a freakin riot.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

Posted on: April 10, 2011 - 11:16am #2217

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The idea that god could have created a world without suffering if he is omnipotent. Suffering exists. So you want to blame it on Adam and Eve and original recipe sin. Well fine as god I'd let them die, forgive them or undo my making and try a different possible world. I'm sorry but I have seen these exact sentences of yours flow out of my younger mouth and they are just so much indoctrination.
I agree with you. My point wasn't that they are the sole reason for bad things in the world, but that God could do that for each one of us for every little thing we do wrong in his eyes, but we are then again deduceed to 2 year olds.
TGBaker wrote:
In fact you can get flashcards for them. As for as suffering it is seldom from mistakes. Typhoons, Tsunamis, forest fires, volcanoes, animals killing others for food, humans killing others for profit, religion,anger, etc.: The idea that god could have slapped Eve's hand is not needed. He could have simply not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Your theory that hell is complete separation from god is not your theory. It is taught in most seminaries. The idea of Hell comes from Jesus speaking about ones final state. He compares it to Gehenna, jerusalem's garbage dump. The Book of Revelation is where the idea gets added fire and brimstone.
the problem with hell being fire and brimestone based on Revelation is that hell itself is thrown into that lake of fire concluding that the lake itself is not hell. It makes sesne that seminaries would teach what i understand of hell. It makes sense when you research it.
Everything has a cause. i refer to the butterfly effect. the causes might be unknown, but there is still a cause. nature needs a balance. animals need to survive and protect themselves. etc.

I did not say that hell came from Revelation. I said that the features of fire etc were taken added to Gehenna, Sheol and the Greek Hades. They do teach that too in more liberal seminaires, duh. The popular view of hell has evolved from all those things. The hoofs of the devil really are from Faust. The pitchfork was Poseiden's. This same evolution occured from the day Jesus died. Why has our Messiah been killed? That is what I was trying to show you with gospel variations. It is not them singly but as a trend and pattern that shows the redaktion/ fabricating. Quantum mechanics shows otherwise about cause. Not everything is causal....quantum randomness.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 9:36am #2218

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:How did I

jcgadfly wrote:

How did I force a piece to fit by listing the way people use what they believe is historical evidence and the Bible to create their own conclusions?
At least they actually present what they think is the historical evidence - all you've done is make the claim.

you pieced together separate beliefs and tried to make them sound like one and the same. it's like comparing evolutionists to creationists. Sure they're both historical beliefs, but both can't be true.

You claim that all I've done is make a claim. You and I have had direct conversations that went way beyond a claim... so how is it possible that you are now turning around and claiming this?

You have been one to ask good questions in the past... lately you've fallen into the ignorance path of assumption and seem to be avoiding the intelligence conversation of question and investigation. I liked you better when you did the latter. It made me think more. I learned a few things as well.

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 9:40am #2219

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:I did not say

TGBaker wrote:

I did not say that hell came from Revelation. I said that the features of fire etc were taken added to Gehenna, Sheol and the Greek Hades. They do teach that too in more liberal seminaires, duh. The popular view of hell has evolved from all those things. The hoofs of the devil really are from Faust. The pitchfork was Poseiden's. This same evolution occured from the day Jesus died. Why has our Messiah been killed? That is what I was trying to show you with gospel variations. It is not them singly but as a trend and pattern that shows the redaktion/ fabricating. Quantum mechanics shows otherwise about cause. Not everything is causal....quantum randomness.

Ok, sorry about that. It seems to me then that you're comparing fabrications of what the devil looks like and how things came to be to what the Bible stories actually say.

It seems you're linking what people made up to assume that the Bible stories then must be made up. Just because people have an imagination doesn't suggest that the Bible stories couldn't be true.

i really don't see how you're defending your perspective here. Honestly.

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 10:06am #2220

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I did not say that hell came from Revelation. I said that the features of fire etc were taken added to Gehenna, Sheol and the Greek Hades. They do teach that too in more liberal seminaires, duh. The popular view of hell has evolved from all those things. The hoofs of the devil really are from Faust. The pitchfork was Poseiden's. This same evolution occured from the day Jesus died. Why has our Messiah been killed? That is what I was trying to show you with gospel variations. It is not them singly but as a trend and pattern that shows the redaktion/ fabricating. Quantum mechanics shows otherwise about cause. Not everything is causal....quantum randomness.
Ok, sorry about that. It seems to me then that you're comparing fabrications of what the devil looks like and how things came to be to what the Bible stories actually say.
It seems you're linking what people made up to assume that the Bible stories then must be made up. Just because people have an imagination doesn't suggest that the Bible stories couldn't be true.
i really don't see how you're defending your perspective here. Honestly.

And there is a good point to begin. The way we view Satan or Hell is seldom as is found in the Bible. But it is the lens by which we interprete or understand it. I don't know what you think my perspective is. I can state again that not just the Jews but the whole Semetic culture of the period viewed death as Sheol with not concept of punishment or reward.; that the idea of resurrection appears in Daniel around 160 BCE; these ideas develop in the various apocalyptic literature and find their way to the time of Jesus. The idea of Gehenna as a metaphor etrenal punishment is Jesus's not mine. As to whay my perspective is what is it????????

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 11:07am #2221

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
How did I force a piece to fit by listing the way people use what they believe is historical evidence and the Bible to create their own conclusions?
At least they actually present what they think is the historical evidence - all you've done is make the claim.
you pieced together separate beliefs and tried to make them sound like one and the same. it's like comparing evolutionists to creationists. Sure they're both historical beliefs, but both can't be true.
You claim that all I've done is make a claim. You and I have had direct conversations that went way beyond a claim... so how is it possible that you are now turning around and claiming this?
You have been one to ask good questions in the past... lately you've fallen into the ignorance path of assumption and seem to be avoiding the intelligence conversation of question and investigation. I liked you better when you did the latter. It made me think more. I learned a few things as well.

We have had such conversations. We're not having one now. You claim archeological and historical support for scripture - you have yet to provide such.

All I did was state that others have used the Bible and "historical and archeological evidence" claims to say all kinds of things. Some of them actually provide evidence. Where is yours?

And I do love how you lump me into "falling into the trap of ignorance" when I ask you to back up your claims - is that really the best you've got? If I've responded in a way that no longer makes you think, ponder this - I have responded to your statements. Perhaps you stopped thinking earlier and I've had to make my responses more direct to snap you out of it.

You are correct that two competing beliefs cannot be true - what you forget is that both belief systems can be false. In the case of your comparison, evolution has observed evidence supporting it. Creationism has a claim Just like you have a claim of evidence that supports Scripture (unless you start bringing some). there is no competition here - evolution wins without ever having to fight.

"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

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 7:34pm #2222

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote: And there is

TGBaker wrote:

And there is a good point to begin. The way we view Satan or Hell is seldom as is found in the Bible. But it is the lens by which we interprete or understand it. I don't know what you think my perspective is. I can state again that not just the Jews but the whole Semetic culture of the period viewed death as Sheol with not concept of punishment or reward.; that the idea of resurrection appears in Daniel around 160 BCE; these ideas develop in the various apocalyptic literature and find their way to the time of Jesus. The idea of Gehenna as a metaphor etrenal punishment is Jesus's not mine. As to whay my perspective is what is it????????

My understanding of your perspective is that God, or a spiritual realm of existence is not a part of reality.

I personally take the perspective that death is a time of rest and what happens with eternal life is yet to come until the days of Revelation where people are resurrected from the grave.. therefore it wouldn't be of concern for anyone of Jewish time to understand a hell or heaven ideal. There was a concept of eternal consequence and I think it took on the perspective of separation from God vs. eternal torture, though some might view separation as eternal torture, which is where I think the idea came from.

Gehenna was a metaphor for sin causing themselves to sacrifice that part of their body to idols... if I'm reading you correctly. I'm assuming you're referencing to the part where our English Bible says it's better to cut off the offending body part than to let it burn in hell.

I'm not sure if you're referencing to that part as Jesus using it as a metaphor for eternal punishment. It could be, a sacrifice is understood to be permanent. Then again, to read into it as an eternal punishment to the likes of hell as we have come to understand hell is to me reading much further into the text than what's actually written.

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 7:56pm #2223

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:We have had

jcgadfly wrote:

We have had such conversations. We're not having one now. You claim archeological and historical support for scripture - you have yet to provide such.

We have yet to focus on anything regarding that... how am i to provide anything for you?

Are you truly interested in having this information to look at yourself or are you just challenging me because you think I can't provide it?

I'm going to assume you're sincerely curious and want to know. Therefore I suggest starting with the following:

1. For historical support, I am currently going through the Bible book by book with another well researched atheist here: OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real. feel free to join us in discussion... but please keep it focused to topic, we're trying hard to keep it on track between ourselves.

2. For archeological support, I suggest you start with the archeological study Bible. There's too much of it to just detail for you without a focus on here.

jcgadfly wrote:

All I did was state that others have used the Bible and "historical and archeological evidence" claims to say all kinds of things. Some of them actually provide evidence. Where is yours?

where do you think? are you seriously asking me? c'mon, when have i failed to provide you answers when you specifically asked for them? look at references above, or if you have specific questions or focuses on the archeological part, just ask

jcgadfly wrote:

And I do love how you lump me into "falling into the trap of ignorance" when I ask you to back up your claims

I'm not lumping you into that category because you ask me to back up my claims, I lump you into that category when you start making assumptions as you have been recently.

jcgadfly wrote:

- is that really the best you've got?

naw mate, I've also got a Donk!

jcgadfly wrote:

If I've responded in a way that no longer makes you think, ponder this - I have responded to your statements. Perhaps you stopped thinking earlier and I've had to make my responses more direct to snap you out of it.

*... huh?!.. oh sorry, I'm not following. I think you're pulling me further into a state of non-responsiveness...

jcgadfly wrote:

You are correct that two competing beliefs cannot be true - what you forget is that both belief systems can be false. In the case of your comparison, evolution has observed evidence supporting it. Creationism has a claim Just like you have a claim of evidence that supports Scripture (unless you start bringing some). there is no competition here - evolution wins without ever having to fight.

evolution has a claim with the same type of support as creationism... both have missing links that both sides use as ammo against the other side which is why both can be nothing more than theory at this time.. yes it is good to keep in mind that both belief systems can be false.

sounds like you're starting to come back to me here... again, you're talking as if I've never brought anything to our conversations. You and I both know this isn't true, so what exactly are you saying I'm avoiding here? I'm looking for specifics.. maybe I'll see you on the thread linked above? there's a lot to read, we're only at Samuel at this point.

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 8:21pm #2224

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
We have had such conversations. We're not having one now. You claim archeological and historical support for scripture - you have yet to provide such.
We have yet to focus on anything regarding that... how am i to provide anything for you?
Are you truly interested in having this information to look at yourself or are you just challenging me because you think I can't provide it?
I'm going to assume you're sincerely curious and want to know. Therefore I suggest starting with the following:
1. For historical support, I am currently going through the Bible book by book with another well researched atheist here: OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real. feel free to join us in discussion... but please keep it focused to topic, we're trying hard to keep it on track between ourselves.
2. For archeological support, I suggest you start with the archeological study Bible. There's too much of it to just detail for you without a focus on here.
jcgadfly wrote:
All I did was state that others have used the Bible and "historical and archeological evidence" claims to say all kinds of things. Some of them actually provide evidence. Where is yours?
where do you think? are you seriously asking me? c'mon, when have i failed to provide you answers when you specifically asked for them? look at references above, or if you have specific questions or focuses on the archeological part, just ask
jcgadfly wrote:
And I do love how you lump me into "falling into the trap of ignorance" when I ask you to back up your claims
I'm not lumping you into that category because you ask me to back up my claims, I lump you into that category when you start making assumptions as you have been recently.
jcgadfly wrote:
- is that really the best you've got?
naw mate, I've also got a Donk!
jcgadfly wrote:
If I've responded in a way that no longer makes you think, ponder this - I have responded to your statements. Perhaps you stopped thinking earlier and I've had to make my responses more direct to snap you out of it.
*... huh?!.. oh sorry, I'm not following. I think you're pulling me further into a state of non-responsiveness...
jcgadfly wrote:
You are correct that two competing beliefs cannot be true - what you forget is that both belief systems can be false. In the case of your comparison, evolution has observed evidence supporting it. Creationism has a claim Just like you have a claim of evidence that supports Scripture (unless you start bringing some). there is no competition here - evolution wins without ever having to fight.
evolution has a claim with the same type of support as creationism... both have missing links that both sides use as ammo against the other side which is why both can be nothing more than theory at this time.. yes it is good to keep in mind that both belief systems can be false.
sounds like you're starting to come back to me here... again, you're talking as if I've never brought anything to our conversations. You and I both know this isn't true, so what exactly are you saying I'm avoiding here? I'm looking for specifics.. maybe I'll see you on the thread linked above? there's a lot to read, we're only at Samuel at this point.

Sorry to butt in here Cap but I feel the same way sometimes. Sometimes we project to another what we think he thinks rather than what is really being said. Would dealing with smaller but more concise posts improve the debate?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 11:43pm #2225

ZeroSignal

Posts: 22

Joined: 2011-04-14

Offline

caposkia wrote:evolution has

caposkia wrote:

evolution has a claim with the same type of support as creationism... both have missing links that both sides use as ammo against the other side which is why both can be nothing more than theory at this time.. yes it is good to keep in mind that both belief systems can be false.

Uhh wrong. Evolution is pretty damn close to scientific fact as we can understand it at this point in time and is NOT a belief system. Creationism is just bullshit.

____

The bible, good fiction? A 3 year old can write a better story.

Posted on: April 16, 2011 - 11:50pm #2226

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

ZeroSignal wrote:caposkia

ZeroSignal wrote:

caposkia wrote:
evolution has a claim with the same type of support as creationism... both have missing links that both sides use as ammo against the other side which is why both can be nothing more than theory at this time.. yes it is good to keep in mind that both belief systems can be false.

Uhh wrong. Evolution is pretty damn close to scientific fact as we can understand it at this point in time and is NOT a belief system. Creationism is just bullshit.

I second that.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 19, 2011 - 4:26pm #2227

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote: Sorry to

TGBaker wrote:

Sorry to butt in here Cap but I feel the same way sometimes. Sometimes we project to another what we think he thinks rather than what is really being said. Would dealing with smaller but more concise posts improve the debate?

You're more than welcome to butt in where you feel it's necessary on here.

Of course dealing with smaller more concise posts would improve the debate. If you look into the history of this forum, it's all I've been attempting to do with exception of the last year or so where I've given up on this thread and now just mess with people who care less to have a focus or discuss the details and invite others who have something serious to say to start a new thread with me and have a logical and rational discussion.

Posted on: April 19, 2011 - 4:36pm #2228

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

ZeroSignal wrote:Uhh

ZeroSignal wrote:

Uhh wrong. Evolution is pretty damn close to scientific fact as we can understand it at this point in time and is NOT a belief system. Creationism is just bullshit.

Great! now back up your claim with specific factual points on both sides and explain how your evidence that you provide defends your claim that Evolution is "pretty damn close to scientific fact" and that Creationism is only "a belief system".

Creation scientists would defend themselves with many scientific evidences that they feel point towards a creator.

See the problem with your statement above is I could say the same thing and just interchange "Evolution" and "Creationism" and just as much as many Evolutionists would agree with your statement, the same number of Creationists would agree with mine. Where does that bring us? uh... NOWHERE!

Posted on: April 19, 2011 - 4:37pm #2229

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:ZeroSignal

TGBaker wrote:

ZeroSignal wrote:
caposkia wrote:
evolution has a claim with the same type of support as creationism... both have missing links that both sides use as ammo against the other side which is why both can be nothing more than theory at this time.. yes it is good to keep in mind that both belief systems can be false.

Uhh wrong. Evolution is pretty damn close to scientific fact as we can understand it at this point in time and is NOT a belief system. Creationism is just bullshit.
I second that.

Feel free to butt in on my reply too, but i want to see what ZeroSignal has to say about it first.

Posted on: April 20, 2011 - 1:18am #2230

Joker

Posts: 180

Joined: 2010-07-23

Offline

caposkia wrote:ZeroSignal

caposkia wrote:

ZeroSignal wrote:
Uhh wrong. Evolution is pretty damn close to scientific fact as we can understand it at this point in time and is NOT a belief system. Creationism is just bullshit.
Great! now back up your claim with specific factual points on both sides and explain how your evidence that you provide defends your claim that Evolution is "pretty damn close to scientific fact" and that Creationism is only "a belief system".
Creation scientists would defend themselves with many scientific evidences that they feel point towards a creator.
See the problem with your statement above is I could say the same thing and just interchange "Evolution" and "Creationism" and just as much as many Evolutionists would agree with your statement, the same number of Creationists would agree with mine. Where does that bring us? uh... NOWHERE!

Well, if you'd like I can give you the following things myself

1) Anatomical Homologies: Simple enough concept, in all organisms there are distinct patterns of constraints based on homology and construction of the body. A common example is that tetrapods often have 5 fingers because the parent did and when they don't seem to have 5 digits a review of their biological history and development shows that they once had 5 digits which fused to smaller numbers. This is also how we can identify transitional forms in the fossil record, though technically all forms are transitional.

2) DNA/RNA: All life shares genetic code based on molecule DNA and related Molecule RNA. The translation between DNA and RNA codons and corresponding amino acids are almost the same in all known forms of DNA based life on earth.

3) Embryology: If you study and compare various vertibrate beings at identical stages of life they look very similar, in some cases nearly indistinguishable. (before you bring up Haeckels embryos I would point out that my examples are based on photographs, not his drawings which were a result of him exaggerating similarities, something that he definitely should not have done)

4) Convergence: IF you look at the phylogenetic tree of life, using anatomical homology, DNA Homology, Pseudogenes, etc. all methods converge on a near identical tree of life. While there are slight differences the general relationships of the tree are intact. If any of the methods were wrong then you wouldn't see the constant overlap of the varios phylogenetic trees.

Posted on: April 21, 2011 - 9:16am #2231

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Joker wrote: Well, if you'd

Joker wrote:

Well, if you'd like I can give you the following things myself

sure

Joker wrote:

1) Anatomical Homologies: Simple enough concept, in all organisms there are distinct patterns of constraints based on homology and construction of the body. A common example is that tetrapods often have 5 fingers because the parent did and when they don't seem to have 5 digits a review of their biological history and development shows that they once had 5 digits which fused to smaller numbers. This is also how we can identify transitional forms in the fossil record, though technically all forms are transitional.

The Bible and educated Christians don't disagree with evolution of species. They disagree that everything was originated from one. I personally disagree with intra-specia evolution. There are still gaps in this angle, but I grasp why it makes sense

Joker wrote:

2) DNA/RNA: All life shares genetic code based on molecule DNA and related Molecule RNA. The translation between DNA and RNA codons and corresponding amino acids are almost the same in all known forms of DNA based life on earth.

This is true. I have understood this and many educated Christians understand this too. It makes sense to us that if there was 1 creator of all life on Earth, that the creator would logically use a base design and deviate only a little bit from it explaining why DNA and RNA codons and corresponding amino acids are almost the same in all known life.

Joker wrote:

3) Embryology: If you study and compare various vertibrate beings at identical stages of life they look very similar, in some cases nearly indistinguishable. (before you bring up Haeckels embryos I would point out that my examples are based on photographs, not his drawings which were a result of him exaggerating similarities, something that he definitely should not have done)

I'm not familiar with Haeckels embryos to be honest. Maybe surprising, i don't know.

I guess I'd have to see what you are referring to for photographs, do you have links?

This may fall along the line of special evolution or common creator.

Joker wrote:

4) Convergence: IF you look at the phylogenetic tree of life, using anatomical homology, DNA Homology, Pseudogenes, etc. all methods converge on a near identical tree of life. While there are slight differences the general relationships of the tree are intact. If any of the methods were wrong then you wouldn't see the constant overlap of the varios phylogenetic trees.

This again could be likened to a common creator or even in some special situations, extreme evolution and if traced back might end up being the same species or derivitaves of that species.

All in all, I've seen good arguements for both sides using most of these points. What it ultimately seems to come down to is what one wants the evidences to prove. If you want to believe there is a creator, it's easy to use this evidence to point to a single creator. if you want to believe there is no God, it's easy to use this evidence to point to common ancestry.

So though this evidence is great, the big question is how do we take opinion out of the equation?

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 1:08am #2232

Joker

Posts: 180

Joined: 2010-07-23

Offline

Well Cap, there's the fact

Well Cap, there's the fact that we as humans aren't really designed very well. Our bodies are built for sloped knuckle dragging, we stand upright due to a forced curve at the base of the spine (if memory serves) if we were 'intelligent;y designed' then our definition of intelligence is rather limiting.

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 7:22am #2233

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
How did I force a piece to fit by listing the way people use what they believe is historical evidence and the Bible to create their own conclusions?
At least they actually present what they think is the historical evidence - all you've done is make the claim.
you pieced together separate beliefs and tried to make them sound like one and the same. it's like comparing evolutionists to creationists. Sure they're both historical beliefs, but both can't be true.
You claim that all I've done is make a claim. You and I have had direct conversations that went way beyond a claim... so how is it possible that you are now turning around and claiming this?
You have been one to ask good questions in the past... lately you've fallen into the ignorance path of assumption and seem to be avoiding the intelligence conversation of question and investigation. I liked you better when you did the latter. It made me think more. I learned a few things as well.

Cap, he is saying the same damned thing I have been saying.

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. The motifs that exist in ALL cultures, modern or ancient, come from the competition of surrounding and prior cultures. THAT is what he is talking about in the concept of "hell". He is not claiming a literal hell, not theirs not yours. Just that humans came up with the fictional claim that there was a place bad people go, be it hades or hell.

Your personal veiw of Christianaity nor the bible as a whole, is anything original at all. Giving ideas and motifs newer details and different story lines and different character names does not make invisible friends real. BY ANY NAME.

Religion, all religion, from the Egyptian sun god, to Thor, to Allah to Jesus, exist because of human marketing, not because of real magical beings.

McDonnalds has different color themes than Burger King and their menues both sell burgers WITH DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT NEITHER INVENTED THE BURGER. Beef was around long before someone thought to put it on a bun.

The core motif of all deity belief is the same. My super hero will save me and defend me from the super villain. Changing the fucking names does not mean the idea of having invisible friends is original.

Humans long before Christianity wanted a super hero as badly as you do and no one in human history has any evidence past or present for any god/s claimed. Humans invent gods, and marketing is what makes them successful. Just like marketing Star Wars and Harry Potter.

"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

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 7:32am #2234

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Joker wrote:Well Cap,

Joker wrote:

Well Cap, there's the fact that we as humans aren't really designed very well. Our bodies are built for sloped knuckle dragging, we stand upright due to a forced curve at the base of the spine (if memory serves) if we were 'intelligent;y designed' then our definition of intelligence is rather limiting.

I am 44 and I have known for a year now that eventually I will need my wisdom teeth taken out. I have had a resent bought of pain caused by them for the past week. I have an infection because of them AND am on pain pills now.

If you look at my x-ray, how the fuck you can see those crooked teeth, that are causing this problem as "design" is so fucked up a claim.

But Hitchens has the best criticism of "design". Something to the effect of, "Why would you put an entertainment system in a sewer" meaning our sex organs are fun, but also produce waste.

These are the sign of evolution, not some magical invisible thinking brain.

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 9:07am #2235

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Joker wrote:Well Cap,

Joker wrote:

Well Cap, there's the fact that we as humans aren't really designed very well. Our bodies are built for sloped knuckle dragging, we stand upright due to a forced curve at the base of the spine (if memory serves) if we were 'intelligent;y designed' then our definition of intelligence is rather limiting.

We are more capable than most animals in the world and are able to be at the top of the foodchain because of that. Where's the problem?

you're also not taking into consideration the change that we as humans may have gone through since the "original humans' walked the earth. Original humans generally were much smaller and shorter which would better support an upright position with less issue. They also were understood to move differently than we do now.

Why would you suggest this intelligence is rather limited? If there was no such structure as life as we know it, would you have been able to design it? Better question, can you design a lifeform right now from scratch? this would include creating and manipulating DNA strands to work the way you want them to in your lifeform.

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 9:19am #2236

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Cap, he is

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, he is saying the same damned thing I have been saying.

i know, that's why I called him on falling into the ignorance path Eye-wink

Brian37 wrote:

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum.

of course not!!! dust particles do though.... and not only do they exist, they thrive!

Brian37 wrote:

The motifs that exist in ALL cultures, modern or ancient, come from the competition of surrounding and prior cultures. THAT is what he is talking about in the concept of "hell". He is not claiming a literal hell, not theirs not yours. Just that humans came up with the fictional claim that there was a place bad people go, be it hades or hell.

I know what he's claiming. the problem is it's not Biblical. of course that part's made up. It was a manipulation of scripture in my opinion. Many theists may disagree, but there are many who agree.

Brian37 wrote:

Your personal veiw of Christianaity nor the bible as a whole, is anything original at all. Giving ideas and motifs newer details and different story lines and different character names does not make invisible friends real. BY ANY NAME.

of course not... you need a bit more support beyond that. Think about it. You've been changing the names yourself and claiming they're not real because any name can fit. I can say that just because you change the name doesn't mean they don't exist or never were.

You need more support than to say Jesus or Harry potter spoke and said the same thing, therefore they're both fake.

I could say Jesus and Obama spoke, therefore they're both real! do you now believe in Jesus? no? why not? YOu don't believe Obama's real?

Brian37 wrote:

Religion, all religion, from the Egyptian sun god, to Thor, to Allah to Jesus, exist because of human marketing, not because of real magical beings.

references please (your claim, your homework)

Brian37 wrote:

McDonnalds has different color themes than Burger King and their menues both sell burgers WITH DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT NEITHER INVENTED THE BURGER. Beef was around long before someone thought to put it on a bun.

Right, of course, I know that the Burger King had the royalties passed down to him from the original Burger King who's real name was Cowboy Burgersmith. It's a family fortune.

Brian37 wrote:

The core motif of all deity belief is the same. My super hero will save me and defend me from the super villain. Changing the fucking names does not mean the idea of having invisible friends is original.

The Bible states that we have power over the villain ourselves... so how does your belief of Christianity apply here?

Brian37 wrote:

Humans long before Christianity wanted a super hero as badly as you do and no one in human history has any evidence past or present for any god/s claimed. Humans invent gods, and marketing is what makes them successful. Just like marketing Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Just like marketing all other scientific theories as fact. If you don't accept that God is real, you must have some sort of answer to the origins of life. I have yet to meet a non-believer who claims; 'we just don't know for sure' which would be the honest answer from any non-believer.

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 9:21am #2237

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:
Well Cap, there's the fact that we as humans aren't really designed very well. Our bodies are built for sloped knuckle dragging, we stand upright due to a forced curve at the base of the spine (if memory serves) if we were 'intelligent;y designed' then our definition of intelligence is rather limiting.
We are more capable than most animals in the world and are able to be at the top of the foodchain because of that. Where's the problem?
you're also not taking into consideration the change that we as humans may have gone through since the "original humans' walked the earth. Original humans generally were much smaller and shorter which would better support an upright position with less issue. They also were understood to move differently than we do now.
Why would you suggest this intelligence is rather limited? If there was no such structure as life as we know it, would you have been able to design it? Better question, can you design a lifeform right now from scratch? this would include creating and manipulating DNA strands to work the way you want them to in your lifeform.

Cap, our posture puts us at the bottom of the food chain as we are incapable of efficient fight or flight.

Advanced technology (aka the ability to bring death with a thought and a twitch of a finger on a trigger) puts us on top of the food chain. Now, if you are claiming that we are more warlike and willing to bring death to others because you believe we were made in the image of a warlike, death-dealing god you might have a case.

No, I can't design a life form from scratch. If you read your Bible, neither could Yahweh.

"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

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 9:27am #2238

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Brian37 wrote:I am 44 and I

Brian37 wrote:

I am 44 and I have known for a year now that eventually I will need my wisdom teeth taken out. I have had a resent bought of pain caused by them for the past week. I have an infection because of them AND am on pain pills now.
If you look at my x-ray, how the fuck you can see those crooked teeth, that are causing this problem as "design" is so fucked up a claim.

sure, life's not perfect and we feel pain, therefore God can't be real.

You seem to support the Evolution theory and yet you know so little about it. If you're wondering why we have those teeth in the first place, you might want to look at the fossils of early humans.

The question now is whether those teeth will continue forming or eventually over many more thousands of years eventually disappear. Due to the fact that our technology today allows us to take them out.. in most cases before they cause serious problems, there is a possibility that we will never evolve from growing those. Then again, the lack of use and the fact that they get taken out of most humans might cause the evolution to eventually get rid of them.

We just don't know for sure.

Brian37 wrote:

But Hitchens has the best criticism of "design". Something to the effect of, "Why would you put an entertainment system in a sewer" meaning our sex organs are fun, but also produce waste.
These are the sign of evolution, not some magical invisible thinking brain.

It's efficient. Is it not easier to use a universal remote rather than have 5 remotes to work things? (assuming it's been programmed for you) Anyone who thinks sex is clean is likely a virgin.

Just for political correctness too... they do not produce waste anymore than the rest of your body does... they are just the means to expel waste.

Better than pissing out of your nose.

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 9:33am #2239

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:Cap, our

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, our posture puts us at the bottom of the food chain as we are incapable of efficient fight or flight.

Due to our capability to design we're at the top of the foodchain. Without any preparation we'd be at the bottom just like any other animal caught off guard.

jcgadfly wrote:

Advanced technology (aka the ability to bring death with a thought and a twitch of a finger on a trigger) puts us on top of the food chain. Now, if you are claiming that we are more warlike and willing to bring death to others because you believe we were made in the image of a warlike, death-dealing god you might have a case.

if that's how you want to look at it, we were designed with the same capabilities and emotions as the designer so your morbid view on life makes sense from one perspective. Though it doesn't account for the fact that we still exist... if your theory was right, we'd have killed ourselves off long ago... either that or the designer would be running earth like Hitler.

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I can't design a life form from scratch. If you read your Bible, neither could Yahweh.

Then how do you say the Bible says we were made? or came into being?

Posted on: April 22, 2011 - 11:18am #2240

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Cap, our posture puts us at the bottom of the food chain as we are incapable of efficient fight or flight.
Due to our capability to design we're at the top of the foodchain. Without any preparation we'd be at the bottom just like any other animal caught off guard.
jcgadfly wrote:
Advanced technology (aka the ability to bring death with a thought and a twitch of a finger on a trigger) puts us on top of the food chain. Now, if you are claiming that we are more warlike and willing to bring death to others because you believe we were made in the image of a warlike, death-dealing god you might have a case.
if that's how you want to look at it, we were designed with the same capabilities and emotions as the designer so your morbid view on life makes sense from one perspective. Though it doesn't account for the fact that we still exist... if your theory was right, we'd have killed ourselves off long ago... either that or the designer would be running earth like Hitler.
jcgadfly wrote:
No, I can't design a life form from scratch. If you read your Bible, neither could Yahweh.
Then how do you say the Bible says we were made? or came into being?

1. Technology has nothing to do with one's posture (which you originally claimed placed man at the top of the hierarchy). Are you backing up now? Our ability to design had nothing to do with God as we have outstripped God in that department.

2. My "morbid view of life" as you call it was taken from your Bible. Which makes sense because your God was written to have dictatorial control. That we have not killed ourselves long ago is a testament that our moral structure did not come from your God.

3. The Bible says "and the Lord God made man from the dust of the ground" - all the needed materials for life were present. the only thing you added was man created "God magic".

"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

Posted on: April 23, 2011 - 5:27pm #2241

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Cap, our posture puts us at the bottom of the food chain as we are incapable of efficient fight or flight.
Due to our capability to design we're at the top of the foodchain. Without any preparation we'd be at the bottom just like any other animal caught off guard.
jcgadfly wrote:
Advanced technology (aka the ability to bring death with a thought and a twitch of a finger on a trigger) puts us on top of the food chain. Now, if you are claiming that we are more warlike and willing to bring death to others because you believe we were made in the image of a warlike, death-dealing god you might have a case.
if that's how you want to look at it, we were designed with the same capabilities and emotions as the designer so your morbid view on life makes sense from one perspective. Though it doesn't account for the fact that we still exist... if your theory was right, we'd have killed ourselves off long ago... either that or the designer would be running earth like Hitler.
jcgadfly wrote:
No, I can't design a life form from scratch. If you read your Bible, neither could Yahweh.
Then how do you say the Bible says we were made? or came into being?

Get this through your head. Atheism is neither positive or negative, it is merely a position a person holds. The person can be either positive about life or negative about life or both depending upon the issue being talked about. Most atheists I know would say positive and negative are SITUATIONAL but reality as a whole is not morbid.

There is NOTHING morbid about saying "this is all there is". That is merely facing reality.

It is not "morbid" to say that my cat, whom I love deeply, will die someday. Knowing that DOES NOT prevent me from the positive joy I have with him now.

Saying that human beings shit is not "morbid" or negative. If we didn't expel our waste we would DIE and that would be negative.

Knowing that the sun will eventually expand and fry our planet is not saying "life sucks and there is no point to living". It is simply a statement of scientific fact.

WHAT IS "morbid" is your God character. This guy won't take no for an answer, is two faced about how he markets himself, and gets really violent, or gives his blessings to his minions, to kill those who 'chose" not to belong to his club. He doesn't stop at simply making you "poof" disappear without pain after you die, you get the shit beat out of you forever.

THAT to me is morbid. AS A LITERARY CHARACTER, a naked assertion, not a provable reality.

You worship a fictional dictator. And you have to downplay or ignore this characters nasty side to swallow it, and you have to do so, with faith, not any ability to test or even question or "chose" to leave his company. You cant even if you want to.

I cant leave your god the way my wife left me.

Morbid is jumping to the conclusion that we are toys, playthings or lab rats for the benefit of one being without any regard or consultation to our own condition.

All of the horrible things and good things that happen to us in REALITY are a result of evolution and nature, not comic book super heros. Not yours, not any.

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 5:27pm #2242

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:1. Technology

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Technology has nothing to do with one's posture (which you originally claimed placed man at the top of the hierarchy). Are you backing up now? Our ability to design had nothing to do with God as we have outstripped God in that department.

no, I claimed simply that we were at the top of the food chain, you brought up posture as a problem in design.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. My "morbid view of life" as you call it was taken from your Bible. Which makes sense because your God was written to have dictatorial control. That we have not killed ourselves long ago is a testament that our moral structure did not come from your God.

really? if what you say is true, then how have you eluded the God authorities with your denial and blaspheming? By the standards of "dictatorial control" you should be dead by now.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. The Bible says "and the Lord God made man from the dust of the ground" - all the needed materials for life were present. the only thing you added was man created "God magic".

Where does the Bible say the dust from the ground came from?

Either way, could you make a living creature from dust?

Dude, I get what you're saying about how it doesn't seem to make logical sense, but a simple discussion in complexity of existence would render an accidental happening to not make logical sense.

Tell me strait... is this your way of defending your belief? Give me details about your defense then.

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 5:46pm #2243

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Get this

Brian37 wrote:

Get this through your head. Atheism is neither positive or negative, it is merely a position a person holds. The person can be either positive about life or negative about life or both depending upon the issue being talked about. Most atheists I know would say positive and negative are SITUATIONAL but reality as a whole is not morbid.

I never disputed that an atheist could be positive or negative about life.

Brian37 wrote:

There is NOTHING morbid about saying "this is all there is". That is merely facing reality.

You seem to know that, so back up your claims. i'm willing to hear what you have to say, but you keep saying nothing but telling me I'm wrong and declaring yourself right without support.

To claim that's facing reality is to say you have definitive proof that "this is all there is"

Brian37 wrote:

It is not "morbid" to say that my cat, whom I love deeply, will die someday. Knowing that DOES NOT prevent me from the positive joy I have with him now.

why would it?

Brian37 wrote:

Saying that human beings shit is not "morbid" or negative. If we didn't expel our waste we would DIE and that would be negative.

I'm guessing you've read "everybody poops" too!

Brian37 wrote:

Knowing that the sun will eventually expand and fry our planet is not saying "life sucks and there is no point to living". It is simply a statement of scientific fact.

so.... this is your proof and/or reasoning that God does not exist?

Brian37 wrote:

WHAT IS "morbid" is your God character. This guy won't take no for an answer, is two faced about how he markets himself, and gets really violent, or gives his blessings to his minions, to kill those who 'chose" not to belong to his club. He doesn't stop at simply making you "poof" disappear without pain after you die, you get the shit beat out of you forever.

the penalty of sin is death. He has always been the same and scripture proves that. You seem to be in love with doctrine... be it that it's your only defense against God, i'd say it's a reasonable love.

Brian37 wrote:

THAT to me is morbid. AS A LITERARY CHARACTER, a naked assertion, not a provable reality.

your belief is not a provable reality either, but you seem to still hold onto it like your security blanket.

Brian37 wrote:

You worship a fictional dictator. And you have to downplay or ignore this characters nasty side to swallow it, and you have to do so, with faith, not any ability to test or even question or "chose" to leave his company. You cant even if you want to.

I don't downplay or ignore any of it. I'm the one who claims "The Passion" wasn't gruesome enough. You want me to downplay it so you have a defense against me. Again, you keep coming up with excuses and have yet to give me support or logical reasoning behind your belief.

You can make my God look as bad as you want, but if he exists, then he exists no matter what you want to believe. You might get further in a discussion with a theist or me if you actually discuss the probability of his existence and get off your obsession with death.

Brian37 wrote:

I cant leave your god the way my wife left me.

I'm sorry to hear your wife left you.

Brian37 wrote:

Morbid is jumping to the conclusion that we are toys, playthings or lab rats for the benefit of one being without any regard or consultation to our own condition.
All of the horrible things and good things that happen to us in REALITY are a result of evolution and nature, not comic book super heros. Not yours, not any.

I never denied that bad things are a result of evolutionary causes, in fact, if you actually read some of my replies, You'd notice that I have actually used evolution as a reasoning for handicaps and deformities. Scientifically it makes sense.

I know you want to convince me that God isn't real. When are you going to show me reasoning?

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 6:43pm #2244

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Technology has nothing to do with one's posture (which you originally claimed placed man at the top of the hierarchy). Are you backing up now? Our ability to design had nothing to do with God as we have outstripped God in that department.
no, I claimed simply that we were at the top of the food chain, you brought up posture as a problem in design.
jcgadfly wrote:
2. My "morbid view of life" as you call it was taken from your Bible. Which makes sense because your God was written to have dictatorial control. That we have not killed ourselves long ago is a testament that our moral structure did not come from your God.
really? if what you say is true, then how have you eluded the God authorities with your denial and blaspheming? By the standards of "dictatorial control" you should be dead by now.
jcgadfly wrote:
3. The Bible says "and the Lord God made man from the dust of the ground" - all the needed materials for life were present. the only thing you added was man created "God magic".
Where does the Bible say the dust from the ground came from?
Either way, could you make a living creature from dust?
Dude, I get what you're saying about how it doesn't seem to make logical sense, but a simple discussion in complexity of existence would render an accidental happening to not make logical sense.
Tell me strait... is this your way of defending your belief? Give me details about your defense then.

Good thing evolution is not an accidental happening then isn't it?

As for my belief, one has to have a belief before it can be defended. All I'm doing is asking questions based on the information you've laid out. It started out when you claimed that human posture was what put us at the top of the food chain.

How have I eluded the God authorities? Because this country was not founded on Biblical principles so such authorities don't exist (at least not yet).

"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

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 6:46pm #2245

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

caposkia wrote: Again, you

caposkia wrote:

Again, you keep coming up with excuses and have yet to give me support or logical reasoning behind your belief.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 6:44am #2246

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Get this through your head. Atheism is neither positive or negative, it is merely a position a person holds. The person can be either positive about life or negative about life or both depending upon the issue being talked about. Most atheists I know would say positive and negative are SITUATIONAL but reality as a whole is not morbid.
I never disputed that an atheist could be positive or negative about life.
Brian37 wrote:
There is NOTHING morbid about saying "this is all there is". That is merely facing reality.
You seem to know that, so back up your claims. i'm willing to hear what you have to say, but you keep saying nothing but telling me I'm wrong and declaring yourself right without support.
To claim that's facing reality is to say you have definitive proof that "this is all there is"
Brian37 wrote:
It is not "morbid" to say that my cat, whom I love deeply, will die someday. Knowing that DOES NOT prevent me from the positive joy I have with him now.
why would it?
Brian37 wrote:
Saying that human beings shit is not "morbid" or negative. If we didn't expel our waste we would DIE and that would be negative.
I'm guessing you've read "everybody poops" too!
Brian37 wrote:
Knowing that the sun will eventually expand and fry our planet is not saying "life sucks and there is no point to living". It is simply a statement of scientific fact.
so.... this is your proof and/or reasoning that God does not exist?
Brian37 wrote:
WHAT IS "morbid" is your God character. This guy won't take no for an answer, is two faced about how he markets himself, and gets really violent, or gives his blessings to his minions, to kill those who 'chose" not to belong to his club. He doesn't stop at simply making you "poof" disappear without pain after you die, you get the shit beat out of you forever.
the penalty of sin is death. He has always been the same and scripture proves that. You seem to be in love with doctrine... be it that it's your only defense against God, i'd say it's a reasonable love.
Brian37 wrote:
THAT to me is morbid. AS A LITERARY CHARACTER, a naked assertion, not a provable reality.
your belief is not a provable reality either, but you seem to still hold onto it like your security blanket.
Brian37 wrote:
You worship a fictional dictator. And you have to downplay or ignore this characters nasty side to swallow it, and you have to do so, with faith, not any ability to test or even question or "chose" to leave his company. You cant even if you want to.
I don't downplay or ignore any of it. I'm the one who claims "The Passion" wasn't gruesome enough. You want me to downplay it so you have a defense against me. Again, you keep coming up with excuses and have yet to give me support or logical reasoning behind your belief.
You can make my God look as bad as you want, but if he exists, then he exists no matter what you want to believe. You might get further in a discussion with a theist or me if you actually discuss the probability of his existence and get off your obsession with death.
Brian37 wrote:
I cant leave your god the way my wife left me.
I'm sorry to hear your wife left you.
Brian37 wrote:
Morbid is jumping to the conclusion that we are toys, playthings or lab rats for the benefit of one being without any regard or consultation to our own condition.
All of the horrible things and good things that happen to us in REALITY are a result of evolution and nature, not comic book super heros. Not yours, not any.
I never denied that bad things are a result of evolutionary causes, in fact, if you actually read some of my replies, You'd notice that I have actually used evolution as a reasoning for handicaps and deformities. Scientifically it makes sense.
I know you want to convince me that God isn't real. When are you going to show me reasoning?

Cap, when are you going to get it. No one needs your god, not even you. You worship a fictional being.

Attempting to mimic the atheist's questions do not make your naked assertions a 50/50 proposition.

You postulate a non-material thinking entity. For anything living to think it has to have material to think. The evidence is BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION!

Thus your invisible friend theory is bullshit.

You lose. Give it up. No one, not you, not anyone in human history, not anyone claiming any invisible friend, has ever come up with evidence of a thought occurring outside a material process.

These claims in human history from Ra to Thor to Allah to Jesus are nothing but projections of human desires of wanting super heros.

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 4:10pm #2247

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Caposkia, I attempted to

Caposkia,

I attempted to have a meaningful theological discussion of theist and atheist with Mr. metaphysics who had to bow out because of time constraints. If you are interested in having a fireside type discussion on the topic of is there a god etc.; I would be interested in continuing my attempt to have a dialogue with a sincere theist. I attempted such in the various posts but there are many posting and it is hard to keep up with it or an impression that questions are not directly answered. It seems you are through with your previous debate. I have some time before i get a bone marrow transplant I think.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 7:14am #2248

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Caposkia, I

TGBaker wrote:

Caposkia,
I attempted to have a meaningful theological discussion of theist and atheist with Mr. metaphysics who had to bow out because of time constraints. If you are interested in having a fireside type discussion on the topic of is there a god etc.; I would be interested in continuing my attempt to have a dialogue with a sincere theist. I attempted such in the various posts but there are many posting and it is hard to keep up with it or an impression that questions are not directly answered. It seems you are through with your previous debate. I have some time before i get a bone marrow transplant I think.

We are all pulling for you buddy.

Posted on: May 3, 2011 - 6:10am #2249

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

jcgadfly wrote:Good thing

jcgadfly wrote:

Good thing evolution is not an accidental happening then isn't it?

um... sure

jcgadfly wrote:

As for my belief, one has to have a belief before it can be defended. All I'm doing is asking questions based on the information you've laid out. It started out when you claimed that human posture was what put us at the top of the food chain.

Asking questions is a good thing. i commend that...

i'm not the one who brought up the posture thing. I only mentioned we were at the top.

Either way, it has little to do with our intentions for this discussion

jcgadfly wrote:

How have I eluded the God authorities? Because this country was not founded on Biblical principles so such authorities don't exist (at least not yet).

If God does exist and he is as you say, it wouldn't matter what this country was founded on or what authority we wanted to run our government, you still would have to answer to God.

My point was that if God was really the way you say he is, then we'd be following him not by choice and love for him, but because we have no other option if we want to have a chance at life. That is obviously not the case. sure your point is that god is not there, but if he is, then your perspective does not hold water. If God/ is not real, then your perspective still does not hold water because that would mean we're following him because we feel we have no other choice and it would not be out of love for him or greatfulness or faithfulness. Faith has no place with a god as you describe.

Posted on: May 3, 2011 - 6:21am #2250

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Cap, when are

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, when are you going to get it. No one needs your god, not even you. You worship a fictional being.

when you can show me some honest hard researched rationalization for your perspective.

Brian37 wrote:

Attempting to mimic the atheist's questions do not make your naked assertions a 50/50 proposition.

well, it does prove a point that those particular questions can go both ways, in other words, those questions don't put atheists any further away from a 50/50 proposition

Brian37 wrote:

You postulate a non-material thinking entity. For anything living to think it has to have material to think. The evidence is BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION!

Your basing your claims off of lack of evidence through a material process for thought to happen outside a material process..... do you see the problem with your approach here?

Brian37 wrote:

Thus your invisible friend theory is bullshit.

Good defense... i think I'm starting to see your perspective now

Brian37 wrote:

You lose. Give it up. No one, not you, not anyone in human history, not anyone claiming any invisible friend, has ever come up with evidence of a thought occurring outside a material process.

look into Quantum Physics, then get back to me. It focuses more on communication without a signal, but the same idea which has been empirically proved

Brian37 wrote:

These claims in human history from Ra to Thor to Allah to Jesus are nothing but projections of human desires of wanting super heros.

Do you see what you're doing here? You're making the same type of "naked assertion claim" that you're trying to pin on every theist out there who believes in God. I can tell you the same thing with just as much conviction from my perspective... but something tells me it's not going to get you to believe in what I do.

This is why I repeat atheist questions and statements, to prove a point that i can make the same claim and get nowhere with you.