Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14637)

antix 07-03-2008 09:58 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503816)
That's the typical reply. Except, you really do know it's the Lord. The excuses run the gamut, but are primarily focused on what people don't want to give up or fear they'll have to change. Also, and one of the ones I used often was, "I just don't like church, church people, or church music". Before I was saved, I hated the whole concept of church.

I do know it's the Lord? So any voices in your head are not a manifestation of your own subconscious, but they must come from the Lord? So then the lord really did tell Andrea Yates to kill her children. The lord really did tell Dena Schlosser to cut off her babies arms then.

You are truly as dispicable as this God-concept whose shit you love to eat.

zer0 07-03-2008 10:17 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503834)
This is just an extreme version of thinking that aliens would travel all the way across the galaxy just to probe your anus and flatten some wheat.

L O L

Well said.

Irreligious 07-03-2008 10:44 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503844)
I could really care less what you believe about me, Mog. I'm not trying to impress you; win or earn your confidence. I proclaim God. Point to the Lord.

But, of course you're trying your damnedest to impress us. And I have no doubt that you are hoping to win the confidence of somebody here, and it probably doesn't matter which body it is. Your motives are pretty transparent. You want validation.

But your reach most certainly exceeds your grasp. You have not earned the validation you seek here. Not by a long shot.

So, you are here to proclaim your God. Well, you've done that-- in practically every post. You've pointed to this alleged entity and attempted to lord it over us with laughably vain threats. And, improbably, you have lectured us on this allegedly immaterial thing's motivations in stunning detail. Yet, the consenus here remains: You are a deluded loon.

Honestly, I don't think it's going to get any better than that.

So, now what?

Choobus 07-03-2008 10:48 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503838)
You know, I thought we could talk to this guy at some level, but he's got to be the most arrogant Christian we've come across on this forum. I think he's afraid that if he allows any amount of self-doubt seep in, all his beliefs will be lost.. I think he's that insecure.

Bloody cyborgs....

Choobus 07-03-2008 10:50 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503844)
I could really care less what you believe about me, Mog. I'm not trying to impress you; win or earn your confidence. I proclaim God. Point to the Lord.



here the missionary reveals the extent of his stupidity and inability to comprehend basic language, unless this is some sort of admission. (I think he meant to say that he couldn't care less, but he's a fucking idiot so it's hard to tell).

DrunkMonkey 07-03-2008 10:53 PM

Missionary says:
"Everyone hears a voice in their head and they know it is god. Those that claim they don't hear the voice are just trying to deny it because they don't want it to be real.
-----
Of course I have a personal relationship with the voice.
-----
No, I'm not crazy. Why do you ask?"

antix 07-03-2008 11:03 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503859)
So, now what?

Well, we do have the upcoming coronation of the newest Shitlord. I'm pretty confident that Miss has what it takes to officially take home the honor.

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 01:11 AM

Quote:

DrunkMonkey wrote (Post 503862)
Missionary says:
"Everyone hears a voice in their head and they know it is god. Those that claim they don't hear the voice are just trying to deny it because they don't want it to be real.
-----
Of course I have a personal relationship with the voice.
-----
No, I'm not crazy. Why do you ask?"

:lol:

And the thing he doesn't understand is that anyone who isn't already mentally damaged is simply going to look at what he's saying and laugh. He's driving more people away from Jebus with every word by confirming every expectation that people like him are completely deluded, science-hating, scripture-babbling wackaloons :D

Riddler 07-04-2008 03:35 AM

(unashamed bump...)

Quote:

Re 'why did God create two sexes?', Missionary wrote http://ravingatheists.com/forum/imag...s/viewpost.gif
Adam and Eve? Real simple. Unity of oneness. Together a man and wife become one whole person, procreate, thus they complete their purpose to illustrate the image of God.
Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503585)
So when, for example, Mrs & Mrs Platypus procreate in exactly the same way, what are they illustrating?

Missionary, I can understand why you would want to prioritise rebuttals to all the slander and shouting, but please would you attend to this question at your earliest convenience? I'm sure you'll agree it's pertinent to your topic, and I think it would help us to establish what the difference is between "It's God's plan" and "I don't know; that's just the way it is."

Thanks in anticipation. :)

(btw: What do you mean by 'unity of oneness'? That seems like a meaningless tautology to me.)

Missionary 07-04-2008 06:15 AM

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503889)
(unashamed bump...)

Missionary, I can understand why you would want to prioritise rebuttals to all the slander and shouting, but please would you attend to this question at your earliest convenience? I'm sure you'll agree it's pertinent to your topic, and I think it would help us to establish what the difference is between "It's God's plan" and "I don't know; that's just the way it is."

Thanks in anticipation. :)

(btw: What do you mean by 'unity of oneness'? That seems like a meaningless tautology to me.)

Seriously...I thought you guys knew the bible so you could reject it with knowledge, logic, and reason? Y'all don't seem to even understand the first 3 chapters. I seriously doubt you've read them much less any of the rest.

You asked about Adam and Eve. Gen 2:24-cleave; one flesh

See: Mal.2:14-16; Matt.19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12 for further reference which illustrates the following:

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Cor.6:17

AND

Ephesians 4:3-6 (KJV)
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Oneness in unity.


The platypus wasn't created in God's image nor given dominion over the earth. The platypus does not marry, have a relationship with God, or face moral dilemma. The platypus does not sin or need forgiveness, atonement, or salvation.

Come to think of it, this applies to the worm and ant as well. I best include as a disclaimer, all of the animal kingdom, lest you be asking about kangaroos or sea urchins next.

Barney 07-04-2008 06:21 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503816)
That's the typical reply. Except, you really do know it's the Lord. .

Did you use ringback? Whats his number? What does his voice sound like? Gravelly like Hitchins or more Donald Duck?

zer0 07-04-2008 07:01 AM

Whoa guys, he broke out the scripture.... he's won this round. He's used the most definitive source for all things true. He's got the Lawd on his side...

Missionary 07-04-2008 07:07 AM

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 503855)
I do know it's the Lord? So any voices in your head are not a manifestation of your own subconscious, but they must come from the Lord? So then the lord really did tell Andrea Yates to kill her children. The lord really did tell Dena Schlosser to cut off her babies arms then.

You are truly as dispicable as this God-concept whose shit you love to eat.

I know you have the ability to be rational because I've seen it. That you would allow yourself to spiral down into this type of sarcastic deductive reasoning, emotional outburst, and childish name calling is beneath you.

The real question to self-analyze is; why such bitter anger? What is the real source of this hate and contempt? It's far more than just disagreement or indifference. It's not a simple matter of non-belief. You don't have these same emotions for people who believe in luck or astrology. You don't identify yourself as an a-destinyist.

Rationally you can't attribute faith or belief to delusion without explaining to yourself the long history of universities, world leaders, scientists, educators, and great people who have all worshiped God. You just can't reasonably maintain a self-justified explanation of mental illness to account for the facts. You're only deluding yourself really. The world believes in a god of some sort. Whether they connect with the God of all creation is another matter entirely.

But the fact is, if you want to face the real facts, that your non-belief is shared by such a small number of people on the planet and throughout all of history that you need to come up with a logical explanation for your peculiar estrangement from the common thought of mankind.

I'm suggesting to you that it's not an intelligence or knowledge issue, but it's an emotional one as evidenced by the high level of negative emotions and correlating behaviors commonly displayed by raving atheists.

zer0 07-04-2008 07:12 AM

Missionary, only about 2B of the 6B on the planet are Christian. It's much more likely that you're wrong in choosing the God you choose to felate on a daily basis.

Smellyoldgit 07-04-2008 07:24 AM

Better felate than never.

Mog 07-04-2008 07:30 AM

Quote:

Rationally you can't attribute faith or belief to delusion without explaining to yourself the long history of universities, world leaders, scientists, educators, and great people who have all worshiped God.
For most of the history of civilization, god really was the most rational solution out there, or at least he seemed to be. Yeah, there were a few guys like Epicurus, but the fact remains, that until we had the theory of evolution, which offered an explanation for the complexity of life-forms, there didn't seem to be a strong plausible explanation.

Quote:

You just can't reasonably maintain a self-justified explanation of mental illness to account for the facts. You're only deluding yourself really.
Actually, only a subset of believers experience god as strong as you apparently do. Most only have a vague feeling that they ascribe to god, but that vague feeling could be anything.

Quote:

The world believes in a god of some sort. Whether they connect with the God of all creation is another matter entirely.
Quote:

But the fact is, if you want to face the real facts, that your non-belief is shared by such a small number of people on the planet and throughout all of history that you need to come up with a logical explanation for your peculiar estrangement from the common thought of mankind.
Have you seen any studies about how pervasive the effects of authority can corrupt human thinking? Most people believe in god because their family believed in it. And if you've spent your entire adult life believing in something, you find it very difficult to let go. As I pointed out when you actually seemed more reasonable, this isn't a strictly religious phenomenon. It occurs with politics, scientific theories, and superstition. Normally this isn't a bad thing. Certain new ideas should be met with resistance so it can be properly tested. In the case of religion though, it is interfering with science.

In any case, the most logical opinion should be to be agnostic about god, should it not? I don't know if you've been paying attention, but I do allow for the possibility that a god exists, but I also feel that the personal Christian god is unrealistic and impossible. You choose not to hold the most logical opinion, therefore I have to conclude you are not entirely logical.

Quote:

I'm suggesting to you that it's not an intelligence or knowledge issue, but it's an emotional one as evidenced by the high level of negative emotions and correlating behaviors commonly displayed by raving atheists.
You could suggest it, but it appears that you are also investing unneeded emotion in this. You've demonstrated no evidence that you are willing to analyze the possibility of your being deluded.

Missionary 07-04-2008 07:30 AM

As I said, the world believes in a god of some sort. Their connection to the Creator is a different issue.

I should separate the pertinent quote as atheists are often paragraph challenged.

"Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism"

"actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population"

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...l#Nonreligious

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)."

So, as I stated atheists need to come up with a reasonable explanation and supply evidence as to why such a small number of people throughout all of history express non-belief in contrast to a world that expresses belief.

To claim mental illness for the entire world except for atheists is not plausible and actually exposes a logical fallacy on the atheists behalf.

In other words, delusion is not reasonable or rational...it's raving atheist rhetoric.

Mog 07-04-2008 07:37 AM

Quote:

To claim mental illness for the entire world except for atheists is not plausible and actually exposes a logical fallacy on the atheists behalf.
Is it? If the mental illness is beneficial to people, theres no reason not for it to spread. It seems that religion does create a sense of unity among people that have the same type, something us atheists don't really share. It inspires a false sense of purpose, which can rally people into action. There are benefits that society has from religious people, even though religion is most likely a delusion. The fact is that as strange as it seems, some flaws in human nature are beneficial to our kind as a whole. So delusion may not be rational, but its not always detrimental and is sometimes even beneficial.

Lily 07-04-2008 07:39 AM

Defining a flaw as a benefit is not only irrational but, assuredly, detrimental to the one who believes such a thing.

crest 07-04-2008 07:44 AM

I'm suprised at the low figures quoted for Judaism, to be honest.

To defend a religion because somebody else is doing it suggests perhaps you're following the dogma for the wrong reasons. Why should it make any blind bit of difference to anyone what everyone elses beliefs are?

Atheism is a stance based on your own belief, your own judgement and your own conclusions. Religious traditions, practices and systems impose boundaries onto you. Why should the Bible or Qu'ran be held to the letter by the fundamentalists? I have marginally more respect for people who believe in something by giving their own reasons - not because a dusty old tome or 2 billion other people say so.

Mog 07-04-2008 07:45 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503927)
Defining a flaw as a benefit is not only irrational but, assuredly, detrimental to the one who believes such a thing.

Nope, its just an example of the sometimes paradoxical nature of our reality that things like that can happen, though maybe I should say "as a part" rather than "a whole". I think a lot of the benefits of religion that I mention become detrimental when it applies to an entire world as opposed to a nation.

Lily 07-04-2008 07:59 AM

Yeah, yeah. Good is evil, black is white.

A paradox is not illogical. Your use of the word flaw is not a paradox. It is illogical.

Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about the meaning of the word:

II. A breach, broken or faulty place.

4. A crack, breach, fissure, rent, rift.

1626 BACON Sylva §79 Though the Vessell were whole, without any Flaw. ... fig. 1606 SHAKES. Ant. & Cl. III. xii. 34 Obserue how Anthony becomes his flaw. 1615 WITHER Sheph. Hunt iii. Juvenilia (1633)

5. A defect, imperfection, fault, blemish. a. in material things.

1604 DEKKER Honest Wh. x. Giija, I warrant they are sound pistols, and without flawes. a1680 BUTLER Rem. (1759) I. 391 Thou hast a Crack, Flaw, soft Place in thy Skull. ... 1713 STEELE Guardian No. 16 5 The smallest blemish in it, like a flaw in a jewel, takes off the whole value of it. ...

c. esp. In a legal document or procedure, a pedigree, title, etc.: An invalidating defect or fault.

... 1883 SIR T. MARTIN Ld. Lyndhurst iv. 116 The evidence [was] clear, and a flaw in the indictment was the only chance of escape.

Oh well. As long as I am at it, lets see what the OED says about "paradox":

1. a. A statement or tenet contrary to received opinion or belief, esp. one that is difficult to believe. Obs. [obsolete] ...

1890 Illustr. London News 26 Apr. 535/3 A paradox is a proposition really or apparently contradictory to a commonly received idea... It is, as its name indicates, a conceit contrary to opinion, but not..contrary to reason. A position contrary to reason is a paralogism.

b. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect. Obs. rare.

1678 E. PHILLIPS New World of Words (ed. 4), Paradox..In Rhetorick, it is something which is cast in by the by, contrary to the opinion or expectation of the Auditor, and is otherwise called Hypomone.

2. a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.

Mog 07-04-2008 08:03 AM

I'm tempted to place a cow picture on and just leave it up. I've realized that you are just being a troll. Its like attacking me for misspelling a word earlier. Its irrelevant.

Congratulations, you managed to get me to put you on my ignore list, before you put me on your ignore list.

Seriously, all I'm saying is that some aspects can be beneficial in some cases but can be seriously detrimental in other cases.

Lily 07-04-2008 08:08 AM

Don't ignore me until you read the definition of paradox which I added to the definition of flaw.

Mog 07-04-2008 08:10 AM

I don't know what you said, but I'll take you off my ignore list if you promise to keep your nitpicking tendencies to yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, this is along the lines of your accusing Irreligious of being a racist, when she only accused you of being liberal-intolerant.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 08:17 AM

Even if a good portion of the world purportedly believes in "some sort of God," none can objectively produce such a thing. "Some sort of a God" is awfully vague, by the way. That could be a magical man in the sky, an all-encompassing nothingness embracing the universe or any number of poorly thought-out concepts. It could literally be anything that the human imagination can conceive, and it doesn't even have to make logical sense.

Lily 07-04-2008 08:20 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503935)
I don't know what you said, but I'll take you off my ignore list if you promise to keep your nitpicking tendencies to yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, this is along the lines of your accusing Irreligious of being a racist, when she only accused you of being liberal-intolerant.

Put me back on ignore. Anyone who doesn't know, nearly two years after he joined, that Irreligious is a man can't be taken seriously. He? She?

I know it is nit-picking but I pick nits. It is what nit-pickers do. Assuming that nits are factual statements and pickers are people who think we need to get our facts straight before drawing conclusions.

Lily 07-04-2008 08:34 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503937)
Even if a good portion of the world purportedly believes in "some sort of God," none can objectively produce such a thing. "Some sort of a God" is awfully vague, by the way. That could be a magical man in the sky, an all-encompassing nothingness embracing the universe or any number of poorly thought-out concepts. It could literally be anything that the human imagination can conceive, and it doesn't even have to make logical sense.

Yes, it does have to make logical sense. I know that you are not one much for logic and philosophy, but, as I have told you and as have philosophers, historians and all serious thinkers, the supernatural is an inference and not an a priori assumption. It can be inferred by various lines of argument.

If the universe had a beginning, it had to have been caused. I can hear the usual "so what caused God?" This is a faulty line of reasoning since there must have been some uncaused cause, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible or nothing would exist. We know that the universe itself was not uncaused, since it had a beginning. Only something with no beginning can be uncaused. Traditionally the uncaused cause is God. Now that is light years from Christianity but let's start with baby steps, first.

Now Choobus tells me that big bang does not mean the universe had a beginning. If it didn't, then cosmological arguments may not be as persuasive as they are now (in my opinion). But they are not the only game in town.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 08:42 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503927)
Defining a flaw as a benefit is not only irrational but, assuredly, detrimental to the one who believes such a thing.

A flaw is subjective, Ms. Subterfuge.

Humans do tend to believe in things that are not in evidence when they think it benefits them. Arguably, sometimes it does benefit them and, possibly others.

If your beliefs in the alleged supernatural are all that is keeping you from mowing down a few innocents on the street, then it at least has that benefit. But, that still doesn't make it any less of a delusion if your beliefs lack any grounding in concrete reality.

I know you hate this analogy, but very young children believe in Santa Claus, which they see as beneficial because it nets them gifts. It's a benign belief when properly contained, much like the belief in an amorphous "god who cares." However, the more specific and passionate one becomes about one's beliefs in things that cannot be objectively demonstrated, the more problematic it becomes: Crusades, witch burnings and honor killings are at the extreme end of such irrationality. At that point, it's no longer a benefit to anyone except, perhaps, the perpetrators of these oppressions. The flaw then becomes a great deal more obvious.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 08:51 AM

Lily, I really don't want to argue with you about things that neither of us is in a position to know. Neither you, nor I, nor any of the hundreds of philosophers or Biblical scholars you can point me to knows with any certainty anything about the alleged origins of the universe. That much is fact. All you're in a position to do is to give me conjecture. And your guess about such things is as good as mine.

Missionary 07-04-2008 08:53 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503926)
Is it? If the mental illness is beneficial to people, theres no reason not for it to spread. It seems that religion does create a sense of unity among people that have the same type, something us atheists don't really share. It inspires a false sense of purpose, which can rally people into action. There are benefits that society has from religious people, even though religion is most likely a delusion. The fact is that as strange as it seems, some flaws in human nature are beneficial to our kind as a whole. So delusion may not be rational, but its not always detrimental and is sometimes even beneficial.

By your logic then, atheists are the weak link in the gene pool. haha.

Lily 07-04-2008 08:54 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503941)
A flaw is subjective, Ms. Subterfuge.

Uh, no, it isn't.

Quote:

I know you hate this analogy, but very young children believe in Santa Claus, which they see as beneficial because it nets them gifts. It's a benign belief when properly contained, much like the belief in an amorphous "god who cares." ...
No, I don't hate it. I hold it in contempt. It is not worthy of a thinking human being.

Philboid Studge 07-04-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503940)
If the universe had a beginning, it had to have been caused. I can hear the usual "so what caused God?" This is a faulty line of reasoning since there must have been some uncaused cause, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible or nothing would exist. We know that the universe itself was not uncaused, since it had a beginning. Only something with no beginning can be uncaused. Traditionally the uncaused cause is God. Now that is light years from Christianity but let's start with baby steps, first.

By this line of reasoning, God is unique among causes in that It does not require a cause. Why is It exempt? Can you explain it without the blatant question-buggering, bolded above? (NB: I'm not asking, "so what caused God?") It might be possible to avoid special pleading here, but you haven't done so.

That's only part of the problem with this argument. There are other flaws in it as well.

Sorry to kill the baby before it could take its first steps, but that's what atheists do.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 09:00 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503945)
Uh, no, it isn't.

Um, yes it is in the context that Mog was using the term.



Quote:

Lily wrote
No, I don't hate it. I hold it in contempt. It is not worthy of a thinking human being.

Of course, you do. But, so what?

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 09:03 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503940)
We know that the universe itself was not uncaused, since it had a beginning. Only something with no beginning can be uncaused. Traditionally the uncaused cause is God. Now that is light years from Christianity but let's start with baby steps, first.

Now Choobus tells me that big bang does not mean the universe had a beginning. If it didn't, then cosmological arguments may not be as persuasive as they are now (in my opinion). But they are not the only game in town.

AFAIK we certainly don't know the universe was not uncaused. The Big Bang timeline only goes back so far, beyond that we simply don't know. If it did have a cause, it certainly doesn't follow that God caused it - it may have been the result of a collapse of a previous universe, just one in an infinite series of Big Crunches & Bangs, or the result of multi-dimensional branes colliding, or one of who knows how many other theories. I believe there are all sorts of strange theories attempting to explain how something could indeed come from nothing, not that I could tell you anything about them. Or it may be something we'll never figure out.

The point is we don't know. What I do know is if God can be uncaused, so could the universe.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 09:09 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503939)
... Anyone who doesn't know, nearly two years after he joined, that Irreligious is a man can't be taken seriously. He? She?

:lol:

Aww, cut him some slack, Lily. I'll forgive Mog for thinking I was female. I've been here nearly two years, myself, and I can't claim to know the genders of all the posters here, either.

Mog 07-04-2008 09:12 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503944)
By your logic then, atheists are the weak link in the gene pool. haha.

I can't argue with that, actually, but I would say that with globalization, religion no longer has the advantage it did, and I would have to say that with the increasing knowledge of science among the world's population, the non-religious are making strong gains. (I know you don't want to consider science the providence of the non-religious, but the fact remains that scientists as a whole are more likely to be less religious than the general population.)

Our society is changing, you know. What was beneficial in one instance may be merely neutral or even detrimental in others. Its often occurs in evolution that positive traits often cause their own obsolescence. In this case, religion has created something of a global society and this makes the conflicts between different religions more of a problem.

Mog 07-04-2008 09:15 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503952)
:lol:

Aww, cut him some slack, Lily. I'll forgive Mog for thinking I was female. I've been here nearly two years, myself, and I can't claim to know the genders of all the posters here, either.

Come to think of it, I often referred to you as a he.. Lets face it, with a gender neutral name, you can't really tell. If we can adapt the gender neutral "e" or such, maybe we'd be safe but for now....

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:16 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503937)
Even if a good portion of the world purportedly believes in "some sort of God," none can objectively produce such a thing. "Some sort of a God" is awfully vague, by the way. That could be a magical man in the sky, an all-encompassing nothingness embracing the universe or any number of poorly thought-out concepts. It could literally be anything that the human imagination can conceive, and it doesn't even have to make logical sense.

It's evidence of a phenomenon that science can't explain away with evidence and secular social sciences can only guess at.

Mog 07-04-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503948)
AFAIK we certainly don't know the universe was not uncaused. The Big Bang timeline only goes back so far, beyond that we simply don't know. If it did have a cause, it certainly doesn't follow that God caused it - it may have been the result of a collapse of a previous universe, just one in an infinite series of Big Crunches & Bangs, or the result of multi-dimensional branes colliding, or one of who knows how many other theories. I believe there are all sorts of strange theories attempting to explain how something could indeed come from nothing, not that I could tell you anything about them. Or it may be something we'll never figure out.

The point is we don't know. What I do know is if God can be uncaused, so could the universe.

What the hell? Didn't Lily already do this same argument a week ago? Did only the people who she had on her ignore list answer this or something?

Mog 07-04-2008 09:18 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503960)
It's evidence of a phenomenon that science can't explain away with evidence and secular social sciences can only guess at.

Its a phenomenon that religion does an even poorer job explaining.

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 09:20 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503960)
It's evidence of a phenomenon that science can't explain away with evidence and secular social sciences can only guess at.

Not really. Evolutionarily speaking it's pretty easy to see how belief in a deity may have arisen and how it was beneficial. It's all about seeing agency and intention in perfectly natural events. Thus arises superstition which evolves into religion. Daniel Dennett has written extensively about it and calls for more scientific investigation into religion in his book Breaking The Spell. Hopefully that will happen.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:21 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503964)
Its a phenomenon that religion does an even poorer job explaining.

The only thing religion explains are religious people.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 09:29 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503960)
It's evidence of a phenomenon that science can't explain away with evidence and secular social sciences can only guess at.

I don't think science is bothering to explain away all the various religions of the world. What would be the point of that?

However, you are aware that there are some dedicated individuals out there investigating the phenomenon of religious belief, aren't you?

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:30 AM

This is an interesting post...

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503948)
The Big Bang timeline only goes back so far, beyond that we simply don't know. If it did have a cause, it certainly doesn't follow that God caused it -

This has been ruled out how exactly? You may reply, "lack of evidence", but then you posit the following...

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503948)
it may have been the result of a collapse of a previous universe, just one in an infinite series of Big Crunches & Bangs, or the result of multi-dimensional branes colliding, or one of who knows how many other theories. I believe there are all sorts of strange theories attempting to explain how something could indeed come from nothing,

Hypothetical theories? How can you rationally embrace certain specific unknowns while rejecting other unknowns? Can you logically support such a behavior without considering prejudice, predisposition, or bias?

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503948)
not that I could tell you anything about them. Or it may be something we'll never figure out.

The point is we don't know. What I do know is if God can be uncaused, so could the universe.

So you admit that you don't know, you claim to require evidence, and embrace hypothetical speculation and conjecture??

That can ONLY make sense if bias is introduced.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:32 AM

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...s9/Franker.jpg

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 09:35 AM

Mish you are such an embarrassing tool. How is it possible to interpret my post in any other way than WE DON'T KNOW?

I don't know. You don't know. WE DON'T KNOW.

You need to learn how to read fucking English.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:36 AM

sometimes an image is the only way to get through to his rotting syphilitic "brain"

Lily 07-04-2008 09:39 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503948)
AFAIK we certainly don't know the universe was not uncaused. The Big Bang timeline only goes back so far, beyond that we simply don't know. If it did have a cause, it certainly doesn't follow that God caused it - it may have been the result of a collapse of a previous universe, just one in an infinite series of Big Crunches & Bangs, or the result of multi-dimensional branes colliding, or one of who knows how many other theories. I believe there are all sorts of strange theories attempting to explain how something could indeed come from nothing, not that I could tell you anything about them. Or it may be something we'll never figure out.

The point is we don't know. What I do know is if God can be uncaused, so could the universe.

SSJ: Don't make me laugh! Multiverses and all that nonsense are elaborate fairy-tales to get around the worry that there really might be God at the beginning of it all. Now, as I think is obvious but I did not state it in so many words, God is a postulate. There must, logically, be an uncaused cause. An infinite regress of causes cannot explain the existence of anything.

I came across a really interesting quote from Hawking recently. He said (I am trusting my source that he really said this): “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”

This is a peculiar mistake of scientists (some of them) to think that if they can describe something with a mathematical equation, they’ve explained it. Hawking at least realizes this is not the case, nor even the right way to approach the question. Atheists simply say you can explain it all without any need for God but, of course, they haven't and can't. Long experience here suggests that at bottom the idea of God is so repugnant, that 40 angels polishing your test tubes and telescopes would not occasion anything other than the response: "we’ll keep trying, thanks very much".

Even I can't do anything more!

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:39 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503975)
I don't think science is bothering to explain away all the various religions of the world. What would be the point of that?

The point is materialism.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."


Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503975)
However, you are aware that there are some dedicated individuals out there investigating the phenomenon of religious belief, aren't you?

Only for the purpose of assigning a scientific reason or explanation so as to explain away God. Once a definition can be agreed upon, atheists will cry with glee as they point to some news article.

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 09:45 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503982)
SSJ: Don't make me laugh! Multiverses and all that nonsense are elaborate fairy-tales to get around the worry that there really might be God at the beginning of it all.

Now you sound like Missionary. That's an insult btw.

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503982)
There must, logically, be an uncaused cause. An infinite regress of causes cannot explain the existence of anything.

Explain to me why the universe itself can't be the uncaused cause.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:45 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503982)

This is a peculiar mistake of scientists (some of them) to think that if they can describe something with a mathematical equation, they’ve explained it.

Similarly, theists often make the mistake of conflating their own belief system with whatever it is that is missing from such a scientific approach (and make no mistake, most scientists understand that this is so). Yes, there are unanswered questions in science, possibly even unanswerable ones, but this in no way leads to man made fictions like Islam, scientology or Jesus . They (theists) think that if something is not understood, they've explained it (with god).

Irreligious 07-04-2008 09:45 AM

And, Missionary, for all of your blather, you have not established in any concrete way the existence of a creator God. Let us not forget that. You've assumed it, asserted and imposed it on the natural world. You haven't even coherently defined it. It is an utterly elusive thing that you're peddling here. It is inconcrete. It belongs entirely to the realm of faith, which is internal. Its alleged external existence cannot be objectively supported. That's why you're spinning your wheels here.

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:47 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503980)
Mish you are such an embarrassing tool. How is it possible to interpret my post in any other way than WE DON'T KNOW?

I don't know. You don't know. WE DON'T KNOW.

You need to learn how to read fucking English.

Correct. You, we, they don't know the mechanism, principles, particles, forces involved. Therefore you ascribe weight to SOME explanations and contempt for others depending upon what exactly?

Identify the criteria by which you accept or reject statements and determine plausibility.

I'm suggesting, that of you're honest with yourself, you will admit a prejudice and bias against a Creator for no other reason than you don't want to even consider what He may want or require of you since you would obviously have been created by Him.

Lily 07-04-2008 09:48 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503988)
Similarly, theists often make the mistake of conflating their own belief system with whatever it is that is missing from such a scientific approach (and make no mistake, most scientists understand that this is so). Yes, these are unanswered questions in science, possibly even unanswerable ones, but this in no way leads to man made fictions like Islam, scientology or Jesus . They (theists) think that if something is not understood, they've explained it (with god).

Nope. You are wrong. :o

I don't need no stinkin' God of the gaps arguments to ground my beliefs. I have been dropping logical pearls all over the forum today. I leave it to you to refute them. I am already exhausted. (ADT has already started...)

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:50 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503989)
And, Missionary, for all of your blather, you have not established in any concrete way the existence of a creator God. Let us not forget that. You've assumed it, asserted and imposed it on the natural world. You haven't even coherently defined it. It is an utterly elusive thing that you're peddling here. It is inconcrete. It belongs entirely to the realm of faith, which is internal. Its alleged external existence cannot be objectively supported. That's why you're spinning your wheels here.

And again I repeat myself....

God has produced the evidence Himself AND made it known within you that He exists. You choose to dismiss and deny the evidence.

I do not present evidence. I point to it.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:52 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503991)
Nope. You are wrong. :o

oh well, if you put it like that then you must be right.....

How does a cosmological argument for the existence of god end up with jesus? These are two separate belief systems and you can try to bridge that gap however you like, but it's still there.

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:53 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503991)
Nope. You are wrong. :o

I don't need no stinkin' God of the gaps arguments to ground my beliefs. I have been dropping logical pearls all over the forum today. I leave it to you to refute them. I am already exhausted. (ADT has already started...)

No kidding...

The only Gap argument is "The Scientist of the Gaps" who fills the unknown with "Amazing Stories of the Scientifically Fantastical!"

It's nothing more than putty, glue, and duct tape.

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:53 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503992)
And again I repeat myself....

you do don't you shitface? Have you considered fucking off? Go on, fuck off. Do it for jesus. Fuck off for jesus nutsack, he wants you to fuck off.

Single Serving Jack 07-04-2008 09:54 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503990)
I'm suggesting, that of you're honest with yourself, you will admit a prejudice and bias against a Creator for no other reason than you don't want to even consider what He may want or require of you since you would obviously have been created by Him.

Damn straight I have a prejudice and a bias against your fictitious 'Creator' character but it certainly isn't for that reason - it's because he's a total fucking asshole. He certainly hit pretty close to the mark when he made you in his image.

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:56 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503996)
you do don't you shitface? Have you considered fucking off? Go on, fuck off. Do it for jesus. Fuck off for jesus nutsack, he wants you to fuck off.

Oh my...a meltdown. I've never seen one of these on an atheist forum. :lol:

Is that even rational?

Mog 07-04-2008 09:56 AM

How is pointing to evidence different from presenting it anyway? This is as silly as his "I'm not religious" argument.

Fact: it isn't evidence if it doesn't show evidence of a godly origin.

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:57 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503997)
Damn straight I have a prejudice and a bias against your fictitious 'Creator' character but it certainly isn't for that reason - it's because he's a total fucking asshole. He certainly hit pretty close to the mark when he made you in his image.

Woah...the first barbarian is through the gate. Here they come en masse!

Choobus 07-04-2008 09:58 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503998)
Oh my...a meltdown. I've never seen one of these on an atheist forum. :lol:

Is that even rational?

more rational than your zombie fantasy, cumchugger

Mog 07-04-2008 09:59 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503998)
Oh my...a meltdown. I've never seen one of these on an atheist forum. :lol:

Is that even rational?

Nope, but you've demonstrated that you are too thick-headed for rational discourse to work, so why not take a different approach?

No, I don't think this approach would work either, but you can't blame us for trying at this point.

Missionary 07-04-2008 09:59 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503999)
How is pointing to evidence different from presenting it anyway? This is as silly as his "I'm not religious" argument.

Fact: it isn't evidence if it doesn't show evidence of a godly origin.

The evidence in part is creation itself which you claim is explained by scientific theories as to origin. I point to the evidence God has provided and you explain it away.

Lily 07-04-2008 10:00 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503993)
oh well, if you put it like that then you must be right.....

How does a cosmological argument for the existence of god end up with jesus? These are two separate belief systems and you can try to bridge that gap however you like, but it's still there.

That is an excellent question! The two things are still light years apart, as you rightly say. So you aren't entirely wrong after all.

Mog 07-04-2008 10:01 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 504003)
The evidence in part is creation itself which you claim is explained by scientific theories as to origin. I point to the evidence God has provided and you explain it away.

If it was really evidence I wouldn't be able to explain it away. Ergo, its not really evidence. OK, let me clarify it. Its insufficient evidence.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 10:02 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503983)
The point is materialism.

Dude, science is not investigating any of your religious claims. How could it? What would be the first step in trying to investigate the alleged existence of something that is ill-defined and entirely subjective?

Quote:

Missionary wrote
Only for the purpose of assigning a scientific reason or explanation so as to explain away God. Once a definition can be agreed upon, atheists will cry with glee as they point to some news article.

More like so they can understand why you and other religious people think the way you do. It's doubtful anyone will explain away your delusions to your satisfaction. Again, it's an internal process, so that is entirely under your control. That is, based on whatever compels you to believe as you do.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 10:22 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503992)
And again I repeat myself....

Endlessly. But we all do around here. It's the nature of the beast.

Quote:

Missionary wrote
God has produced the evidence Himself AND made it known within you that He exists.

Obviously, that is false. I wouldn't be arguing with you if that were demonstrably true.

Quote:

Missionary wrote
You choose to dismiss and deny the evidence.

I don't really have much choice if what you're pointing to as evidence is clearly not evidence of what you claim. If it's subpar bullshit, of course I'm going to dismiss it. Isn't that the same tack you take when you find the evidence lacking?

Quote:

Missionary wrote
I do not present evidence. I point to it.

What's the difference between presenting evidence and pointing to it, by the way?

If you had any evidence-- from wherever it is supposed to be coming-- I'd see it. But you haven't any. You're pointing at air.

And, if the evidence you claim exists, wouldn't that make faith superfluous?

antix 07-04-2008 10:25 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503921)
I know you have the ability to be rational because I've seen it. That you would allow yourself to spiral down into this type of sarcastic deductive reasoning, emotional outburst, and childish name calling is beneath you.

I enjoy all sorts of communication styles, and try to employ every tool that language has to offer. That includes rational discussion with a sincere interest in trying to learn something new all the way to sarcastic mockery and "junior high level" humor. The "that is beneath you" argument is simply an excuse by the easily offended to dismiss disenting opinions.

Quote:

The real question to self-analyze is; why such bitter anger? What is the real source of this hate and contempt? It's far more than just disagreement or indifference. It's not a simple matter of non-belief. You don't have these same emotions for people who believe in luck or astrology. You don't identify yourself as an a-destinyist.
I'm not full of bitterness and anger. But there are things in the world that cause me to feel such emotions on occassion. (as could be said of any human) And believe me, I have plenty of sarcastic mockery for astrologers, psychics etc... The reason I don't identify as an a-astrologist or a-anything else is because I rarely encounter such things, and I've never seen politicians attempt to push policies based on the position of Saturn with relation to Mars and the Earth.

Quote:

Rationally you can't attribute faith or belief to delusion without explaining to yourself the long history of universities, world leaders, scientists, educators, and great people who have all worshiped God. You just can't reasonably maintain a self-justified explanation of mental illness to account for the facts. You're only deluding yourself really. The world believes in a god of some sort. Whether they connect with the God of all creation is another matter entirely.
Reguardless of who believes in god and reguardless of what era they lived, it does not make belief in God 100% certain. A long time ago, "God" was the best/only explenation people had to explain things they had no knowledge of. such as the sun rising and and setting, precipitation and natural disasters.

Once belief begins and is taught to the young, it usually remains intact through adulthood (especially at a time where dissenting opinions were few and far between). Fast forward to the present and you have a lot of religious people. And I'll even say that a lot of them will be highly intelligent. Not the least bit surprising. That means there will be a market for studying religions in great detail. That means universities will have entire departments dedicated to such study.

Quote:

But the fact is, if you want to face the real facts, that your non-belief is shared by such a small number of people on the planet and throughout all of history that you need to come up with a logical explanation for your peculiar estrangement from the common thought of mankind.
Do you people never get tired of argumentum ad populum? It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

Quote:

I'm suggesting to you that it's not an intelligence or knowledge issue, but it's an emotional one as evidenced by the high level of negative emotions and correlating behaviors commonly displayed by raving atheists.
Reasons for lack of belief vary individually. Emotion often plays its part, but I know of no one where emotion is the only factor.

DrunkMonkey 07-04-2008 10:31 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503992)
And again I repeat myself....

God has produced the evidence Himself AND made it known within you that He exists. You choose to dismiss and deny the evidence.

I do not present evidence. I point to it.

Once again,

"YOU HEAR VOICES! I KNOW YOU DO BECAUSE I HEAR THEM! IF YOU SAY YOU DON"T HEAR THEM YOU ARE JUST A LIAR! THE VOICES ARE THE EVIDENCE!"

How often do people tell you that you are batshit crazy? I would have to conclude that it happens several times a day.

Choobus 07-04-2008 10:33 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504004)
The two things are still light years apart, as you rightly say. So you aren't entirely wrong after all.

To my mind one of the main differences between these two areas is that one of them might actually be worth thinking about, while the other clearly is not.

Choobus 07-04-2008 10:34 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 504007)
Dude, science is not investigating any of your religious claims. How could it?

A Brain scan?

a different tim 07-04-2008 10:40 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 503991)
I have been dropping logical pearls all over the forum today...... I am already exhausted. (ADT has already started...)

Now you're just making us sound dirty.

Choobus 07-04-2008 10:43 AM

It would seem that "dropping logical pearls" is very similar to "dropping the kids off at the pool"......

Irreligious 07-04-2008 10:45 AM

Quote:

a different tim wrote (Post 504023)
Now you're just making us sound dirty.

:lol:

Lily 07-04-2008 12:55 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 504019)
Quote:

lily wrote
The two things [God as the uncaused cause and Christianity] are still light years apart, as you rightly say. So you aren't entirely wrong after all.

To my mind one of the main differences between these two areas is that one of them might actually be worth thinking about, while the other clearly is not.

??? How so? There is a certain body of evidence for Christianity, which unlike any other religion grounds its belief in an historical event. This body of evidence can be argued, poked, prodded and discussed. The fact that there are unbelievers out there is suggestive that the evidence won't convince everyone. The presence of believers suggest that it does convince some.


ADT-- You have revealed to me my purpose in life. I was put on this earth to be your straight man (woman)! :P

Choobus 07-04-2008 01:01 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504049)
??? How so? There is a certain body of evidence for Christianity, which unlike any other religion grounds its belief in an historical event. This body of evidence can be argued, poked, prodded and discussed. The fact that there are unbelievers out there is suggestive that the evidence won't convince everyone. The presence of believers suggest that it does convince some.

This is an impossible conversation. All I can say is that this inspires me:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...laxy_sun05.jpg\


whereas this seems like a joke to me

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...us9/pope-1.jpg

Lily 07-04-2008 01:03 PM

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 01:03 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503995)
The only Gap argument is "The Scientist of the Gaps" who fills the unknown with "Amazing Stories of the Scientifically Fantastical!"

This is a massive amount of projection on your part. Science does not tell stories. That's what religion does: Adam & Eve & the talking snake; Noah rescuing the world's animal population from the alleged great flood; the dead zombie walking, etc.

You are such a mass of contradictions. You claim to have no qualms with science, but all you do is attempt to attack its credibility. Get this straight: Science is not some kind of anti-religion. It ignores it completely. That's the most honest thing it can do where your wild assertions about the known world and the unverifiable realms you alleged (heaven, hell and places where gods turn into men, die and wake up three days later) are concerned.

If you should ever find yourself in need of medical assistance, it is likely that science will save you, not some silent creator in the sky. I don't suspect you are the type who will just lie there and pray when your arthritis kicks in or your heart troubles start. You are going to visit a scientifically trained physician to heal you or at least offer you relief from your physical distress. Why would you do that if you think of scientists as little more than yarn spinners?

Lily 07-04-2008 01:05 PM

double post-- sorry

Irreligious 07-04-2008 01:14 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504049)
??? How so? There is a certain body of evidence for Christianity, which unlike any other religion grounds its belief in an historical event. This body of evidence can be argued, poked, prodded and discussed. The fact that there are unbelievers out there is suggestive that the evidence won't convince everyone. The presence of believers suggest that it does convince some.

Unless you have indulged the same amount of energy "investigating" the claims of Muslims, B'hai's and Scientologists (among the many other faiths out there) you cannot make this claim honestly.


At least Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh and L. Ron Hubbard are actual historical figures (mad as they may have been), but no one-- outside of Christians-- acknowledges the uncontested assertions of a historical Jesus.

Choobus 07-04-2008 01:40 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504052)
The two things are not mutually exclusive.

The same could be said if I swapped the pope for L Ron Hubbard or Mohamed or some other loser. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, just seemingly disparate.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 01:41 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504049)
ADT-- You have revealed to me my purpose in life. I was put on this earth to be your straight man (woman)! :P

Oooh! ADT, you lil' charmer, you. It's almost magical how you bring out this coquettish side of Lily.

Props, dude.

Lily 07-04-2008 01:47 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 504057)
Unless you have indulged the same amount of energy "investigating" the claims of Muslims, B'hai's and Scientologists (among the many other faiths out there) you cannot make this claim honestly.


At least Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh and L. Ron Hubbard are actual historical figures (mad as they may have been), but no one-- outside of Christians-- acknowledges the uncontested assertions of a historical Jesus.

You haven't framed your assertions correctly. Jesus, Muhammad and Hubbard are all real, historical figures. Nobody (in the know) disputes that. However, Muhammad's claims rest on private revelation. Ron Hubbard's are weird but can easily be examined and a reasonable conclusion drawn. I have no idea who or what Bahá'u'lláh is but unless it/he did what ever he did to prove his claim to be God in front of hundreds of witnesses, some of whom documented it within the living memory of many hundreds of other witnesses, I will feel free to discount them and examine the claims of Christ. If they are found persuasive, he is who he says he is and no other religion needs to examined.

Lily 07-04-2008 02:05 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 504064)
Oooh! ADT, you lil' charmer, you. It's almost magical how you bring out this coquettish side of Lily.

Props, dude.

I am not sure coquettish is the word I would use to describe the side of me he brings out ...


http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z...dancingcow.gif

VladTheImpaler 07-04-2008 02:05 PM

What contemporary historical works reference the life of Jesus, outside the Bible?

I’m amazed an historian actually thinks Jesus was a real person.

Lily 07-04-2008 02:18 PM

Quote:

VladTheImpaler wrote (Post 504068)
What contemporary historical works reference the life of Jesus, outside the Bible?

I’m amazed an historian actually thinks Jesus was a real person.

They all do. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions, somewhere on the planet. No one takes them seriously, who doesn't have a stake in disbelief. That is why plenty of historians who are not believers have no problem with the existence of Jesus. They just don't accept his claim to be God. The two things, historical existence and claim to be God, are not the same thing.

If by contemporary historical works, you mean contemporary with the events documented in the New Testament, you have framed your question incorrectly. The books of the New Testament are primary historical documents. No historian disputes that. As I wrote recently, they were written by different people at different times and in different places. They all testify to the same thing.

Once you have examined the documents which have come to be know as the "New Testament" and understand what the evidence is, you might want to see how much external corroboration there is. There is a fair amount. It corroborates, it does not make the case, I don't think, on its own.

Riddler 07-04-2008 02:35 PM

Quote:

Further to 'Why did God make two sexes?', Riddler wrote
Missionary, I can understand why you would want to prioritise rebuttals to all the slander and shouting, but please would you attend to this question at your earliest convenience? I'm sure you'll agree it's pertinent to your topic, and I think it would help us to establish what the difference is between "It's God's plan" and "I don't know; that's just the way it is." . . .

(btw: What do you mean by 'unity of oneness'? That seems like a meaningless tautology to me.)

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503908)
Seriously...I thought you guys knew the bible so you could reject it with knowledge, logic, and reason? Y'all don't seem to even understand the first 3 chapters. I seriously doubt you've read them much less any of the rest.

No, tbh, I don't know the Bible chapter & verse. But then I haven't made a Mission out of turning whole swathes of people either for or against it. Did you read and digest the Buddhist sutras in their entirety before you set about hawking your Biblical stuff to the Chinese?

Quote:

You asked about Adam and Eve. Gen 2:24-cleave; one flesh

See: Mal.2:14-16; Matt.19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12 for further reference which illustrates the following:

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Cor.6:17

AND

Ephesians 4:3-6 (KJV)
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Oneness in unity.
All I'm seeing is a few disjointed pulled biblical phrases with variations on the word 'one' in them. I'm no wiser for it. Oneness is not 'in' unity: oneness 'is' unity. What does all this have to do with God's purpose for making two sexes?


Quote:

The platypus wasn't created in God's image nor given dominion over the earth. The platypus does not marry, have a relationship with God, or face moral dilemma. The platypus does not sin or need forgiveness, atonement, or salvation.

Come to think of it, this applies to the worm and ant as well. I best include as a disclaimer, all of the animal kingdom, lest you be asking about kangaroos or sea urchins next.
You've picked up your unsupported assertion and, instead of explaning it, have added a whole load more. I asked you to explain, 'Together a man and wife become one whole person, procreate, thus they complete their purpose to illustrate the image of God'.

Platypusses, and most of the more advanced animals as you note, live and procreate as two sexes. But you now say animals don't have the purpose of illustrating the image of God. So sexual procreation is irrelevant to that supposed purpose, isn't it?

Barney 07-04-2008 02:40 PM

The constant inclusion of theist scientists as a prop for creation and God is something, as Dawkins says, that really the theists ought to be quiet about.

The 19th century scientists were either working pre-darwin and hadnt access to the facts or were living in a age where you simply had to be a theist or face real punishment and ostrication.

Several studies including 1300+ of the royal fellows of science showed 9% as being theist.Other studies by theists showed a list of six nobel prize winning beliver-scientists. Six out of several hundred. 2% at the most by their own research.

These are not figures to proclaim. This is stuff to be embarressed about. People of reason and measurement dont beleive in the magic man.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504066)
You haven't framed your assertions correctly. Jesus, Muhammad and Hubbard are all real, historical figures. Nobody (in the know) disputes that. However, Muhammad's claims rest on private revelation. Ron Hubbard's are weird but can easily be examined and a reasonable conclusion drawn. I have no idea who or what Bahá'u'lláh is but unless it/he did what ever he did to prove his claim to be God in front of hundreds of witnesses, some of whom documented it within the living memory of many hundreds of other witnesses, I will feel free to discount them and examine the claims of Christ. If they are found persuasive, he is who he says he is and no other religion needs to examined.

Yeah, yeah. Hundreds of witnesses, each one documented with birth certificate, Social Security number and testimonial by those four historians of the gospels. They said Jesus is real, dammit!

Fine.

So, you're not even open to investigating Bahá'u'lláh's claims? You don't know him, never heard of him and that's that? How can you be sure that they ought be so easily dismissed?

VladTheImpaler 07-04-2008 02:57 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504069)
They all do. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions, somewhere on the planet. No one takes them seriously, who doesn't have a stake in disbelief. That is why plenty of historians who are not believers have no problem with the existence of Jesus. They just don't accept his claim to be God. The two things, historical existence and claim to be God, are not the same thing.


I’m rather sceptical of this claim of yours that most historians accept that Jesus was a real person.

Of course, even if he in fact existed it doesn’t mean any of the jibberish in the Bible is true. I don’t have any problem accepting that such a person existed if there’s conclusive evidence to support it.

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504069)
If by contemporary historical works, you mean contemporary with the events documented in the New Testament, you have framed your question incorrectly. The books of the New Testament are primary historical documents. No historian disputes that. As I wrote recently, they were written by different people at different times and in different places. They all testify to the same thing.


The books of the New Testament are primarily historical documents? They all testify to the existence of Jesus? What historical events does the New Testament (or otherwise) describe? As far as I know the New Testament clearly delivers a message and is not in any way a objective historical reference. Wth?

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504069)
Once you have examined the documents which have come to be know as the "New Testament" and understand what the evidence is, you might want to see how much external corroboration there is. There is a fair amount. It corroborates, it does not make the case, I don't think, on its own.


You’re trying to back up the evidence of Jesus proclaimed existence in the New Testament by asking me to study… the collection of documents known as the New Testament? You’re referring me to study the New Testament and in the same sentence reference external corroboration? What gives?

Why don’t I just go study the various Harry Potter books for evidence that Harry Potter is real?

VladTheImpaler 07-04-2008 02:59 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504069)
They all do. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions, somewhere on the planet. No one takes them seriously, who doesn't have a stake in disbelief. That is why plenty of historians who are not believers have no problem with the existence of Jesus. They just don't accept his claim to be God. The two things, historical existence and claim to be God, are not the same thing.

Have you seen this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73048178434620

Lily 07-04-2008 03:04 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 504077)
Yeah, yeah. Hundreds of witnesses, each one documented with birth certificate, Social Security number and testimonial by those four historians of the gospels. They said Jesus is real, dammit!

Fine.

So, you're not even open to investigating Bahá'u'lláh's claims? You don't know him, never heard of him and that's that? How can you be sure that they ought be so easily dismissed?

Again. If the evidence is persuasive that Jesus is who he said he is, he is God and all further discussion is merely an interesting diversion.

Lily 07-04-2008 03:16 PM

Quote:

I’m rather sceptical of this claim of yours that most historians accept that Jesus was a real person.
That's nice, dear.

Quote:

Of course, even if he in fact existed it doesn’t mean any of the jibberish in the Bible is true. I don’t have any problem accepting that such a person existed if there’s conclusive evidence to support it.
I think I just said that! (Only in a more scholarly way.)

Quote:

The books of the New Testament are primarily historical documents? They all testify to the existence of Jesus? What historical events does the New Testament (or otherwise) describe? As far as I know the New Testament clearly delivers a message and is not in any way a objective historical reference. Wth?
It is not a reference book! Reference books tell you what scholars have concluded (tentatively or firmly) about the subject under discussion. They, in turn, come to their conclusions by studying the primary sources (in our case the New Testament documents), applying to them the same criteria they apply to any document, in order to tease out what it can tell us about its subject. Of course the Bible refers to historical events and any number of people we know from other sources. It documents the first 30 or so years of the church and its spread throughout the Greco-Roman world of the first century.

Quote:

You’re trying to back up the evidence of Jesus proclaimed existence in the New Testament by asking me to study… the collection of documents known as the New Testament? You’re referring me to study the New Testament and in the same sentence reference external corroboration? What gives?
No, you can't get very far on your own. You can't read the original languages, you don't know the culture or history of the region, you don't know the history of the era, etc. We are forced to rely on the testimony of those who do know these things and have argued them endlessly in what ADT once memorably called "stupefyingly dull" journals, until some sort of consensu is reached.

Quote:

Why don’t I just go study the various Harry Potter books for evidence that Harry Potter is real?
Excellent idea! Please report back on your findings.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 03:43 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504082)
Again. If the evidence is persuasive that Jesus is who he said he is, he is God and all further discussion is merely an interesting diversion.

Fine.

But the vast majority of us here say it's shit on a shingle and shoot it down in one shot.

I can appreciate that you don't like that very much, but it's nothing less than what you are doing when you won't even consider perusing the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh' to see if they have merit.

I say human beings do not have access to an alleged supernatural, which belongs to the realm of Cinderella and Lord of the Rings. That is, fiction. Four alleged gospel writers without last names, who don't even claim to have met the Jesus figure they allegedly wrote about is not even remotely persuasive enough to get me to suspend disbelief and trust in the existence of a Middle Eastern god/man. To me, it's not even a particularly interesting diversion, except to mock it. So, there you are.

No go ahead and call me ignorant and I'll just call you a deluded space cadet. But that never gets us anywhere, except to a place of animosity.

DrunkMonkey 07-04-2008 03:44 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504066)
Ron Hubbard's are weird but can easily be examined and a reasonable conclusion drawn.

And Jesus' supposed claims are not weird in any way?

Honestly, I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you use to justify this stuff to yourself.

Lily 07-04-2008 03:48 PM

Since you refuse to examine the evidence, you don't know if Christ's claims are weird or not. No mental gymnastics are required; simple logic coupled with natural reason and a willingness to go where the evidence leads is all that is needed.

Irreligious 07-04-2008 03:55 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote (Post 504095)
Since you refuse to examine the evidence, you don't know if Christ's claims are weird or not. No mental gymnastics are required; simple logic coupled with natural reason and a willingness to go where the evidence leads is all that is needed.

Have you really examined L. Ron Hubbard's claims? Honestly, have you at least read Dianetics? If not, how is it that you get to call Hubbard's claims weird, and others, who at least have some acquaintance with Christianity, don't get to call it weird? That seems like a double-standard.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.