Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Atheist vs. Theist

If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Posted on: January 9, 2013 - 3:46pm
Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 

‹ For Old Seer Question for our Christian visitors ›

Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:07pm #451
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You literally

Vastet wrote:
You literally cut my sentence in two. It's one thing to break up a paragraph. It's something entirely different to break up a sentence. If you don't understand how doing that impacts language than you are clearly not on a level capable of having this discussion. Respond to my entire sentence in one piece or I'll not bother reading the response to it.

Each part is just as important as the whole, and if you can't understand how that impacts language and also why I did take them in parts, then you're clearly not on a level capable of having this discussion.  but I'll respond to all of it together if you want.  I don't have time to look back and see what it was we were talking about... what was the statement in its entirety?  

Vastet wrote:

 It totally depends on the problem. If it is genetic than the medication is constant, because your body is broken on the microscopic scale.

Sure, but you can't use biology to study spirits or consciousness


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:10pm #452
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We can't see

Vastet wrote:
We can't see at least half of the universe, and with every day that goes by we can see less of it. That doesn't mean we discount its existence

Theists always make the mistake of assuming a black and white scenario, all or nothing. But our side doesn't function that way. Those of us who know more than most about how things work also know how little we know for absolute certainty. In reality, all of our existence might be an illusion, a hologram, or even a computer simulation. It simply doesn't do us any good to approach reality that way. It can even be detrimental.

but atheists do that all the time with God.  this why I make that conclusion.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:13pm #453
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Your method of

Vastet wrote:
Your method of observation has never been proven to accomplish anything that makes it a must-do. There is no evidence of a god, a heaven, a hell, angels, ghosts, or anything else defined as supernatural. There is therefore no benefit to approaching existence as if they exist. If some demon or angel or god or something ever comes to me and demonstrates in some fashion it is what it says it is, then I'll probably change my view on the subject. Even if it's just a figment of my imagination, suddenly there is a real reason to believe and real consequences. I've never seen anything to indicate such is the case. Some things started to come close, but never actually went across the line of coincidental or convenient into the territory of fate or destiny or the hand of some supreme being. Whereas science actually has benefits. We have medicine and planes and computers and space stations because of science. Religion never gave us these things. Or anything else tangible.

that's because Christianity is not about the tangable.  

I'm curious as to what has come close for you


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:16pm #454
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part.
See that doesn't help me. The word soul itself is broken, as it refers to what something isn't. The definition makes it worse, because it uses terms that are equally broken. A word is useless unless it refers to something. But soul, supernatural, spirit, and other terminology used by theists specifically refer to what something is not. I want to know what it is. What is the spiritual part of humans? What is it if it is not physical? Don't tell me it's simply not physical, I want to know what it is.
caposkia wrote:
I don't mean this to be snide again.  I'm only asking;  How can you say no religion has been able to "prove" its claims when you yourself admitted to not knowing what you'd even be looking for as far as proof?

I don't remember seeing the word "not" in that definition... rather it seems to be clearly explaining what it is.  


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:22pm #455
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Not knowing

Vastet wrote:
Not knowing what would prove religion doesn't mean I don't know what fails to prove religion. I don't mean to be snide, but all the evidence you have for the truth of christianity is a bunch of words written in long dead languages by primitive men who didn't know the first thing about the world. Stuff you are taught in grade one they were oblivious to. Worse than that, the writings were then assembled from different sources, some being discarded, by more men, into a single book which was then translated a dozen times at least before the version you have in your dresser. Nowhere along the way is there any evidence for any of the spectacular claims of a deity who watches over humanity.

yet we base more than half our history off those people

 


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 2:42pm #456
blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:YOu suggest

caposkia wrote:

YOu suggest that God kidnap everyone?  You might make some enemies in heaven then if you can convince God of this be it that not everyone wants to be with

God... Good luck to ya

Are you being deliberately dense? I clearly stated I do not suggest, but DEMAND, that God kidnap everyone. 

 

caposkia wrote:

so give everyone no choice.  You're more cruel than you claim my God is

That's a lie, caposkia--NOTHING is more cruel than eternal punishment. I find it highly disturbing you have such a hard time grasping this fact... Of course, seeing

as how you worship being who allows people to suffer forever, I really shouldn't be surprised.

 

caposkia wrote:

yet we base more than half our history off those people

If the above is true, then we should almost certainly throw out that "more than half".

 


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:49pm #457
danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Opps DP (Double Post)

DP (Double Post)


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:38pm #458
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:He created

caposkia wrote:

He created us.  Would you use a product that wasn't first tested by its creator?  

here ya go.  brand new car!  What?  no, I didn't calibrate anything, I put the pieces together and so it should work.. try it out!

If a human made an advanced lifeform that felt pain and had emotions, would you consider it moral to "test" that being the way god supposedly has tested humans? I wouldn't.  

 

caposkia wrote:

The fact that scientists haven't come up with a valid approach to test supernova's, dark matter, black holes, etc. suggests that those things don't exist as well then.

Scientists have come up with many valid approaches to test their theories about supernovas, dark matter and black holes. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it's a parallel to what you're asking me to do really if you want me to summon demons to test.  and the loyalty is out of fear.  If you do the homework you'll find out that many have escaped and run away, but the punishment for doing so is that every one of your family members left in North Korea will be put into those camps and tortured to death.  Would you leave if you knew it was putting your family in serious danger?  

why don't families leave?  Is it easy to sneak a few people out or a whole family?  especially if some of the family is really young or really old.  

Point and case to put it in context... you'd be a moron if you thought you could just walk into North Korea, go up to a random citizen, or better yet, a military personelle if you want to be very technical about the danger we're talking about and told them you want them to come with you can test their existence.   

Same with demons.

Is there any evidence that demons are so dangerous? Can you name a single person who summoned a demon and was harmed by it?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

To your knowledge has anyone ever found such a link?

I'm not sure where to even begin looking for such a link... i"m not an anthropologist.. however, archaeologists do look for links between historical stories in the Bible and evidence of the physical things talked about in the Bible.  So far they have found a lot.. there are books out there on the subject.  I suggest checking out the Archaeological study bible.

How is that going to provide me evidence of demons?

 

caposkia wrote:

people say the same about hanging and the electric chair, but it still happens... where is the line of morality?

I think hanging and the electric chair are immoral too. Do you think stoning people is a good thing?

 

caposkia wrote:

In today's age, no... we have better ways of dealing with people... I also believe that killing people is giving them the easy way out and that they should live with what they've done and the consequences of it.

Why couldn't an omnipotent god come up with better ways of dealing with people a few thousand years ago? 

 

caposkia wrote:

So you're trying to associate the Noah story with children today?

They were human. Do you think what year a person is born in matters?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

God gives us choices... we do have to pay consequences for those choices whether good or bad.

Choices of his own construction. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 The consequence of those people in that time was the death of themselves and their families.  They were warned of such consequences too and ignored the warnings.

Oh, so it is ok to murder someone as long as you warn them? 

 

caposkia wrote:

If someone warned you that if you didn't stop doing X you, your wife, kids, pets grandma etc would all die, would you keep doing it?  I would stop... they didn't.

Do you think a loving being would make such a threat?

 

caposkia wrote:

he did... if you read the story, the only ones he found to be... well not even innocent, but following Him strong enough to change was Noah and his family.

So the infants deserved to die?

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, so what is killing then?  Jail is taking freedom of living life in society away from an individual.  Understanding death with God existing, death is taking the freedom of living life in society away from an idividual.  Death is not the end.  It is understood that their spirit lives on, just not physically.  

Where they are tortured in hell for eternity. 

 

caposkia wrote:

so give everyone no choice.  You're more cruel than you claim my God is

It is hardly a choice when you are forced by someone far more powerful than you to pick between two bad options. 

 

caposkia wrote:

this is why I believe it's a worse punishment to have to live with your crimes, but try to explain that to NH.. who has an extremely low murder rate.  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

And NH hasn't executed anyone since 1939, imagine that. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yes.  I've been called a lot of negative things, people tend to be very judgemental and less tolerant of others who oppose their beliefs etc on here.  

beyond that, I've seen places where God is strong and places where God is almost non-existent... there's quite a difference

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think people on here have been generally polite with you and since I have been here I can count the number of people who have been banned on my fingers. We even tolerate people like Jean.

 

caposkia wrote:

What gives you the right to deny them the opportunity for existence?  If they never existed, they never have the chance at eternal salvation and therefore you're automatically denying them that salvation.

So god automatically sends the souls of the unborn to hell?

 

caposkia wrote:

no.  If they're capable of asking for assistance to be killed, they're capable of still making a difference in the world and thus should not be denied life.

Oh, so choice is great when God forces people to choose between eternal torture or being separated from their loved ones, but when someone decides to end their own life then you don't think they should be allowed to choose? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I believe God knows all possibilities.  God created them as angels, servants to Him.  Your answer is a catch 22, if I say he messed up, God's not perfect, if i say he knew it was going to happen, God is evil.  

So, to answer your question, God knew what could happen and left it up to them and us to decide.  That way no one is a slave to him unless they choose to be.  

It is your beliefs that create the cognitive dissonance. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why don't you hold god accountable for his choice to make us choose? 

do you realize how nonsensical that is?  Same reason why we don't hold parents responsible if one of their grownup children murdered someone.   Why don't you hold someone else responsible for your own mistakes?

I'm not holding him responsible for what humans do, I am holding him responsible for putting people in the position where they have to make such choices. There are stories that the Nazis would force people in concentration camps to choose which child died. When the mother chooses one do you blame her for the death because she chose? Of course not. You blame the person who forced her to make that choice.

 

caposkia wrote:

every choice has a consequence whether good or bad.  God never threatened anything, rather He has revieled to us the consequences of our choices good and bad.  

He created the consequences and could have made them anything he wanted.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:57pm #459
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I don't

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe in a God because I can't fully explain consciousness.  That would not be rational

No it wouldn't. But there's nothing preventing you from holding onto your religion while diving into science. Many theists and atheists alike consider science and religion to be mutually exclusive. They aren't. Unless you view the Earth as 5000 years old anyway.

caposkia wrote:
we could also go as far as taking the consideration that some of our consciousness is learned and other parts are there, where the brain retains what is learned and transmits what was already there.  Then any part of the storage being damaged would absoulutely change who you are because you've lost what you've learned.  It's understood by scripture that when a person dies, ~snip 

Nothing works that way. A damaged receiver results in incomplete information, not completely different information. I've already shown this to be true. Your assertions have no impact on my demonstration.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:57pm #460
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:considering

caposkia wrote:
considering the comparison to a transmitter, it would be technological unless you think a radio is magic and has a miniature band or radio announcer sitting inside it ready to play or talk at your beck and call.  

seriously though, yes on the technological side, but no, it's not technology, it is what God created, not people.  technology is what people created.

Technology isn't restricted to humanity.

It can however be studied, reverse engineered, and replicated. Which means theists should be able to show us something. Yet they can't.

Until I can examine this so-called technology it remains undefined and unexplained, and therefore irrelevant to my life .

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:57pm #461
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:you compared

caposkia wrote:
you compared a complex computer to a radio.  how is that refuting my suggestion?  

No I didn't. You brought up transmissions and complex computers translating the information and I gave you a 100% accurate real world example of it, and showed you it doesn't work the way you suggest it does. How is that not refuting your suggestion?

caposkia wrote:
Sure, but you can't use biology to study spirits or consciousness

Prove you can't use biology to study consciousness.
As for spirits, theists consistently put them outside all science. Even physics and quantum physics, the most basic known structures of the universe.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 4:57pm #462
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:but atheists

caposkia wrote:
but atheists do that all the time with God.  this why I make that conclusion.

Not really. The majority of atheists I've known are willing to allow for a god. We're just waiting for one which is consistent, logical, and observable.
We have to shift our mindset to communicate effectively with theists however, so a lot of the time we're forced to say stuff that isn't completely accurate just to get our point across. Evolution being a good example. The mechanisms of evolution are complicated, and anti-evolution theists tend to have simplistic and magic oriented views of the process. So many times evolution will be distilled into one or two mechanisms by someone explaining it, despite there being dozens of mechanisms.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 5:20pm #463
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:that's

caposkia wrote:
that's because Christianity is not about the tangable.

Existence is all about the tangible. It's all that really matters.

caposkia wrote:
I'm curious as to what has come close for you

I doubt you'd truly be interested. Boring stuff really. Nothing even remotely life altering. Other explanations than unseen forces are available.

caposkia wrote:
I don't remember seeing the word "not" in that definition... rather it seems to be clearly explaining what it is.  

Actually it did contain the term, via another.
"separable in existence from the body"
In other words it isn't the body. No mention of what it is, merely what it isn't.
"the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part."
In other words, it's not physical. Again, no mention as to what it is.

It gets really funny to me when I look up soul and spirit and find both terms are used to define the other. It's ridiculous how broken and useless these words are in the face of how common their usage is.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 5:21pm #464
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yet we base

caposkia wrote:
yet we base more than half our history off those people

Some people give history far more credit than it deserves. Even assuming everyone who partook in the creation of works now seen as historical were upstanding citizens who wouldn't lie or hurt a fly, history is still a giant fucking black hole of ignorance. Mere fragments of rich societies have survived. We might know who the emperor of Rome in the year 200 was by name, and maybe even some things he did, but we don't know who he really was. We certainly don't know the people of ancient Egypt.

History is exactly like the fossil record. Almost all of it has been destroyed. Only fragments remain. We do all right putting them together, but there's always missing pieces at the end. And you never really know what's true and what isn't. What little history we have is almost exclusively the writings of the victors.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 5:28pm #465
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:so give

caposkia wrote:
so give everyone no choice.  You're more cruel than you claim my God is

Your god already does that. I don't see how it could do it worse. Being forced to choose in ignorance is bad. Informed choice is good. Right now you have to believe in order for you to be able to choose to follow. You can't follow a religion you don't believe in. I literally have no choice but to be an atheist. I've been one my whole life. I'll never be a theist unless I KNOW there's a god. That's the way my brain functions.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 16, 2013 - 8:32pm #466
danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
NT Gr. . . μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. :

See :: Image:

 


Posted on: April 18, 2013 - 3:21pm #467
danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
NT Gr. -- μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

NT Gr. μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

HappyFriendDana wrote:
With this from the New Testament ? You CANNOT start with the Last and Final Judgment,

(remember) ? Least not to mention, the general lack of essential specificity in the word-

ing and language of some of the key passages. We do not know enough details about what

the topography should signify, nor importantly who WAS in the prison of these 'spirits'

that Christ went to preach to (and sorry no parable is enough by way to truly clarify)!


Caposkia wrote:
. .

http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/33613/403510#comment-403510

The more I want to get into a lengthy
spiel on today's Dispensationalism or
eschatological talk. Being pressed for time
is now my good friend. You yourself-can
present the easiest of answers to 'why',
in what you just have said. Yes, In context,
a proven explanation via a quick overview
Of the very next Ch. XXI, it reads . .

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth,

for the first heaven & the 1st earth had passed

Also, there was no more sea (burning up),

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,

coming out of heaven -- from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for-her

husband ..And G-d shall wipe away

every tear from their eyes and

shall be no more death nor sorrow, nor cry-

ing There shall be no more pain for the

former things have passed away' Then

He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold'

I make all things 'new' And He said to (John)

me, 'Write, for these words are true and

faithful' And He said to me, 'It is done'

I am the Alpha and the Omega,

the Beginning and the End. I 'll give of the

fountain of the water of life freely to

him who thirsts. He who overcomes, to the

end, shall inherit all things . .

I Cor. 15:53 -

..at the last and final trumpet. For the

trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised

imperishable, and we shall be changed For this

perishable body must put on the

imperishable, and this mortal body must put on

immortality

The idea of having to give an accounting and

a 'Judgment' is found in most all of the Canonical

books.

Why I purposely stressed the words Last and

Final two are both in combination often times for

a good and aptly good reason. Check out where it is

all situated, in the flow of the text. Less untidy

You start to understand it wasnt the place to start,

now ? Flow: XX ; XI ; XXIII . .etc.

  Friend Smiling

¬ Dana

See :: Image:

 

Let's hear what the Spirit said to the Churches(Rev 2-3) Smiling


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:00pm #468
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Are you

blacklight915 wrote:

Are you being deliberately dense? I clearly stated I do not suggest, but DEMAND, that God kidnap everyone. 

Just trying to be clear.  As opposed as you are to God's aggressive approach to people in the past, you're sugg... oh I mean demanding an even more aggressive approach.  Once people are taken against their will, then what?

blacklight915 wrote:

That's a lie, caposkia--NOTHING is more cruel than eternal punishment. I find it highly disturbing you have such a hard time grasping this fact... Of course, seeing

as how you worship being who allows people to suffer forever, I really shouldn't be surprised.

how can you say that kidnapping people and holding them against their will is any less disturbing?  That would be for eternity as well.  At least those you say suffer forever got to choose that fate.  

blacklight915 wrote:

If the above is true, then we should almost certainly throw out that "more than half".

 

ok then.  Rewrite our history books, let me know when you're done.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:37pm #469
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If a

Beyond Saving wrote:

If a human made an advanced lifeform that felt pain and had emotions, would you consider it moral to "test" that being the way god supposedly has tested humans? I wouldn't.  

if you fully knew how the U.S. military 'tests' their people, you might have a different perspective.    Is it moral to test a persons ability to do the right thing in the heat of the moment when it really counts?  I say yes.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Scientists have come up with many valid approaches to test their theories about supernovas, dark matter and black holes. 

not in the way you're suggesting we test God.  I haven't heard of any scientists recreating any of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Is there any evidence that demons are so dangerous? Can you name a single person who summoned a demon and was harmed by it?

well, let's put it this way... where does Hollywood get the idea that demons are dangerous?  Did they just make that up or are there sources?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

How is that going to provide me evidence of demons?

gotta start somewhere.  It's my perspective that if you found reason to believe God existed, you would have good reason to believe demons exist.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think hanging and the electric chair are immoral too. Do you think stoning people is a good thing?

I believe in the time that stoning happened, it was the most appropriate approach to criminal consequences for particular crimes, however we've advanced way beyond that today and with the abilities we have, I feel it is more of a punishment to keep someone alive and have to suffer a sentencing vs. being killed.   

To answer you directly, today, no it is not a good thing.

Keep in mind that what you're questioning is an approach to crimes that many cultures with many different followings did... it was not just a jewish Law.  a lot of Gods disciplinary laws happen to be congruent with Laws that were already in place in other cultures.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why couldn't an omnipotent god come up with better ways of dealing with people a few thousand years ago? 

He knew a few thousand years ago that would be the most effective approach.  It is what the people knew and what the people could deal with at the time.  They did not have the capability we do today to house criminals.

Beyond Saving wrote:

They were human. Do you think what year a person is born in matters?

Life in that culture in that time was drastically different than us today... it does make a difference

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

God gives us choices... we do have to pay consequences for those choices whether good or bad.

Choices of his own construction. 

???   He created things for good purposes.  e.g. we have hands that can create, build, plant, harvest, etc... yet these hands with those capabilities also have the ability to kill though they were not designed with that purpose.  People manipulate designs all the time to their benefit, how can you blame God?  

Should we be putting pressure cooker companies on trial for the Boston Marathon bombings?  A choice was made to kill with their creation. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

 The consequence of those people in that time was the death of themselves and their families.  They were warned of such consequences too and ignored the warnings.

Oh, so it is ok to murder someone as long as you warn them? 

sure... unless you're suggesting that everytime a police officer tells someone to stop or they'll shoot that they should never actually shoot them no matter what.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Do you think a loving being would make such a threat?

Police do it.  I know some very loving police officers. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the infants deserved to die?

American soldiers have killed children in cross fire, did they deserve to die?  no, did the American soldiers or their parents put them in danger?  

Did the infants deserve to die?  no, did God or their parents put them in danger?  

Sometimes we really have to reflect on where the blame should be put.  If what the Bible says is true, then all the parents of those infants had a choice to make.  They could save themselves and also their children and infants, or they could choose to continue what they were doing and put their whole family in danger.  God did what He promised.  Are those infants eternally dammed or are they with God living a better life than we are?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where they are tortured in hell for eternity. 

here's a question i am curious as to how you'll answer... what is hell?  I dont' want to hear what you think i've been telling you, I want you to tell me what it is.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is hardly a choice when you are forced by someone far more powerful than you to pick between two bad options. 

what are the 2 bad options in question?

Beyond Saving wrote:

And NH hasn't executed anyone since 1939, imagine that. 

not true, there was recently a police officer killed in NH... I think it was last year or the year before... that person who shot him was sentenced to death. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think people on here have been generally polite with you and since I have been here I can count the number of people who have been banned on my fingers. We even tolerate people like Jean.

this particular thread, people have been very polite.. I wasn't referencing to the here and now.  My general experience shows otherwise.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So god automatically sends the souls of the unborn to hell?

were they even souls?  Likely not, but again, you're still denying them an opportunity.  Who gave you the authority to decide?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh, so choice is great when God forces people to choose between eternal torture or being separated from their loved ones, but when someone decides to end their own life then you don't think they should be allowed to choose? 

that's quite the boomerang... nice job

does God make people choose to be separated from their loved ones or do their loved ones make the choice?  God chooses for everyone to be united according to scripture... so my understanding is that your'e trying to put blame on God that is actually people's responsibility.  Again, i need to understand what you think hell is besides just eternal torture... what is this eternal torture you're so against?  What happens exactly?

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is your beliefs that create the cognitive dissonance. 

not at all, I believe I answered it strait.  You asked questions that contradicted each other.  If you knew what was going to happen, then you couldn't have messed up, if you knew what was going to happen and you did mess up then we question how one could have possibily messed up, if you didn't know what was going to happen yet didn't mess up, how do we know you didn't mess up?  They would have had to take a guess which could have been a screwup.   They have to be opposite answers to make sense.  That goes against the principle of non contradiction.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not holding him responsible for what humans do, I am holding him responsible for putting people in the position where they have to make such choices.

When a parent lets their child move out, they are essentially doing just that... so you're suggesting we hold parents responsible if they're still alive for their children's choices no matter how old

Beyond Saving wrote:

There are stories that the Nazis would force people in concentration camps to choose which child died. When the mother chooses one do you blame her for the death because she chose? Of course not. You blame the person who forced her to make that choice.

I dont' remember reading such a case with God

Beyond Saving wrote:

He created the consequences and could have made them anything he wanted.  

we don't know or understand the spiritual consequences for our actions, how can you say that?  The consequences he put in place are just like what law makers do.  Again, you're suggesting law makers and judges are evil if you're going to apply that to God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:45pm #470
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No it

Vastet wrote:
No it wouldn't. But there's nothing preventing you from holding onto your religion while diving into science. Many theists and atheists alike consider science and religion to be mutually exclusive. They aren't. Unless you view the Earth as 5000 years old anyway.

poor reference.  The word translated to "day" in genesis is in reference to period of times or eras that could mean a 24 hour period, but also has been used to detail a much larger period of time.  In other words, it doesn't reference any specific period or length of time.    Those who take the Earth to be 6000 years old fail to consider translation.

Day was used there to best reference a point of work and then a point where the process stopped then another process starting.  

Vastet wrote:
 Nothing works that way. A damaged receiver results in incomplete information, not completely different information. I've already shown this to be true. Your assertions have no impact on my demonstration.

I see this problem with older and newer versions of microsoft Word.  stuff still comes out, but it's completely different.  In htis case it's compatibility issues... point and case though, if the processor that is supposed to descipher the information cannot decipher it correctly, it will come out different.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:47pm #471
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
considering the comparison to a transmitter, it would be technological unless you think a radio is magic and has a miniature band or radio announcer sitting inside it ready to play or talk at your beck and call.   seriously though, yes on the technological side, but no, it's not technology, it is what God created, not people.  technology is what people created.
Technology isn't restricted to humanity. It can however be studied, reverse engineered, and replicated. Which means theists should be able to show us something. Yet they can't. Until I can examine this so-called technology it remains undefined and unexplained, and therefore irrelevant to my life .

it's the brain....   If you find this irrelevant to your life, why discuss it?

 

 


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:51pm #472
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No I didn't.

Vastet wrote:
 No I didn't. You brought up transmissions and complex computers translating the information and I gave you a 100% accurate real world example of it, and showed you it doesn't work the way you suggest it does. How is that not refuting your suggestion?

you simplified it to a simple transmitter/receiver.  not to a processor

Vastet wrote:

 Prove you can't use biology to study consciousness. As for spirits, theists consistently put them outside all science. Even physics and quantum physics, the most basic known structures of the universe.

ok, put electrodes on a dead brain and see what you can see.  Does it look conscious even if minimally?  

Theists constantly put spirits outside of science typically because science is dependent on the physical for its research.  I however do not discredit quantum physics in that department.  The book "God is not dead" explains it through Quantum Theory very well.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 1:54pm #473
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
but atheists do that all the time with God.  this why I make that conclusion.
Not really. The majority of atheists I've known are willing to allow for a god. We're just waiting for one which is consistent, logical, and observable. We have to shift our mindset to communicate effectively with theists however, so a lot of the time we're forced to say stuff that isn't completely accurate just to get our point across. Evolution being a good example. The mechanisms of evolution are complicated, and anti-evolution theists tend to have simplistic and magic oriented views of the process. So many times evolution will be distilled into one or two mechanisms by someone explaining it, despite there being dozens of mechanisms.

If what you say is true, that explains a lot.  Though I do question that if what atheists believe is true, why woudl anyone be forced to say stuff that isn't completely accurate?  That to me sounds like an attempt at justifying without basis.  If what you believe is true, then complete accuracy would be sufficient.  And when you don't know something or can't answer it completely accurately, just be up front about it.  


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 2:03pm #474
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I doubt you'd

Vastet wrote:
 I doubt you'd truly be interested. Boring stuff really. Nothing even remotely life altering. Other explanations than unseen forces are available.

I'm on an atheist site talking to people about something that they claim doesn't exist... you're really concerned about me being too bored with it?  I am interested

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I don't remember seeing the word "not" in that definition... rather it seems to be clearly explaining what it is.  
Actually it did contain the term, via another. "separable in existence from the body" In other words it isn't the body. No mention of what it is, merely what it isn't. "the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part." In other words, it's not physical. Again, no mention as to what it is. It gets really funny to me when I look up soul and spirit and find both terms are used to define the other. It's ridiculous how broken and useless these words are in the face of how common their usage is.

i think if people had that much of a grasp on what it is, there'd be no question as to its existence.  I can see how you'd input a "not" into the definition.  but to say something exists outside of something is pretty much always suggesting it's not somewhere or something else.  e.g. grass grows outside of our house... it's not suggesting that it doesn't exist inside the house but it also doesn't elaborate as to what it is, rather just tells you that it grows outside.  It is distinct from the dirt it grows in... so it's not dirt.. again no mention of what it is... I mean we can do that with pretty much anything and say because of that it might not be real, but when it comes down to it, we typically have a better explanation for physical things, spiritual things are harder for us to understand.  What it is is metaphysical.  What exists outside the physical?  some say nothing, others disagree.  everyone can agree that if stuff does exist outside the physical, that we don't have the means to understand it to a suffiient degree yet.  

 


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 2:06pm #475
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
yet we base more than half our history off those people
Some people give history far more credit than it deserves. Even assuming everyone who partook in the creation of works now seen as historical were upstanding citizens who wouldn't lie or hurt a fly, history is still a giant fucking black hole of ignorance. Mere fragments of rich societies have survived. We might know who the emperor of Rome in the year 200 was by name, and maybe even some things he did, but we don't know who he really was. We certainly don't know the people of ancient Egypt. History is exactly like the fossil record. Almost all of it has been destroyed. Only fragments remain. We do all right putting them together, but there's always missing pieces at the end. And you never really know what's true and what isn't. What little history we have is almost exclusively the writings of the victors.

I agree, yet most nonbelievers I've come across seem to use that as their support for the Bible not being legitimate.  My whole point is they fall under similar categories as far as historical writings and proof in history that such events actually took place.  


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 2:11pm #476
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
so give everyone no choice.  You're more cruel than you claim my God is
Your god already does that. I don't see how it could do it worse. Being forced to choose in ignorance is bad. Informed choice is good. Right now you have to believe in order for you to be able to choose to follow. You can't follow a religion you don't believe in. I literally have no choice but to be an atheist. I've been one my whole life. I'll never be a theist unless I KNOW there's a god. That's the way my brain functions.

that makes perfect sense.  That's I guess our downfall as humans, you can't follow something or be a part of it unless you believe in it.  Doesn't matter what it is.  
Those of us who believe KNOW there is a God.  Some take it more easily than others.  I had to see reasoning and action.  Though I allowed for this God to work in my life if He was real... sure enough He did.  

It's important to not forget what you'd be asking for and to reflect on whether it's honestly rational or not.  

some might say it's rational to suggest that if God's real, he can make a pile of money appear in front of me.. Sure, but why would he?  Just to prove to you He's real?  That's not how He wants you to know Him.  It's also important to research what the followers of this God know of Him and how He works.  that way you'll know what to look for.  


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 2:15pm #477
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:NT Gr.

danatemporary wrote:

NT Gr. μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

HappyFriendDana wrote:
With this from the New Testament ? You CANNOT start with the Last and Final Judgment,

 

(remember) ? Least not to mention, the general lack of essential specificity in the word-

 

ing and language of some of the key passages. We do not know enough details about what

 

the topography should signify, nor importantly who WAS in the prison of these 'spirits'

 

that Christ went to preach to (and sorry no parable is enough by way to truly clarify)!

 

Caposkia wrote:
. .
http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/33613/403510#comment-403510 The more I want to get into a lengthy spiel on today's Dispensationalism or eschatological talk. Being pressed for time is now my good friend. You yourself-can present the easiest of answers to 'why', in what you just have said. Yes, In context, a proven explanation via a quick overview Of the very next Ch. XXI, it reads . .

 

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven & the 1st earth had passed Also, there was no more sea (burning up), Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming out of heaven -- from God, prepared as a bride adorned for-her husband ..And G-d shall wipe away every tear from their eyes and shall be no more death nor sorrow, nor cry- ing There shall be no more pain for the former things have passed away' Then He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold' I make all things 'new' And He said to (John) me, 'Write, for these words are true and faithful' And He said to me, 'It is done' I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I 'll give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes, to the end, shall inherit all things . .

I Cor. 15:53 - ..at the last and final trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality

 

The idea of having to give an accounting and

a 'Judgment' is found in most all of the Canonical

books.

Why I purposely stressed the words Last and

Final two are both in combination often times for

a good and aptly good reason. Check out where it is

 

all situated, in the flow of the text. Less untidy

 

You start to understand it wasnt the place to start,

 

now ? Flow: XX ; XI ; XXIII . .etc.

 

  Friend Smiling

¬ Dana

See :: Image:

 

Let's hear what the Spirit said to the Churches(Rev 2-3) Smiling

I know why you believe we shouldn't start with Revelation, but consider this:

how many questions are answered as to why things happen the way they do by understanding the intended ending?  


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:37pm #478
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:poor

caposkia wrote:
poor reference.  The word translated to "day" in genesis ~snip

It may have been a poor reference if I could not point to millions of christians who suggest it. But I can.
However that wasn't really my point.

caposkia wrote:
I see this problem with older and newer versions of microsoft Word.  stuff still comes out, but it's completely different.  In htis case it's compatibility issues... point and case though, if the processor that is supposed to descipher the information cannot decipher it correctly, it will come out different.

If you could put the Hobbit into one processor and A Game of Thrones would come out the other, you'd have a point. But that's not what happens. Fiddling with formatting will reveal the original work. Nothing you can do will generate a new story.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:37pm #479
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it's the

caposkia wrote:
it's the brain....   If you find this irrelevant to your life, why discuss it?

Because religious people persecute me and attempt to force their lies on me and society in general, making it relevant, if indirectly. If I could mind my own business and let people believe what they wanted I would. I'll note here that you're the one who came to an atheist site. I didn't come to you on a religious one. Or anyone else either.

caposkia wrote:
you simplified it to a simple transmitter/receiver.  not to a processor

Nope. Your brain is the processor. Your ears are the receivers. Vibration is the transmission. Every analogue is present and accounted for.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:37pm #480
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:ok, put

caposkia wrote:
ok, put electrodes on a dead brain and see what you can see.  Does it look conscious even if minimally?  

Did you know that hooking electrodes to Jello will give the same results as a conscious living person on an EEG scanner? Is Jello then conscious?

caposkia wrote:
If what you say is true, that explains a lot.  Though I do question that if what ~snip~ And when you don't know something or can't answer it completely accurately, just be up front about it.  

Just because something is true doesn't make it easy to explain or understand. Scientists and mathematicians did battle over the nature of the solar system for centuries before a few really smart people figured out equations that mostly explained observations. Equations that look like gibberish to me. Fortunately I have pictures and videos and well stated laymen interpretations to see how the solar system works.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:37pm #481
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:if you fully

caposkia wrote:

if you fully knew how the U.S. military 'tests' their people, you might have a different perspective.    

I was in the USMC, I am fully aware of how the military tests people. It has nothing on what God did to Job and is done for a specific utilitarian purpose not to stroke the ego's of the instructors. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Is it moral to test a persons ability to do the right thing in the heat of the moment when it really counts?  I say yes.  

Only if the person being tested consented to the test. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Scientists have come up with many valid approaches to test their theories about supernovas, dark matter and black holes. 

not in the way you're suggesting we test God.  I haven't heard of any scientists recreating any of it.

All I have asked for is evidence that suggests his existence. We have that for supernovas, dark matter and black holes. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well, let's put it this way... where does Hollywood get the idea that demons are dangerous?  Did they just make that up or are there sources?  

Hollywood makes up stuff all the time; it is in their job description. Even on stuff that is real Hollywood takes great liberties with reality. Do you really think that cars always explode when they crash?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think hanging and the electric chair are immoral too. Do you think stoning people is a good thing?

I believe in the time that stoning happened, it was the most appropriate approach to criminal consequences for particular crimes, however we've advanced way beyond that today and with the abilities we have, I feel it is more of a punishment to keep someone alive and have to suffer a sentencing vs. being killed.   

To answer you directly, today, no it is not a good thing.

Stoning isn't simply killing. It is killing in one of the most painful ways possible for the purpose of being vindictive. Even with their limited technology there were much faster and less painful ways to kill people. And we aren't talking about just "particular crimes" that were extraordinarily heinous, we are talking about things like adultry or disrespecting your parents. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Keep in mind that what you're questioning is an approach to crimes that many cultures with many different followings did... it was not just a jewish Law.  a lot of Gods disciplinary laws happen to be congruent with Laws that were already in place in other cultures.  

Funny that an omnipotent god would think of the same types of laws and punishments that were common among all the other barbaric cultures of the time. One would almost think that might be because the laws were written by men in similar conditions with similar superstitions. I would think that an omnipotent god could come up with better ideas than barbarians for his chosen people.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why couldn't an omnipotent god come up with better ways of dealing with people a few thousand years ago? 

He knew a few thousand years ago that would be the most effective approach.  It is what the people knew and what the people could deal with at the time.  They did not have the capability we do today to house criminals.

People only knew what he told them, which as you pointed out above was very similar to what other ancient cultures came up with that god didn't talk to. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

God gives us choices... we do have to pay consequences for those choices whether good or bad.

Choices of his own construction. 

???   He created things for good purposes.  e.g. we have hands that can create, build, plant, harvest, etc... yet these hands with those capabilities also have the ability to kill though they were not designed with that purpose.  People manipulate designs all the time to their benefit, how can you blame God?

I am not talking about the harm that people do. I am speaking specifically of God's decision to have a little judgement at the end of life and send some people to hell and other people to heaven for eternity based mostly on whether or not you believe in him and kiss his ass.

 

caposkia wrote:

sure... unless you're suggesting that everytime a police officer tells someone to stop or they'll shoot that they should never actually shoot them no matter what.

A police officer should never shoot unless given no other option to prevent loss of life. As humans, we are not omnipotent so we often face situations where we are limited in what we can do. If a police officer can subdue a suspect without firing their weapon they always should. Sometimes they can't so they are forced to choose a bad option. God is omnipotent, he has unlimited options. For the police officer analogy it is like the suspect being in a straight jacket and the police officer giving a warning and then killing the suspect, which I hope you would agree is not ok. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the infants deserved to die?

American soldiers have killed children in cross fire, did they deserve to die?  no, did the American soldiers or their parents put them in danger?

Again, American soldiers are not omnipotent and accidents happen. If a soldier ever kills an infant intentionally, the can and should be prosecuted for murder. If they do so through gross neglect they can and should face consequences. God is an omnipotent being who intentionally killed infants in a very painful and scary way. And yes, American soldiers put those kids in danger. Anytime you make a decision to go to war you put everyone in that country in danger. The parents sitting in their third world pisspot of a shack often had nothing to do with it and are just unfortunate to have been born in a country we decide to bomb.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Did the infants deserve to die?  no, did God or their parents put them in danger?  

God killed them intentionally, so obviously the being doing the killing is the one who put them in danger. Are parents who let their kids go watch the marathon in Boston responsible for the harm that came to their kids? Your logic is twisted in more knots than a pretzel you will do anything to portray your god as the paragon of all that is good.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Sometimes we really have to reflect on where the blame should be put.  

Yes, you really should. Are ignorant prehistoric men who didn't even know god existed (remember the flood killed "everyone in the world" except for Noah at a time when most cultures were not even exposed to monotheism) deserving of blame, or an omnipotent being capable of doing anything he wants with a snap of his finger that decided to cause a worldwide flood killing everything to blame? Doesn't even seem like a close race to me. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If what the Bible says is true, then all the parents of those infants had a choice to make.  They could save themselves and also their children and infants, or they could choose to continue what they were doing and put their whole family in danger.  God did what He promised.  Are those infants eternally dammed or are they with God living a better life than we are?

Put them in danger; you say that as if it was some unintelligent danger like putting a kid in front of a rock slide. We are not dealing with a danger that acts on its own accord, God is the danger. An apt comparison might be parents who let a murderer babysit their kids. Did they put the children in danger? Well yes, but does that absolve the murderer of all the blame for murdering the kids? No.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

here's a question i am curious as to how you'll answer... what is hell?  I dont' want to hear what you think i've been telling you, I want you to tell me what it is.  

You tell me it is your crazy ass belief. I have heard everything from Dante's Inferno to lakes of fire. The only thing Christians seem to agree on is that it is an extremely unpleasant and painful place. My bet is that if there really were a hell it would be actually quite nice full of intelligent fun people and Lucifer sits there and rolls his eyes at all the saps spending eternity licking God's feet.

I always though Heinlein did a rather nice rendition of Hell. 

http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is hardly a choice when you are forced by someone far more powerful than you to pick between two bad options. 

what are the 2 bad options in question?

Going to Hell or being separated from the people you love for eternity. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And NH hasn't executed anyone since 1939, imagine that. 

not true, there was recently a police officer killed in NH... I think it was last year or the year before... that person who shot him was sentenced to death. 

Who is still sitting on death row and probably will be for the rest of his natural life. Yet despite the only person on death row being there for shooting a police officer and the whole story being rather major throughout NH news sources, last week there were two incidents where police were shot at in NH. One police officer was killed and four wounded. 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2013/04/15/man-accused-shooting-police-officer/8olNuiNsOA702FNrNshYkI/story.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-12/new-hampshire-shooting-officer-killed/54238576/1

Good thing they have that death penalty for deterrence huh? If only they had 400+ people on death row like Florida has there would be no police shootings at all.  

 

caposkia wrote:

were they even souls?  Likely not, but again, you're still denying them an opportunity.  Who gave you the authority to decide?

I am told they do by Christians. Isn't that the whole basis to opposition against abortion? The same person who gives me authority to have sex and create the child in the first place. As a side note, I personally oppose abortion.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

does God make people choose to be separated from their loved ones or do their loved ones make the choice?  

He set up the system, so he is the one that makes us choose. Much like the IRS makes us choose whether to pay taxes or go to jail. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is your beliefs that create the cognitive dissonance. 

not at all, I believe I answered it strait.  You asked questions that contradicted each other.  If you knew what was going to happen, then you couldn't have messed up, if you knew what was going to happen and you did mess up then we question how one could have possibily messed up, if you didn't know what was going to happen yet didn't mess up, how do we know you didn't mess up?  They would have had to take a guess which could have been a screwup.   They have to be opposite answers to make sense.  That goes against the principle of non contradiction.

If you can't know whether or not your action is a screw up then it doesn't matter what you do. There is no moral answer so whether you allow the girl to die or you try to save her there can not rightfully be a moral judgement on the act. Seems to me that since the consequences of her going to hell for eternity are so dire that one ought to err on the side of letting her die, since at the very least in that case she will "go to a better place" even if God is mad at you for upsetting his plan. (as if a mere mortal could possibly upset an omnipotent beings plan any more than an ant can ruin my plans to get my hair cut)

 

caposkia wrote:

When a parent lets their child move out, they are essentially doing just that... so you're suggesting we hold parents responsible if they're still alive for their children's choices no matter how old

No. I am saying that when the parent comes along and decides to punish their child 60 years after the kid moves out that the parent is in the wrong. He sends us out to live on our own and then decides to punish us for not doing what he wants. Seems pretty messed up to me. I do a lot today that my parents never would have allowed under their roof. They don't punish me for it now and let me live my life my way. God says "Go live your life, don't expect anything from me" but then when you don't do things his way decides to punish you for eternity. Is that just? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

There are stories that the Nazis would force people in concentration camps to choose which child died. When the mother chooses one do you blame her for the death because she chose? Of course not. You blame the person who forced her to make that choice.

I dont' remember reading such a case with God

It was an analogy comparing the choice that the Nazi's forced to God forcing us to choose heaven or hell. 

 

caposkia wrote:

we don't know or understand the spiritual consequences for our actions, how can you say that?

Yet you automatically assume that the consequences are just and moral. Why? Just because a being is more powerful than us does not make it necessarily good. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The consequences he put in place are just like what law makers do.  Again, you're suggesting law makers and judges are evil if you're going to apply that to God.

I consider a great many lawmakers and judges to be evil. I daresay that the majority of people in history who have made laws were, if not evil, bad and selfish men. Those who derive their power through the use of force are bad even when their intentions are benevolent. Any lawmaker who would force beings to live under their laws against their will is evil. The day a lawmaking body in my country passes a law declaring they have jurisdiction over me regardless of where I attempt to go is the day I become a revolutionary.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:37pm #482
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm on an

caposkia wrote:
I'm on an atheist site talking to people about something that they claim doesn't exist... you're really concerned about me being too bored with it?  I am interested

I'll give you one, but I don't want to get sidetracked. A power cord in an enclosed construction site spasmed violently. Noone was near it. The only explanation I can think of was a power surge, but I don't know if that would explain it.

Kinda boring, yes? Sticking out tongue

caposkia wrote:
i think if people had that much of a grasp on ~snip~ it to a suffiient degree yet.

The difference being that 'outside', 'grass', and 'house' have clear definitions. Outside may refer to what isn't, but it has a contrasting term to indisputably clarify it. Physical doesn't clarify non-physical, it just raises questions as to what non-physical is. Especially since everything in the universe can be characterised as non-physical. Your atoms aren't glued together. All kinds of stuff is passing through you right now.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 6:49pm #483
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Though I

caposkia wrote:
Though I allowed for this God to work in my life if He was real... sure enough He did.

I tried, nothing happened.

caposkia wrote:
some might say it's rational to suggest that if God's real, he can make a pile of money appear in front of me.. Sure, but why would he?  Just to prove to you He's real?  That's not how He wants you to know Him.  It's also important to research what the followers of this God know of Him and how He works.  that way you'll know what to look for.  

And it is those very things which finally made me reject christianity as a possibility. If the christian god is real, then I'm ethically superior to him. I might not be anything like perfect. I've done many things I regret. But in the final analysis, I wouldn't create a universe and life which was inherently curious and evil only to murder innocent babies or condemn anyone to an eternity of anything, copping out of responsibility for everything I put in motion in the first place at the last second.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 19, 2013 - 10:39pm #484
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sigh. I tried to post that

Sigh. I tried to post that fast enough to not get split. But somehow Beyond got a post in during the half second between each of my posts. I didn't even notice until now. lol

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 2:58am #485
blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:"Just trying

caposkia wrote:

"Just trying to be clear." "you're sugg... oh I mean demanding" "ok then.  Rewrite our history books, let me know when you're done."

I don't believe you're honestly interested in a lot of what I have to say. I suppose I could just stop talking with you... At least for now, however, I think I'll merely

ignore the parts where you deliberately attempt to be irritating, and respond to the rest. Unless you really aren't interested in talking with me, of course.

 

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post by the end of today.

 


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 7:38pm #486
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: It may have

Vastet wrote:
It may have been a poor reference if I could not point to millions of christians who suggest it. But I can. However that wasn't really my point.

I can point to millions of non-believers who think it's ok to abuse and torture believers... does it make it right?  

I can find you a random group of 1000 Christians.  in that random group, I'm willing to bet I can find you at least 100 different interpretations of the book of Genesis in general.  Point and case, not everyone understands scripture.  Those who do have taken years to study it and will tell you they're still studying it.

I know your point, but with that example, your point was left unsupported

Vastet wrote:

If you could put the Hobbit into one processor and A Game of Thrones would come out the other, you'd have a point. But that's not what happens. Fiddling with formatting will reveal the original work. Nothing you can do will generate a new story.

So you're telling me that brain damage causes a person to literally become a whole new human being with new expertise and philosophy on life?  I find that hard to believe.

Maybe I should whack myself in the head and see if I can wake up with a Dr. degree.  

Sorry, I had to joke... what you're suggesting by saying putting one game into a processor and getting a whole new organized game out is to say just what I did above on a human scale.  

 


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 7:46pm #487
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Because

Vastet wrote:
Because religious people persecute me and attempt to force their lies on me and society in general, making it relevant, if indirectly. If I could mind my own business and let people believe what they wanted I would. I'll note here that you're the one who came to an atheist site. I didn't come to you on a religious one. Or anyone else either.

you're right, but i'm on here talking to people who find it relevant.  You didn't have to talk to me on this site, yet here you are.  

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that religious folk out there are persecuting you and forcing their faith on you.  That is if anything completely against Biblical teaching.  Jews and Christians have been persecuted throughout history.  They need to learn from our past that it's not the way we're supposed to be... better yet, they need to learn from the Bible... I'll tell you if they're doing what you say, they're not learning from the Bible.  

Just so we're clear, I never intended to force anything on you and I hope you don't feel i"m persecuting you in any way.  We can end our conversations at any time. 

Vastet wrote:

Nope. Your brain is the processor. Your ears are the receivers. Vibration is the transmission. Every analogue is present and accounted for.

What you say makes sense, but my ears don't give me consciousness.  Deaf people are still conscious.  Same with eyes, touch and taste.  They are all senses our brain processes, but none of them make me conscious because there are people in the world that lack each sense typically by itself.  Yes, touch and taste too.  


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 7:53pm #488
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Did you know

Vastet wrote:
Did you know that hooking electrodes to Jello will give the same results as a conscious living person on an EEG scanner? Is Jello then conscious?

Exactly!  I say no, but then how do we know what consciousness is if in fact we can mimic consciousness even in Jello? 

Vastet wrote:

 Just because something is true doesn't make it easy to explain or understand. Scientists and mathematicians did battle over the nature of the solar system for centuries before a few really smart people figured out equations that mostly explained observations. Equations that look like gibberish to me. Fortunately I have pictures and videos and well stated laymen interpretations to see how the solar system works.

I agree with you completely.  Same with the Bible, however, so many people have tried to come up with their own simple way of explaining it that the 'simplistic' idea has gotten completely lost.  It's basically like taking the understanding of a pre-schooler and asking them to explain the solar system to you, then going to a 5th grade teacher and asking them to explain it to you.  Many religious folk fall under the pre-schooler category.  


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:03pm #489
danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Caposkia Dana saying a fond Hello to you :)

caposkia wrote:

[URL= http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/ivebeenyourfriend.jpg/][ IMG]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1656/ivebeenyourfriend.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Mr.GladTOSEE_Me wrote:

. . answered as to why things happen the way they do by understanding the intended ending?

Know that secretly something is working behind the scene(s) in hitherto mysterious and organized efforts. To not allow texts and textual studies to be lazily forgotten about by me.

Good I can at least hope anyoone of us trying to burn the candle at both ends or even allowing a their personal desires to more pleasing to God to not get into this too often.
They can at least come and bring it up with people like myself. Good to know, I'd think. And, Questions often times raise other questions.

Ended up on a Tv Preacher's Tweets, Serendipitously makind a fortunate discovery of questions that expound on the point causing other questions to arise in my mind.

SEE :: Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

p.s. -- "Be still and k-n-o-w I am God" (I was just reminded of).


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:03pm #490
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I was in

Beyond Saving wrote:

I was in the USMC, I am fully aware of how the military tests people. It has nothing on what God did to Job and is done for a specific utilitarian purpose not to stroke the ego's of the instructors. 

It showed spirits and all generations to come what kind of faith it takes to be a follower of God.  Those who doubt know a true follower when their faith endures to the end.  I forget the guys name, but there was a murderer in history that persecuted and killed Christians.  He claimed; "I know when they are really a Christian, because they're the ones that will die before they deny it".  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Is it moral to test a persons ability to do the right thing in the heat of the moment when it really counts?  I say yes.  

Only if the person being tested consented to the test. 

All true followers have dedicated their lives to God and thus have consented to anything God brings their way, including tests.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

All I have asked for is evidence that suggests his existence. We have that for supernovas, dark matter and black holes. 

ok, so what would you suggest could be evidence of Gods existence then?  I've offered a few ideas that were not accepted...  An example of what your perspective is would be helpful

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

well, let's put it this way... where does Hollywood get the idea that demons are dangerous?  Did they just make that up or are there sources?  

Hollywood makes up stuff all the time; it is in their job description. Even on stuff that is real Hollywood takes great liberties with reality. Do you really think that cars always explode when they crash?

of course not, but they got that idea from the evidence that vehicles can explode.  There is some truth behind it.  Though it's in rare cases.  Considering demons, that is from history and mythology.  demons in any sense are rarely depicted as good and/or nice... there are exceptions in hollywood just as you pointed out.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Stoning isn't simply killing. It is killing in one of the most painful ways possible for the purpose of being vindictive. Even with their limited technology there were much faster and less painful ways to kill people. And we aren't talking about just "particular crimes" that were extraordinarily heinous, we are talking about things like adultry or disrespecting your parents. 

Which if you look into the culture and get an understanding of the times, those were serious things.  It'd be just as severe as burning an American flag at a soldiers funeral today. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Funny that an omnipotent god would think of the same types of laws and punishments that were common among all the other barbaric cultures of the time. One would almost think that might be because the laws were written by men in similar conditions with similar superstitions. I would think that an omnipotent god could come up with better ideas than barbarians for his chosen people.

but then again, you're not omnipotent, so of course you don't understand that reasoning.  Barbaric?  So it was in those times.  If you read through scripture, Though God imnplements His law into the land, God also in many cases is consistent and does not upset life as they know it so drastically that they run away screaming.  

Basically, God was also trying to put the severity of their actions into a perspective they'd understand.  E.g. Adultery to God is considered so severe it is worth a punishment as bad as those who kill others.  Why?  That takes some understanding of how it affects your spirit and an understanding that God created us for specific purposes.  Adultery would go against some of those specific purposes.  (family is important to God)  I'm sure you've got something for that one though  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

God gives us choices... we do have to pay consequences for those choices whether good or bad.

Choices of his own construction. 

???   He created things for good purposes.  e.g. we have hands that can create, build, plant, harvest, etc... yet these hands with those capabilities also have the ability to kill though they were not designed with that purpose.  People manipulate designs all the time to their benefit, how can you blame God?

I am not talking about the harm that people do. I am speaking specifically of God's decision to have a little judgement at the end of life and send some people to hell and other people to heaven for eternity based mostly on whether or not you believe in him and kiss his ass.

actually, if you read the Bible it is based on your actions and choices in life.  It has little to do with whether you believed in Him or not, it has to do with whether you broke the Law or not.  It would behoove anyone to believe and follow God.  It helps you better understand the Laws that govern us all.

Beyond Saving wrote:

A police officer should never shoot unless given no other option to prevent loss of life. As humans, we are not omnipotent so we often face situations where we are limited in what we can do. If a police officer can subdue a suspect without firing their weapon they always should. Sometimes they can't so they are forced to choose a bad option. God is omnipotent, he has unlimited options. For the police officer analogy it is like the suspect being in a straight jacket and the police officer giving a warning and then killing the suspect, which I hope you would agree is not ok. 

that's my point.  How can you decide that a choice God made was not for the better?  To kill one person may have been to save many others.  Part of that omnipotence is knowing what is going to happen before it does.  You're passing judgement on choices you haven't the slightest idea about.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the infants deserved to die?

American soldiers have killed children in cross fire, did they deserve to die?  no, did the American soldiers or their parents put them in danger?

Again, American soldiers are not omnipotent and accidents happen. If a soldier ever kills an infant intentionally, the can and should be prosecuted for murder. If they do so through gross neglect they can and should face consequences. God is an omnipotent being who intentionally killed infants in a very painful and scary way. And yes, American soldiers put those kids in danger. Anytime you make a decision to go to war you put everyone in that country in danger. The parents sitting in their third world pisspot of a shack often had nothing to do with it and are just unfortunate to have been born in a country we decide to bomb.  

Interesting perspective.  I know as a parent myself, I would be taking every means to keep my child far far away from the danger.  Granted it's not always in my power, but in such countries where American Soldiers have to come over, there's ample warning to walk to some far remote place in the woods that would likely not be fought in.  I would still blame the parents... or at least the community for allowing such terrible standards to happen in their town.  It's the adults who are around those children daily that are responsible for them.  I can't see putting blame on the soldiers for that.  If the soldiers didn't fight back, the soldiers would probably die.  Why would they die?  that government, community, group, whatever is putting them in danger.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

God killed them intentionally, so obviously the being doing the killing is the one who put them in danger. Are parents who let their kids go watch the marathon in Boston responsible for the harm that came to their kids? Your logic is twisted in more knots than a pretzel you will do anything to portray your god as the paragon of all that is good.

In the story of Noah, were the parents aware of the consequences of their actions long before it happened?  YES!!  In the Boston Marathon bombings, are you suggesting parents knew long before it happened that it was going to happen?  Or is this a completely different scenario where everyone was caught by surprise and also that it was no parent's action that caused their child to become maimed or killed.

The problem you're not seeing is that the parents chose the fate of their families.  They knew exactly what was going to happen... Noah didn't build his massive arc in a secret military bunker where no one could see it.  It was out in plain sight for everyone and everyone knew of the impending threat.  They all chose to ignore it instead of turning to God and repenting of their ways, even for the sake of saving their family if it wasn't for themselves.  

The scenario didn't happen, but i"m wiling to bet that if one person who had kids took the threat seriously, that family too would have been saved.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, you really should. Are ignorant prehistoric men who didn't even know god existed (remember the flood killed "everyone in the world" except for Noah at a time when most cultures were not even exposed to monotheism) deserving of blame, or an omnipotent being capable of doing anything he wants with a snap of his finger that decided to cause a worldwide flood killing everything to blame? Doesn't even seem like a close race to me. 

you dont' know much about history do you.  Lets' just say atheism wasn't a term back then.  Mono-and poly-theism was extremely common.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Put them in danger; you say that as if it was some unintelligent danger like putting a kid in front of a rock slide. We are not dealing with a danger that acts on its own accord, God is the danger. An apt comparison might be parents who let a murderer babysit their kids. Did they put the children in danger? Well yes, but does that absolve the murderer of all the blame for murdering the kids? No.

again, you're looking at it as murder, not judgement.  Put the same perspective on a parent who chooses a judge that has sentenced many people to death to watch their kids.  Are the parents in this case putting their children in danger?  

From this you're going to say something about how that judge doesn't sentence children to death, only those who murder or kill others, their families are left alone.  Sure, but that's the law we abide by now.  Again, looking in history, many times families did suffer human judgement for the actions of a family member.   Is that just in America in the 21st century?  No, we don't run things like that.  

We can nitpick all we want about how just it was or not, but when it comes down to it, the parents knew what was going to happen and yet did nothing to change it.  

You also are missing the point that these people were the worst of the worst.  think of all the worst possible thigns people could do in teh world and these people were living it out day in and day out.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

here's a question i am curious as to how you'll answer... what is hell?  I dont' want to hear what you think i've been telling you, I want you to tell me what it is.  

You tell me it is your crazy ass belief. I have heard everything from Dante's Inferno to lakes of fire. The only thing Christians seem to agree on is that it is an extremely unpleasant and painful place. My bet is that if there really were a hell it would be actually quite nice full of intelligent fun people and Lucifer sits there and rolls his eyes at all the saps spending eternity licking God's feet.

I always though Heinlein did a rather nice rendition of Hell. 

http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509 

in other words, all this flack about sending people to hell and you haven't a clue.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Going to Hell or being separated from the people you love for eternity. 

YOU aren't choosing to be separated from people you love, those people you love would be choosing to be separated from you and God.  It takes selflessness to choose to be with others.  I see what you're saying, but you can't make taht your choice, that's theirs.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Who is still sitting on death row and probably will be for the rest of his natural life. Yet despite the only person on death row being there for shooting a police officer and the whole story being rather major throughout NH news sources, last week there were two incidents where police were shot at in NH. One police officer was killed and four wounded. 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2013/04/15/man-accused-shooting-police-officer/8olNuiNsOA702FNrNshYkI/story.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-12/new-hampshire-shooting-officer-killed/54238576/1

Good thing they have that death penalty for deterrence huh? If only they had 400+ people on death row like Florida has there would be no police shootings at all.  

...cause that's how it works.

I think you're seeing how your case doesn't hold water though

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am told they do by Christians. Isn't that the whole basis to opposition against abortion? The same person who gives me authority to have sex and create the child in the first place. As a side note, I personally oppose abortion.

I figured, but thanks for making it clear.

The point is one making a choice you have no right to make.  Who gives anyone the authority to decide whether first of all a soul is saved, but second of all shouldn't live life for the very possibility of not making it?  that's like saying kill the baby because he might not turn out normal.

Beyond Saving wrote:

He set up the system, so he is the one that makes us choose. Much like the IRS makes us choose whether to pay taxes or go to jail. 

But you have a choice... you also have a choice to bring those who are alive to the understanding you have.  They then have to make a choice.  the IRS is black and white, there are many more choice factors involved in eternal salvation.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you can't know whether or not your action is a screw up then it doesn't matter what you do. There is no moral answer so whether you allow the girl to die or you try to save her there can not rightfully be a moral judgement on the act. Seems to me that since the consequences of her going to hell for eternity are so dire that one ought to err on the side of letting her die, since at the very least in that case she will "go to a better place" even if God is mad at you for upsetting his plan. (as if a mere mortal could possibly upset an omnipotent beings plan any more than an ant can ruin my plans to get my hair cut)

Her blood would be on your hands.  let's put it this way, woudl you still let her die due to the possibility that she might end up in hell understanding that you'd be held responsible in front of God for her death?  Which in turn could mean you would go to hell for that mere choice?  What if then you found out she was old enough and you not only condemned yourself to hell, but her as well because she didn't have a chance to repent of her ways?  

Your'e getting into spiritual politics a little too deep my friend.  You're suggesting to make choices you haven't the ability to make.  This is where faith and trust comes in.  A believer knows that God wants all to be saved... and if what you say is true, that she was going to end up condemning her self to hell, then God may not have had anyone there to save her just so that she could be with Him instead of eternally separated.  

Interesting.  You have opened up a good explanation as to why God might allow children to die.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No. I am saying that when the parent comes along and decides to punish their child 60 years after the kid moves out that the parent is in the wrong. He sends us out to live on our own and then decides to punish us for not doing what he wants. Seems pretty messed up to me. I do a lot today that my parents never would have allowed under their roof. They don't punish me for it now and let me live my life my way. God says "Go live your life, don't expect anything from me" but then when you don't do things his way decides to punish you for eternity. Is that just? 

Actually considering that we live eternally after death, Earth then would be like living at home under your parents roof would it not?  

I also don't remember reading that quote you claim God said in the bible... do you have a reference for that?

Beyond Saving wrote:

It was an analogy comparing the choice that the Nazi's forced to God forcing us to choose heaven or hell. 

I don't think you understand heaven or hell at all.  Hell is the runaway on the street, hungry and cold.  Heaven is home, where your parents can care for you and give you everything you need.  

In essence, as a child, your parents are making you choose the street or their house.  Unlike parents however, God knows we're more capable than children and allows us to make a choice by showing us both options.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you automatically assume that the consequences are just and moral. Why? Just because a being is more powerful than us does not make it necessarily good. 

your'e right, especially considering Satan is more powerful than us.  I believe what I do because just like any child with good parents, I trust that God is making the best choices and consequences for my life.  I know Him and know He only wants the best for me.  Part of why I know that is because he cares enough to tell us what the consequences are for our actions.  God could have just left us in the dark and then in the end said; "surprise, you're going to hell!"  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I consider a great many lawmakers and judges to be evil. I daresay that the majority of people in history who have made laws were, if not evil, bad and selfish men. Those who derive their power through the use of force are bad even when their intentions are benevolent. Any lawmaker who would force beings to live under their laws against their will is evil. The day a lawmaking body in my country passes a law declaring they have jurisdiction over me regardless of where I attempt to go is the day I become a revolutionary.  

 

against their will huh?  This is the choice I have been trying to tell you the whole time.  People choose hell, people choose God.  People don't have to follow God or His laws, Hell is separation from God, if you can't or don't want to follow His laws, tehn you don't want to be with God.  It's not like humanistic laws where they're put in place for malicious reasons.  They're there for our best interest.  You may not see it that way, but they are.  They're also put in place to humble us and show us that we are not capable of works based faith.  You can't "earn' your way to heaven.  It is given to you as a gift.  


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:08pm #491
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'll give you

Vastet wrote:
I'll give you one, but I don't want to get sidetracked. A power cord in an enclosed construction site spasmed violently. Noone was near it. The only explanation I can think of was a power surge, but I don't know if that would explain it. Kinda boring, yes? Sticking out tongue

not at all.  I see what you're saying... we don't need to tangent either.  obviously that stuck with you for some reason though

Vastet wrote:

The difference being that 'outside', 'grass', and 'house' have clear definitions. Outside may refer to what isn't, but it has a contrasting term to indisputably clarify it. Physical doesn't clarify non-physical, it just raises questions as to what non-physical is. Especially since everything in the universe can be characterised as non-physical. Your atoms aren't glued together. All kinds of stuff is passing through you right now.

but they can be harnessed by physical means.  That woudl still make them physical.  Due to the speeds at which they move, I know there has been question, but I don't doubt their physicality.  I only doubt our understanding as to what the extent of physicality is.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:13pm #492
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Though I allowed for this God to work in my life if He was real... sure enough He did.
I tried, nothing happened.

you're absolutely sure that absolutely nothing happened?  or was it that nothing that you expected to happen happened?

Vastet wrote:

 And it is those very things which finally made me reject christianity as a possibility. If the christian god is real, then I'm ethically superior to him. I might not be anything like perfect. I've done many things I regret. But in the final analysis, I wouldn't create a universe and life which was inherently curious and evil only to murder innocent babies or condemn anyone to an eternity of anything, copping out of responsibility for everything I put in motion in the first place at the last second.

That's not what He did...  all you see is innocent babies dying and bad choices made by people but are Gods fault because He built a universe that allowed the possibility.  God made everything exactly the way it needed to be.  We as humans made choices that changed that.  Consider the Butterfly Effect.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:17pm #493
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

"Just trying to be clear." "you're sugg... oh I mean demanding" "ok then.  Rewrite our history books, let me know when you're done."

I don't believe you're honestly interested in a lot of what I have to say. I suppose I could just stop talking with you... At least for now, however, I think I'll merely

ignore the parts where you deliberately attempt to be irritating, and respond to the rest. Unless you really aren't interested in talking with me, of course.

 

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post by the end of today.

 

I am honestly interested in what you have to say, but you're starting to not make sense.  You demand, why?  it's not going your way? I don't understand that part.  Sorry for my sarcasm, but I was trying to make a point as to how drastic of a demand you were trying to make.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 9:21pm #494
caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:caposkia

danatemporary wrote:
caposkia wrote:

[URL= http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/ivebeenyourfriend.jpg/][ IMG]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1656/ivebeenyourfriend.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Mr.GladTOSEE_Me wrote:

. . answered as to why things happen the way they do by understanding the intended ending?

Know that secretly something is working behind the scene(s) in hitherto mysterious and organized efforts. To not allow texts and textual studies to be lazily forgotten about by me. Good I can at least hope anyoone of us trying to burn the candle at both ends or even allowing a their personal desires to more pleasing to God to not get into this too often. They can at least come and bring it up with people like myself. Good to know, I'd think. And, Questions often times raise other questions. Ended up on a Tv Preacher's Tweets, Serendipitously makind a fortunate discovery of questions that expound on the point causing other questions to arise in my mind. SEE :: Image Uploaded with ImageShack.us

p.s. -- "Be still and k-n-o-w I am God" (I was just reminded of).

Those are awesome quotes.  Very true.  Thank you.  


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:26pm #495
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I can point

caposkia wrote:
I can point to millions of non-believers who think it's ok to abuse and torture believers... does it make it right?

It doesn't make it anything, and it in no way compares to a distortion of fact.

caposkia wrote:
I can find you a random group of 1000 Christians.  in that random group, I'm willing to bet I can find you at least 100 different interpretations of the book of Genesis in general.  Point and case, not everyone understands scripture.  Those who do have taken years to study it and will tell you they're still studying it.

Scripture is entirely interpretable. What is fact and what is metaphor is up to the one interpreting. Even if the entire creationist movement was wiped out today, it would arise again within a hundred years because someone had a different interpretation and spread it. You don't have a leg to stand on to support your interpretation over someone elses, because there's no evidence for either.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:26pm #496
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So you're

caposkia wrote:
So you're telling me that brain damage causes a person to literally become a whole new human being with new expertise and philosophy on life?  I find that hard to believe.

The person won't gain new expertise or knowledge, but traits which had previously been overshadowed or controlled may become dominant. Focus, values, and personality can or will change. If you take the wheels off a car, it isn't technically a vehicle anymore. It becomes a metal box. Useful, but not something to travel in. A car is only a vehicle as long as all the necessary parts are present and working. And you are only you as long as all the parts that make you are present and working.

caposkia wrote:
Sorry, I had to joke... what you're suggesting by saying putting one game into a processor and getting a whole new organized game out is to say just what I did above on a human scale.

And yet that's precisely how you define this mysterious transmission between souls and brains.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:27pm #497
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Just so we're

caposkia wrote:
Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that religious folk out there are persecuting you and forcing their faith on you.  That is if anything completely against Biblical teaching.  Jews and Christians have been persecuted throughout history.  They need to learn from our past that it's not the way we're supposed to be... better yet, they need to learn from the Bible... I'll tell you if they're doing what you say, they're not learning from the Bible.

I can guarantee you that 99% of all the atheists on the planet wouldn't give a rats ass about any religion if they didn't do things like trying to teach it in public schools and make laws supporting them and there weren't religious violent conflicts all over the place. I have had theist friends (from all 3 abrahamic faiths) who probably never even knew I was an atheist. They'd be shocked to see what I'd have to say if they ever tried to force a discussion.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:28pm #498
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Just so we're

caposkia wrote:
Just so we're clear, ~snip~ We can end our conversations at any time.

We're having a discussion, one of the more adult ones to be found too I might add. No persecution here. You've never even condemned me to hell! lol
But one of my earliest memories is of being in school. The majority of the memory is vague. I think it was some arts and crafts thing. Before grade 4, but I don't know exactly when. Some lady who may have been a teacher or a sub or an assistant, who knows. Wanted everyone to draw or write or something a power greater than themselves. Now I'd never once been to church. All I knew of christianity came from 80's kids tv shows, and not religious ones. I didn't have the slightest clue what she was talking about. The question literally made no sense. So when I predictably failed to come up with an answer, she exploded. Fury and rage and yelling. She probably scared me off any interest in religion for years. She only left me alone after...

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:29pm #499
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...she said nature was an

...she said nature was an acceptable answer and I jumped on it desperately. I'd refused to answer god because I never lied without a good reason. Never saw a point to it until that day. But I was too young and too stunned at the whole thing for lying to come to mind at the time.

caposkia wrote:
What you say makes sense, but my ears don't give me consciousness.  Deaf people are still conscious.  Same with eyes, touch and taste.  They are all senses our brain processes, but none of them make me conscious because there are people in the world that lack each sense typically by itself.  Yes, touch and taste too.  

True, but I never suggested the senses were part of your consciousness. Your brain is doing double duty as the processor and the consciousness. The unconscious or subconscious does all the translating and delivers the information to your conscious. You don't feel vibrations and consciously translate them into sounds.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: April 20, 2013 - 10:49pm #500
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: obviously

caposkia wrote:
 obviously that stuck with you for some reason though

I tend to remember things that don't make sense. I like things to make sense, so when they don't I remember them for future reference. I have a hypothesis, but the event is still unexplained in my eyes.

caposkia wrote:
but they can be harnessed by physical means.  That woudl still make them physical.  Due to the speeds at which they move, I know there has been question, but I don't doubt their physicality.  I only doubt our understanding as to what the extent of physicality is.

You may find it absolutely fascinating to learn what we do know. I certainly did. It changed the way I look at things a bit.
At any rate, there is something infamous in science more analogous to a god. Dark matter. It has never been seen, but it's the only explanation we have for the mass of the universe and the reason galaxies don't spin according to our understanding of physics. Dark energy, even more elusive, is the theoretical force explaining

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


« first‹ previous…67891011121314…next ›last »