Actually, he conquered death, and the promise is that we will too through Him... so does the Bible actually teach that we are permanently dead?  Sounds to me as if we have the same fate as Jesus... that being death then life.  

No that doesn't imply in 3 days people will come back BRIAN, but it does imply that we will be risen from the dead.  

PRECISELY MY POINT,

How is this selfless? This smacks of marketing and PR, not selflessness.

When you come across a desk at work with change on it, and pass it by without taking the change, do you advertise the fact that you didn't take it? Or do you simply go on with your day even though no one knows you did the right thing?

Doing the right thing is doing it even when you don't get credit for it. If others notice, that is one thing. But to expect it is absurd and immoral and defeats the purpose of claiming to be "selfless".

The god character and the split personality character of Jesus are NOT doing it for selfless reasons, otherwise it wouldn't matter if their names never became famous.

The reality is that the "motif" of the super hero is appealing to humans. Marketing does not have to be moral to be successful, it just has to sell.

The God character and Jesus character EXPECT and demand attention. Their reward is not freely given. Those who do not reward them or even merely reject them by picking another team or not having a god at all, are punished.

"God/god/diety" ARE mere human reflections of wishful thinking. It is what we project as our own narcissistic desire to reach a "perfection" THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY. It is our evolutionary childish desire to be on top, which is what a "god" concept is.

again, you must have the research on this right... or is this just another one of your naked assertion claims that gets lost in your derailing.  

Mohammad claimed that one of Gods angels came to him and gave him the words he wrote... the angel did it quite forcefully if you read the Quran.  Not only does that not coenside with the behavior and approaches of angels throughout the Bible, but it doesn't seem that Mohammad had any significant influence in the Christian world nor did he understand who Jesus claimed to be, therefore its hard for him to back up his writings when referenced to the context of the Bible.  

no one ever claimed they did invent prophets.  prophets aren't significant to a particular religion... they are significant to a spiritual encounter however regardless of source.

No, it has everything to do with human marketing.

You keep missing my point.

The "fame" part comes in because of the absurd claim that an all powerful god would want or need so much attention. If it were perfect it woudn't need or want anything. The fact that this "god" would try to gain attention at all makes it absurd to claim it to be selfless. Unless we are toys or lab rats there should be no need for all this drama.

The real reason for the "fame" part is that humans don't like the idea of being wrong. So when they cling to a myth, rather than test it or discard it, they market it.

ALL religions succeed or fail like a business. They don't become successful because the product is pragmatic or good. They succeed because of marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi comes out with a Cherri soda and Coke looks at it and says  "We need to do that too to compete".

The "fame" of all popular religions are a result of marketing, not credibility, not because an invisible magical super brain exists.

Wskey Tango Foxtrot.

Cap started using the word "prophet". I was strictly addressing that usage. I don't see why you would get so upset over the fact that I continually and RIGHTLY equate his pet deity to fiction. You see it as unrelated as to what you were talking about, and I am focused on his ultimate end goal.

No matter the topic ANY theist brings up. Be it a quote from a holy book, to quoting apologists to bastardizing science, the end goal is the same. They are all attempting to prop up the claim that a non material thinking being exists. I simply refuse to walk down their Yellow Brick Road and like to cut to the chase.

Cap could be claiming Allah or Thor, or name his pet deity Frank, and it still amounts to a naked assertion not only lacking evidence, it goes in direct conflict with the scientific KNOWLEDGE that thoughts require a material process to occur.

I don't see how calling "bullshit" on disembodied non material brain  claims makes me an "imbecile".

If you want to criticize my tactics or explain what I did if I took the conversation "out of context", that is one thing, but I will never apologize for calling "bullshit" on any god claim. There never has been or ever will be a god, PERIOD. Gods are mere human inventions reflecting their own wishful thinking in wanting a super hero to save them. It is merely comic book thinking falsely believed to be fact. I will never back down from this position.

You're the one sitting there trying to tell me you know more about why I started this thread than I do.  Are you really that dense?  You're messing with me right?  c'mon, I'm on to you, no one is this dense.

you really don't get sarcasm either do you

it's amazing what some people will think they're capable of doing despite how they present themselves.

oh that part... yea, definite gaps in the ass handing part... in fact, you keep running... so I'm very curious...  Please do remind me about how I allegedly got my ass handed to me... can't wait for this one.  from the one who can't stick to a debate.. you have the floor.

I've already approached you with that, again you disappeared... try again.  I think I should ask you if you're suffering form Alzheimers.  

She's a satirist... she's discussing more about the New Atheist movement and not so much her reason for believing.  She gives reasons why she can laugh at the new atheist persuit.  I'd have to relook... ti's been a while since I've read it.

Brian... I...I can't believe I'm about to say this, but.. uh... Rednef has a point.. the same one I've been trying to tell you for quite some time.   If you won't listen to me, at least listen to your own kind. 

Because you're arguing from complete and utter ignorance of Quantum Physics, just like they are and have spewed it over 9000 times all over this forum.

There's hardly a place on the internet that you could find such a treasure trove of Moronic Atheism than the RRS, thanks to you.

What did you think I was doing? Writing you a love letter?

And you're lucky this isn't my forum, or I would have banned your fucking ass a loooooooooong time ago, so you wouldn't stink up the joint with your utter Moronicism.

Think I'm not hitting the nail right on the head?

Why don't you start a blog and send out invitations to really intelligent atheist bloggers and see how many will link themselves to your blog and how many will avoid you more than Fred Phelps.

Let me put it to you this way, I don't want to be associated with you, in any fucking way. Especially as an atheist.

And I couldn't applaud the RRS more if they banned you completely. You are a detriment to all the intelligent rebuttals given for questioning the existence of gods.

You are the Fred Phelps of atheists.

Thanks for the laugh Red.

Look, it amounts to this. You refuse to accept that people are different in their comfort level of communication. YOU are the politically correct type who fails to give credit to dissent for having enough brains to not take blasphemy personally.

The comparison to Phelps is just plain childish and silly. Phelps is a bigot. All I have done is said to Cap and believers elsewhere is they are full of shit. If one claims a brain with no brain exists, what do you want me to say to that? "Thats not true" is what you might say. "You are full of shit" is merely a emphatic way of saying "that's not true"

Claimant " The Chargers won the Super Bowl"

Skeptic "That's not truem the Packers did"

Claimant "The Chargers won the Super Bowl"

Skeptic, "Bullshit, the Packers did"

The truth does not change merely because you don't like the delivery.

If you personally like the library, then hang out in a library. But Cap did not start this thread in "Kill Em With Kindness", so my responses are withing the TOS. And while I am quite sure I drive Cap crazy, he has been here for almost 5 years in this thread alone.

If I was actually like Phelps I would not be in this thread at all. I am quite sure outside the issue of god claims Caposkia and I could find other topics of interest, such as tv, sports, books, ect ect, where we could find agreement. But I do not pull punches on the issue of god claims, not for him, not for you, not for anyone.

I would suggest if you want to debate him personally, start a thread in KEWK in a one on one thread. But do not expect me to be a clone of you.

Like I told you a number of times; you're not much more than a typical theist.

1- Arguments from ignorance

2- Argument from the bible (which are virtually indistinguishable from 1)

3- Logical fallacies (arguments from authority, from popularity, from incredulity etc etc..)

You know....Confirmation Bias

God is not an axiom, obviously, so you can't start from:

P1 God....

You must have a different definition of a satirist than I do.

Oh, wait, I get why that is now....she's actually a 'Religious Satirist'

Why does she think she's qualified to be objective and knowledgeable about the topic?

-"As I surveyed the Sea of Galilee from my vantage point on the Golan Heights, I uttered, "Richard Dawkins, you are so wrong. God is not a delusion. No way. No How. He's right here in the Holy Land." 

-"The New Atheist who started this whole public fracas is none other than media darling and pit bull Sam Harris. Put a blonde wig and too-tight black dress on him, and he could almost pass as an Ann Coulter act-alike." 

-"It's A-OK for a New Atheist to trash anyone who dares differ with their viewpoints even when there is a disagreement within their own scientific community as to their conclusions." : Becky Garrison

What disagreement is there in the scientific community again? About what exactly?

You mean the LCH found out that gods are really behind it all?

Maybe that DNA proves that gods are behind that as well? Maybe Becky should write a memo to Francis Collins, he's not aware of these new scientific conclusions.

That's where you come in.

Apparently, you discovered all the best reasons to know that the Christian god exists (outside of the desperate hopes of Christians), but for some reason haven't yet presented them for a Nobel Prize and taught the 5 billion 'Non Christians' why they're wrong.

Glad that a priest had the balls to go up against Einstein and show us all that the Universe didn't happen the way the bible says it did.

Where are your balls, Caposkia?

Or are you just another pathetic Religious Satirist who's out of their 'scientific' and 'logical' league?...

I don't see her having any better hope than you do of that...

And Red, do you really think that a ignorant bigot like Phelps would have an Obama quote in his sig?

I may hate claims I find absurd, and I certainly don't mince words. But I do value the quote in my sig. We are a better nation because of our diversity. We are a stronger nation because we are not monochromatic like Stalin's Russia or the theocracy of Iran. That does not mean the I like claims of pet deities. It just means I can value individuals without liking everything they claim.

Stop it. I'm not fond of laughing and snorting my drink out of my nose. I doubt very seriously you could get my co-workers or my mother or Bob Spence or Brian Sapient here to agree that I am a waste of skin. All you are saying is you don't like me. So what. There are lots of people I don't like.

Fred Phelps would consider both you and I "wastes of skin"along with many Christians. So it seems to me you have more in common with Phelps than I do.

I don't consider you a waste of skin. I simply see an angry person who is throwing a fit because life isn't following their idea of a script. I am not a clone of you, and you are simply angry that I am not doing things the way you think I should.

I don't get physical with people. This isn't high school and we are not in a street gang. If you were face to face with me and you laid one hand on me you'd be in the back of a cop car. Adults don't settle beefs with fists. Words are one thing, but to even imply violence, is beyond the scope.

You can call me a dick, an asshole, whatever. But you will not get away with threatening me with violence. Do so and I will call the authorities and report you.

If anyone is taking this too far you are. This is a debate to me, nothing more. If it gets a believer to snap out of their delusion, great. If it does not, at least it gives both sides a venue to speak their mind uncensored.

I am going to let this veiled threat slide because I think you simply need a break to calm down. But do not ever threaten me again.

That's weak, I could claim the same about you... be more specific.  

Of course I'm going to argue from the Bible just as much as anyone would argue from a source they deem reliable... e.g. any science, history, math etc book to prove a point.  You should try it sometime.

you should know better than that by now.  You know I'm willing to work with you, but you have to be willing to make an effort as well.  I will discuss with you on any empirical basis that can be associated to the subject at hand... the question is what angle do you want to go on?  That's the one big question you've been doing a great job of running from.  It's not about what is most convincing to me, that's subjective... it's about what would be most convincing to you... logically..  This would require you to actually consider for a moment that there could possibly be something that would convince you of the possibility of a metaphysical existence...and that could be empirically discussed which is why I shut Brian down when he told me what would convince him would be to fart a Lambrohgini out of is ass.  Hardly an empirical or logical discussion of metaphysics.

First quote is a self realization.  Hardly empirical... the second one was sarcasm making a point that their approach is no better than there opposing side.  The third quote if I remember correctly is in reference to the fact that scientists despite what the media says are split down the middle on the God discussion.  Most Atheists are quick to say science does not prove God, and most Theists are quick to say science proves God, but both sides cannot back themselves up further than that with the other side.  When it comes down to the reasoning behind it it seems to be perspective on both sides... 

It's literally:

Atheist scientist:  Science does not prove the existence of God because of X... but you cannot prove a negitive anyway so despite X, it cannot be proven.

Theist scientist:  assuming we're trying to prove a negative is automatically putting bias into the study... However, you're wrong, not only does Y prove God, but X supports Y. ....

And the discussion continues for centuries.   X being any number of theories or discussions that suggest evolutionary design or lack of intelligence in design and Y being other theories or evolutionary design ideas that weren't brought up initially.  

why are you assuming all 5 billion Christians believe different than me?  Granted a lot of them may not, but I didn't invent my own understanding of God.  

The problem with the Nobel Prize excuse here is that the majority of the non-believing world takes a perspective that if you can't touch it, feel it, taste it, see it and put it under a microscope all at once, then it's not real.

my balls?  Oh they're safely tucked in my boxers at the moment.

It's interesting you say that a priest did that, now did he say that the Bible was wrong, or that Einstein was mistaken?  What does the Bible supposedly say happened?  

Don't give me the creation in 7 days crap either, we've gone through that already and if you've been following the discussion on the other thread, you'll see why that doesn't support what the Bible is likely saying.

You make so many challenges, but don't stick around when it gets going.  I hardly see any hope of you making much progress either to be honest.  What've you got to support youself besides a grudge?

conquering death didn't mean that Jesus never died...  How can you conquer something if you never experience it?  It'd be like me going to Nepal, looking at Mt. Everest and saying I conquered the mountain... doesn't work that way.  

The Bible states that we must die to sin so that we may live... This is getting a bit deeper, but in death, we die to the sin of the flesh and are resurrected into a new body that has not been tainted by sin.  This is written in the Bible that we must die for this reason.  Jesus died because he took the weight of all the sin of the world upon his own body and had to die to get rid of it, but resurrected to prove once and for all that he is in fact who He claimed to be and that it all was for us.  

A metaphor would be that sin is like a stain you can't get out of your clothing... the only way to get rid of it is to trash the piece of clothing and put on a new one.  

Catch 22.  Adam and Eve weren't "tainted" by any sin nature , the key to being able to sin is in simply having free will, which Christians believe they will retain in Heaven.   Even free will in Heaven is a loaded gun because look what the angel Lucifer did with his "Free Will" and we all know where he is supposedly headed.

So, you're telling me given the choice to rob a bank or not, you wouldn't be able to choose not to rob the bank?  

When they are not by consent in a rigged game, and the person who doesn't know better wouldn't do it if they did know better, then yea, that is entrapment. Just like calling hunting a sport when all it is is a fucking trick is entrapment.

Dress up in cammies, spray yourself with deer pee, stay quiet with your scope rifle covered by the local foliage and the deer will eventually be tempted by what they think is the smell of a female. You set up the game in hunting. If the deer had the same knowledge of the hunter and didn't want to die, it would, if it still wanted a shot at what it thought was the female deer, would want it's own weapons to defend itself.

Adam and Eve were pawns in a bet rigged by the god character.

Laws in reality in civil society are by consent, not based on a bet or a trick and most certainly can be changed if those who want to change them care to make the effort. What choice did Adam and Eve have in that game or the bet between God/Satan?