The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline The good ol´ "we´re not talking about the same thing" argument..
Man, you´re off the mark here
ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.
- Henrik Ibsen
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.
uh... ok, that narrowed it down. You're saying Paul said it's ok to kill someone, rape someone, etc?
2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.
Ch 4 is about Abraham and how he ties in with what Jesus is and what he taught. I admit you got me to read the chapter again. I don't see where Paul got rid of sin in Ch 4.
3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?
"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Rom 4:16
Those "of the Law" are the Jews. That is easily understood throughout the Bible. The Law is referring to everything a Jew had to be and followed.
Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?
hmmm, if theists come up with the same conclusion and call it context, then it could possibly be what is in context. If there are different interpretations of the same thing, i'd like to hear them.
- Login to post comments
Offline The good ol´ "we´re not talking about the same thing" argument..
Man, you´re off the mark here
never said we weren't talking about the same thing, though it seems pretty obvious if you take a look back at the topic of this forum.
Anyway, I ask for people to be on the same page as me. If you're going to jump to conclusions without a legitamate conversation, then you're on your own.
- Login to post comments
Offline
See, this is what I just don't get. "Waste his time"? What time?
Ok, so time was a bad choice of words when referencing to God
Why is it a waste? I thought your god WANTED people to know him. He certainly (allegedly) makes his presence known to you everyday? Why? Why not others?
He does in both instances. The point is God would not waste.
And whats the point anyhow? Belief in God isn't necessarily required for salvation - only your religion claims it.
What would salvation be then?
You really have a funny god: omnisicent and omnipotent but won't waste his time on people, or does things even though he knows they are useless.
I never said he won't waste his time on people or does things that are useless. The point was that he doesn't waste his time and that he doesn't do anything useless.
The difference is that we actually THOUGHT about what we read.
ooh, I'd be careful here. I've constantly been talking to people on here who conclude without basis and don't think before they speak. Many of them make matter of fact comments about something I said only for me to reiterate exactly what I said to prove that their conclusion was because they didn't carefully read.
You may be able to claim that about yourself. I dont' know yet.
You do realize your god doesn't exist, right? You are trying to convince me of believing in a figment of your imagination? Do you see your problem? You are asking me to come up with my own method of making myself believe in a fantasy.
stalemate conversation waiting to happen
Just because you have convinced yourself of something utterly asinine doesn't mean you ask others to come up with their own method of delusion.
I should be proof that even giving someone a method of delusion doesn't mean they're going to follow it. Do you see why this is a stalemate conversation?
Imagine: I believe pixies paint my hair brown every night. Don't believe me? Well, instead of giving you silly reasons (like, you can't see them but you have to believe in them first), why don't I ask you: "What will it take for you to believe in pixies?"
I'd probably start by trying to understand what makes you believe in them and I'd start researching your claims. I'd probably ask many questions based on the research I have done. If your belief is real, it is my understanding I will conclude the same as you if I go about it using the methods/sources you have used.
Would you care to think of an answer for that? Would you waste your time? i know you're not omnisicent, but come on, you can't be that stupid - like your God.
Oh crap. an unfounded conclusion. I had so much hope for you.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap, I've tried to find the "special idol" to no avail. God just means all existence for me, so I can't find a way to worship. When all is one, what is there to be "saved" from, but separatism ideas, which is all religion of God of Abe design? Isn't Christianity an antichrist theology, against the principal of Oneness? Isn't science the real study of gawed? Isn't traditional religion just clever make believe dogmatic spin, for lots of wrong reasons?
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.
uh... ok, that narrowed it down. You're saying Paul said it's ok to kill someone, rape someone, etc?
jcgadfly wrote:2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.
Ch 4 is about Abraham and how he ties in with what Jesus is and what he taught. I admit you got me to read the chapter again. I don't see where Paul got rid of sin in Ch 4.
jcgadfly wrote:3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?
"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Rom 4:16
Those "of the Law" are the Jews. That is easily understood throughout the Bible. The Law is referring to everything a Jew had to be and followed.
jcgadfly wrote:Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?
hmmm, if theists come up with the same conclusion and call it context, then it could possibly be what is in context. If there are different interpretations of the same thing, i'd like to hear them.
But he's not writing to Jews in the epistle to the Romans. He's writing to Christians and telling how much better off they are following the religion he built than they would be being Jews. They don't have to follow that pesky Law of Moses.
I don't know whether Paul would consider it OK to rape or kill. All I know is that it wouldn't be considered a sin against god (in Paul's view) to break any part of Mosaic law.
You're under grace, after all, not under law. And one can't violate a law that doesn't apply to them. Example - I can't run a red light because I don't own a car - the law doesn't apply to me.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline daedalus wrote:I just happen to be reading a book on the history of science.... spheres to a mere 13 or so, but got him into problems, especially with the Church. It was between Copernicus and Galileo that people started getting rid of the ideas of the spheres.
obviously you don't know much about your church history do you? Churches during that time were understood to be corrupt. (ergo the denominational standards I've been talking about were in play to the extreme)
daedalus wrote:Yes, Cap, the Bible writers ABSOLUTELY believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that spheres of elements rotated around it.
why, because the church at the time said so? c'mon, since when do you believe in the church?
The church didn't consider the context of the passages and made all of it according to how they wanted it.
If the Bible writers absolutely believed the Earth was the center of the universe, then they must have also believed the Earth was flat due to popular understanding at the time and future. However, Isaiah 40:22 references to the Earth as a circle.
daedalus wrote:I say again: NO ONE knew that the Sun was at the center of the Solar System, or that there weren't spheres of elements.
no one knew for sure about any of that, but followers didn't sell the belief that Earth was the center. The churches may have. It's actually quite irrelevant. In fact, the Bible writers could have cared less I imagine.
daedalus wrote:I know Xians try to rewrite history to make themselves look good but guess what? It gives the opposite impression.
that way your understanding that there no God has to be real, because Xians... though I"m not sure if I fall in that category... try to rewrite history.
Is that your basis for unbelief?
Do you TRY to miss the point? The Bible writers didn't know jack shit about the Universe - its obvious. The fact that you point out contradictions proves that they were just a bunch of people making shit up - like modern theologians - like yourself.
The fact that most of what you believe of Xianity is BECAUSE of the church (and, in fact, the reason Xinanity has persisted) is a great irony.
Tell me, what view of Xianity is true? Only your own? The Church of Caposkia? And if the writers couldn't be trusted to get basic ideas of the world right, why do you trust them to tell you stuff about things that are impossible to know? (Like the - ooooohhohh - Supernatural.)
The problem is, Cap, you flit between any real understanding of the world - adjusting your belief system to fit different discoveries but always - somehow - making it fit into Xianity. It is, frankly, stupid. It's like forcing everything into a Ptolemaic system.
You are defending Bronze Age beliefs. Doesn't that bother you?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I have defined it. AND, I also said in prior posts, mind you this thread is 8 pages long. But I also said that if you put bad data in(naked assertion) you are not going to get good data out, so there is no point in ME trying to apply a universal method to HIS CLAIM because he has nothing to put into it in the first place.
"Spirits and deities, just like vampires and snarfwidgets cannot be plugged into scientific method and that is because they are baseless whims of imagination. Why should I waste my time trying to do his work for him?
How can you ride a bike when you have no wheels, no frame, no handle bars or seat?
This is why I don't waste my time with meandering tactics. It is not up to me to prove his claims. How can I apply method to something that starts as a naked assertion?
You are one who likes to have a conclusion with no research. You have not tried to level with me or even attempt to get onto the same page as me. I"m not going to throw random claims at you so you can aimlessly conclude they're bogus. If you want information. Work with me. Stop reaching conclusions with no support.
There are conversations I'm having that make progress, and there are others that don't. Ours is one that doesn't. It's up to you if you want a direction.
It is not up to me to prove bullshit. Just like it is not up to you to prove that Thor did not make lighting.
YOU are the one who has bought a CONCLUSION rooted in myth and superstition based on a naked assertion. You want me to do your homework for you, and then get pissed when I merely point out you have nothing to start with in the first place.
DADDY DADDY, the naughty doubter wont buy my naked assertion!
You are the one with no evidence. YOU are the one who desperately wants a magical daddy in the sky to protect you. When you come up with his DNA or his atom I'll consider it. But believe me, since I like breathing I wont hold my breath waiting for your evidence that will floor the entire world.
Your daddy is nothing but your imagination. I am sorry you cant see that.
"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
- Login to post comments
If you want to see more, just ask. If you want to see the actual fossils, go to a nearby museum.
It would be nice if they would actually understand english for once, eh? lol.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If you're "following Christ", what exactly would God be "letting slide"?
We wouldn't need Jesus if people were able to follow those laws.
In context this verse is talking about how you can only follow one master. In this case, either God rules over you, or sin does. It cannot be both. No, that doesn't mean Christians are sinless, but it does mean followers of Christ do not let sin rule their lives.
Read on: "What then? Shall we sun because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be....." Romans 6:15-19
In context this verse is talking about how there are people who are "of the Law" (Jews) and everyone else who is not of the law. Law in this case being the way of life of a Jew.
This verse simply says you cannot be held accountable for something you did not know was wrong as well as extending God's grace beyond the Jews to everyone. It was understood in the OT that one had to "become a Jew" in order to be with God, this shows that Jesus made that no longer the case. Anyone can "be with God" regardless if they're a Jew or not.
So far I have not seen a contradiction. Just verses from the Bible taken out of context.
I only ask because the quote that I left that question on seemed to contradict what one of your links revealed. The one that clarifies the difference between Churchianity and Christianity.
If you're referencing to churchianity, then unfortunately it's true, you have to find a real in the fake.
I've never met a "famous" one no. They're mostly people I met from place to place. I don't know how many. yes much more than one. Glad to make you happy.
If you want to talk probability it doesn't damage my God because the probability of the Theories that people try to use to disprove my God are shown to be less probable.
No I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head.
I do know that belief depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities among other things.
Probabilities only work for those who want to accept their results as proof.
You said they never occur. I said most evolutionists/Darwinists would disagree with the "random" claim due to the idea that there is a method and reason for each evolutionary step. Granted we cannot follow them all and we don't know why many of them happen, but it is theorized that they were not random. Random would mean a baby is going to be born with a third arm and thus all their offspring will feature that third arm. There'd be no rhyme or reason for it, it'd just happen.
Again, just to clarify, I spit out facts and none of my personal belief has been inserted above.
1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.
2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.
3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?
Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?
"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
So you have these experts who apparently have never published so we can't look up anything they say or if they even exist. Lovely game - "create a source". Still would love to be provben wrong.
As for the theories, it's hard for you to look objectively at them (I imagine) because you already have the conclusion that makes you happy.
"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
As Jesus once said: If the fruit is rotten, chop down the tree....
This book seems like utter bs...
ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.
- Henrik Ibsen
If you focus on our conversation, you'll notice I was simply asking for his personal definition which he still has neglected to give me. Plus, he's had plenty of time to answer that among 2 other simple questions I was asking and has successfully evaded them every time.
The topic was "his personal definition of Scientific Method" I cannot apply it to his personal definition because I do not know it. I will not apply the generic definition until I know that he and I are on the same page. Please read more carefully
The conversation between him and I was a tangent. This whole forum is a tangent. If you read the Forum topic, you'll see that. I'm just following the lead of the people responding, I have not led any tangent on here.
You are one who likes to have a conclusion with no research. You have not tried to level with me or even attempt to get onto the same page as me. I"m not going to throw random claims at you so you can aimlessly conclude they're bogus. If you want information. Work with me. Stop reaching conclusions with no support.
There are conversations I'm having that make progress, and there are others that don't. Ours is one that doesn't. It's up to you if you want a direction.