Religious nutballs..tell me..where does God live..???

[Strider1974]

Piggy, It is my opinion that thinking sceptically about your own and others beliefs and accepting the logical conclusions is what makes a sceptic. Some religious types have done this with their beliefs and still choose the to have faith.
Complexity - Homeopathy deals with testable facts. Those facts are that it does not work. Not accepting these facts makes you a fool or a con artist.
As for UFO's if you apply sceptical thought to the subject and accept the logical conclusion that there is no proof but still choose the believe on faith then I would accept you as a sceptic.

Mostly it seems that we have differing opinions on this subject. :D
I would like to note that I am not defending the majority of religious types, UFO believers etc as they refuse to apply sceptical thought to their own beliefs.

[joller]

Lets see a sensible, rational and logical answer...

If God existed, which I do not believe, he wouldn't have to 'live' anywhere, would he now? It's the same with the dead people.
He's not even 'alive' since he's never claimed to be material (well he was once supposedly, and then we got the bushfire episode too).

That's as if you asked 'what color is God and how many fingers does he have on his feet'?
God is a concept, not a physical being.
Xians don't claim he resides somewhere in the universe, or at least not in this universe.

There's many better questions you could ask.
I.e. how can an immaterial being affect anything in our universe?
I asked Interesting Ian this question, and all I got was a rant about me being an idiot.. so I guess it's the correct question to ask.
How can the immaterial beings (the souls, surviving consciousnesses, gods etc) be linked to our material timespace, if they're not located within our universe? What's the mechanism for 'them' following 'our' timeline? And what's the hypothetical mechanism they use to manipulate matter and possibly time? What QM?

[AngrySteve]

I'm sure God would cry if he/she/it knew what was being done in THEIR name

Child Abuse - Witchcraft - Evil Spirit Possession Beliefs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4608943.stm

No-one will use the "What's the Harm" argument after reading that.

I also watched the program on tv about this on BBC television last week.
The program was called "Witch Child"

It had video evidence of this child abuse as it was being carried out

[De_Bunk]

The only beef i ever had is that someone calls themself a 'skeptic'...and then goes on to claim invisible beings that live everywhere and books that are possessed are 'real'..

That is not a skeptic...

I just find it funny that no 'christian' skeptic here, can offer up another name for people who believe in the above....

They run...twist and turn...they tell me what they wouldnt call someone...but they cant tell what they would...

If i went into church...stood up and proclaimed that invisible beings where everywhere...and my copy of 'Run Spot, Run' was oozing evil...someone would call the police to have me removed...

Even tho' it is exactly what every christian 'skeptic' here is claiming to be true...

Go figga...

DB

[Piggy]

Piggy, It is my opinion that thinking sceptically about your own and others beliefs and accepting the logical conclusions is what makes a sceptic. Some religious types have done this with their beliefs and still choose the to have faith.

As for UFO's if you apply sceptical thought to the subject and accept the logical conclusion that there is no proof but still choose the believe on faith then I would accept you as a sceptic.
It is this way of thinking, I have to say, which is Skepticism's biggest challenge.

Accepting unsupported yet undisprovable claims on faith is, per se, non-Skeptical.

If such ideas are allowed into the Skeptical tent, then Skepticism becomes a sham. If these ideas fall under the Skeptical umbrella, then other genuinely insane ideas cannot be denied.

For example, suppose I hold the irrational (indeed, paranoid) belief that there is secret technology developed by a small group of government scientists which is installed in cell-phone towers and can influence people's emotions. I have read several anonymous articles on this, and I've observed my own emotions, and I know I have no evidence but no one has disproved it, and I believe this is true as a matter of faith.

Suppose I have an experience with some unexplained perceptions and attribute them to leprechauns, merely on faith.

Under your definition, I must be recognized as one who adheres to Skepticism.

Such a definition hobbles Skepticism.

The confessionary standard you propose, that it's ok as long as folks admit they are believing unsupported ideas on faith, is like calling a meat-eater a vegetarian because they made a conscious choice to eat meat and they admit it's meat.

I will never accept that definition of Skepticism.

No free pass for religion just because it's religion!

[Piggy]

What is "claptrap"?
I'm surprised it's not in your dictionary.

Claptrap is the mere clapping together of one's "trap", the bumping of gums, arguments which are sound... nothing but sound.

[Piggy]

Perhaps someone who is generally skeptical about things sees the recurring theme of "faith" repeatedly stressed in the words of Christ and the prophets, and realizes that the most basic requirement is faith itself.
Perhaps someone who is generally skeptical about things sees the recurring theme of "open-mindedness" repeatedly stressed in the words of Ramtha and J.Z. Knight, and realizes that the most basic requirement is open-mindedness itself.

[Paulhoff]

UFO's, boy do I hate the use of that term. It means Unidentified Flying Object, not Flying Saucer. Undefined Flying Objects are real, it can be a bird, plane, blimp etc, you just do not know, a Flying Saucer you do. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Paul

:) :) :)

[JamesDillon]

Personally I'm very wary of the idea of ideological purges from the ranks based on one's subscription to an enumerated set of orthodox "Skeptical" beliefs, such as atheism. (I'm also wary of belonging to any "movement" that begins with a capital letter). As I've said before (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1412709&postcount=1), it seems to me that "skepticism" is a methodological perspective, rather than a content-based one. I can see no reason why a self-described skeptic couldn't adopt any particular belief under the right circumstances, so long as they reasonably believed that the evidence supported the existence of the phenomenon in question. We might well want to engage in a discussion about the weight of the evidence, and suggest that maybe, for example, the "Bigfoot" in the video is just a guy in a monkey suit, but I don't think that kicking anyone who challenges some part of the accepted wisdom of the Skeptical Movement out of the club is beneficial to anyone involved.

What about the religious who base their belief simply on faith, rather than evidence? I guess I'd call that a deviation from the ideal of applying critical thinking skills in all circumstances. Having been guilty of such deviations a time or two myself, though, I'm not especially eager to apply a rigorous zero-tolerance standard to exclude anyone who subscribes to such beliefs but is nevertheless interested in skeptical analysis in general. As some wise man once said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[De_Bunk]

..And still...The 'so called' Christian skeptics refuse to answer...

Cowards..Liars..Gullible...Mentally ill...misinformed...out of touch with reality...

So You 'lets not answer the question' Christian so called 'skeptics'...

What does that say about your 'claims' to be skeptics...

It does not matter who asked the question....No matter how polite or nice they asked it...You would not be able to answer, with any intelligence or logic, your claim of belief in 'invisible beings, ( Satan and God, who apparently live everywhere..and as one christian skeptic claimed 'books can be possessed by evil )...

Run...Run away...Thats how strong you believe...thats it the total proof of your devotion and faith...to run when asked for evidence...

You run when questioned...you hide...

How dare you...How dare you call yourself 'skeptics'...

I want to know what you would call someone who claimed they believed in invisible beings, that lived everywhere...and who claimed books could be possessed...you refused to answer...Infact..you would refuse to answer anyone who asked that question...wouldnt you..

YOU CANNOT ANSWER...CAN YOU...

Pathetic...You have been made to look stupid, gullible..and totally unprepared to answer any intelligent question put to you...

Never again will your claim of being Christian skeptics be taken seriously again...

Go away nutballs...live your fantasy...keep on believeing in invisible beings...books that can be possessed...

I have had enough of your delusions...

Go and have a quick pray...go cross yourself...say three 'Hail Mary's' or whatever you do...

But dont ever claim you are a skeptic...

Do you see how many people agree with me...Well do you...

State your claim for the existence of invisible beings or forever be shamed..

DB

[psy kick]

above: the rantings of a nutball.
Now all can see what a jerk he is. Calling people mentally ill when they are not. Must be so mad at God...

[Alliebubs]

..And still...The 'so called' Christian skeptics refuse to answer...

Cowards..Liars..Gullible...Mentally ill...misinformed...out of touch with reality...

So You 'lets not answer the question' Christian so called 'skeptics'...

What does that say about your 'claims' to be skeptics...

It does not matter who asked the question....No matter how polite or nice they asked it...You would not be able to answer, with any intelligence or logic, your claim of belief in 'invisible beings, ( Satan and God, who apparently live everywhere..and as one christian skeptic claimed 'books can be possessed by evil )...

Run...Run away...Thats how strong you believe...thats it the total proof of your devotion and faith...to run when asked for evidence...

You run when questioned...you hide...

How dare you...How dare you call yourself 'skeptics'...

I want to know what you would call someone who claimed they believed in invisible beings, that lived everywhere...and who claimed books could be possessed...you refused to answer...Infact..you would refuse to answer anyone who asked that question...wouldnt you..

YOU CANNOT ANSWER...CAN YOU...

Pathetic...You have been made to look stupid, gullible..and totally unprepared to answer any intelligent question put to you...

Never again will your claim of being Christian skeptics be taken seriously again...

Go away nutballs...live your fantasy...keep on believeing in invisible beings...books that can be possessed...

I have had enough of your delusions...

Go and have a quick pray...go cross yourself...say three 'Hail Mary's' or whatever you do...

But dont ever claim you are a skeptic...

Do you see how many people agree with me...Well do you...

State your claim for the existence of invisible beings or forever be shamed..

DB

Wow. I realise religion/belief/and the like can elicit the most emotional of responses, but calling religious people "nutballs" doesn't help your cause, or support your supposed image, of rational thinking vis-a-vis absence of belief in an omnipotent being.

You seem to exhibit the very militant attitude that skeptics (including myself) try to avoid, lest we seem more emotional, and not as rational. Of course strong reactions and opinions are great things to have, but not necessarily when they manifest themselves into vitriolic ramblings.

[Huntster]

Perhaps someone who is generally skeptical about things sees the recurring theme of "open-mindedness" repeatedly stressed in the words of Ramtha and J.Z. Knight, and realizes that the most basic requirement is open-mindedness itself.

I would agree.

I also believe that one can be both open-minded and faithful.

In fact, being open-minded is required in order to have faith.

[Huntster]

....You seem to exhibit the very militant attitude that skeptics (including myself) try to avoid, lest we seem more emotional, and not as rational. Of course strong reactions and opinions are great things to have, but not necessarily when they manifest themselves into vitriolic ramblings.

Thus we have been reminded that individual people (whether religious or not, skeptical to the 10th degree or the 2nd, Christian or Islamic or Sikh, etc) are where intolerance, evil, aggressiveness, or their opposites manifest themselves.

There are skeptical zealots just like there are Christian zealots.

[Piggy]

What about the religious who base their belief simply on faith, rather than evidence?
Skepticism has to have some definition if it is to be meaningful. If skepticism means anything at all, it means demanding evidence before confering belief.

So far, no one has provided any justification why accepting unproven ideas on faith is in any way skeptical.

Also, I haven't seen any justification why theism should be considered skeptical, but belief in leprechauns, or secret mind-control devices in cell phone towers, should not.

If theism is deemed skeptical -- with a big S or a small s -- then what does skepticism mean? Perhaps it means only refusing to believe what has been positively disproven. But that is clearly a definition so weak as to allow all sorts of woo woo within the skeptical framework. And that's the rub.

It's not a matter of exclusivity, it's a matter of consistency.

[Piggy]

I would agree.

I also believe that one can be both open-minded and faithful.

In fact, being open-minded is required in order to have faith.
Be careful not to open your mind so much that passers-by may tap their ashes into it.

[JamesDillon]

Skepticism has to have some definition if it is to be meaningful. If skepticism means anything at all, it means demanding evidence before confering belief.

So far, no one has provided any justification why accepting unproven ideas on faith is in any way skeptical.

Also, I haven't seen any justification why theism should be considered skeptical, but belief in leprechauns, or secret mind-control devices in cell phone towers, should not.

If theism is deemed skeptical -- with a big S or a small s -- then what does skepticism mean? Perhaps it means only refusing to believe what has been positively disproven. But that is clearly a definition so weak as to allow all sorts of woo woo within the skeptical framework. And that's the rub.

It's not a matter of exclusivity, it's a matter of consistency.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and the post you quoted went on to say that a faith-based belief in God (as opposed to an evidence-based one, which is certainly rationally possible even though we might disagree with the interpretation of the evidence) is certainly a deviation from the skeptical ideal; in other words, such a belief is not in itself "skeptical." But I'm not prepared to tell anyone who is interested in approaching the world from a skeptical perspective that they aren't welcome in my clubhouse because they hold one irrational belief. For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since it's entirely possible that I hold some irrational beliefs myself. For another, it would be counterproductive.

Hal Bidlack is a fine example of what we're talking about here. I raised some hackles in the TAM thread I've linked to a couple of times by criticizing Hal's presentation at TAM in defense of his deism for resting almost entirely on appeal to emotion. I stand by that criticism, and Hal himself has conceded that his religious beliefs are not entirely justifiable by reference to empirical evidence or reason. But Hal has done a great deal of fine work in support of the JREF and in furtherance of skeptical goals. I think it would be incredibly arrogant to tell him that he isn't really "one of us" because his beliefs are insufficiently pure.

[Piggy]

I'm not prepared to tell anyone who is interested in approaching the world from a skeptical perspective that they aren't welcome in my clubhouse because they hold one irrational belief.
I think I agree with you there, tho I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the clubhouse analogy.

Surely folks are free to apply skeptical principles as they choose. And I certainly wouldn't want to run anyone off the board b/c they're a theist.

That said, there's no special dispensation, either.

If folks want to say "I don't apply skeptical inquiry to my religious faith", well, OK. That's their right. However, if a person says something like, "I'm a skeptic and a theist and the two are compatible," then that person should expect to be called on the carpet.

[Jimbo07]

They run...twist and turn...they tell me what they wouldnt call someone...but they cant tell what they would...



Perhaps, because to do so would make one as guilty of labelling and pigeon-holing as the religious themselves have been over the centuries. When people call Atheism a religion, they are referring, in part, to this approach.

:mad:


Cowards..Liars..Gullible...Mentally ill...misinformed...out of touch with reality...

But dont ever claim you are a skeptic...



Like witches who could never claim to be called Xians.

Disgraceful.

:mad:

I'm an agnostic, or weak atheist if you will, and even I find your behaviour reprehensible.

Skepticism has to have some definition if it is to be meaningful. If skepticism means anything at all, it means demanding evidence before confering belief.


How about the track somewhat like JamesDillon is taking, wherein skepticism, like science, is an approach to problem solving, rather than a dogmatic position?


So far, no one has provided any justification why accepting unproven ideas on faith is in any way skeptical.

Like automagickally filling in the metaphysical hole from God with, "the universe just IS?" We've already covered the idea that Occam's Razor is a tool, not a proof. Moreover, t=0 is such a special condition, that I don't think you can make any claims about the nature of material reality at t=0.


Also, I haven't seen any justification why theism should be considered skeptical, but belief in leprechauns, or secret mind-control devices in cell phone towers, should not.


Here we may wind up straying into peoples' deism vs. theism arguments. I'm arguing for the metaphysical hole filled by a Creator. There are no physical holes (i.e. ID is probably patently untrue), but a metaphysical hole.

"mind-control devices," are a specific, physical claim. Specific physical claims can be debunked, or at least shown demonstrations against.

Belief in God cannot be totally discounted, no matter how much atheists want to. Atheism is not skepticism...

Now, if a religious person made a specific physical claim like geocentrism... that can be debunked. There is a difference between extreme religious claims, and a weak (if you will) acceptance, or faith, in a Creator.


If theism is deemed skeptical -- with a big S or a small s -- then what does skepticism mean? Perhaps it means only refusing to believe what has been positively disproven.

It doesn't have to mean that, when seen merely as a methodology.

[sat556]

So us xtians believe one thing you disagree with. And yet we MUST believe everything else? Doesn't follow.

Actually, the intial woo makes you believe in more woo. Do you not think that possessed books is a different thing altogether? Or do all the irrational beliefs involved in xtainanity come under one big woo umbrella? It's not just the existence of a god is it? There's a whole pile of woo you accept that goes along with it.
I'm sure somebody could make a list of the supernatural claims that xtianity has with it, but I'm not the girl to do it I'm afraid.
So psy kick, it's not just one bit of woo you are accepting.

[JamesDillon]

I think I agree with you there, tho I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the clubhouse analogy.

Surely folks are free to apply skeptical principles as they choose. And I certainly wouldn't want to run anyone off the board b/c they're a theist.

That said, there's no special dispensation, either.

If folks want to say "I don't apply skeptical inquiry to my religious faith", well, OK. That's their right. However, if a person says something like, "I'm a skeptic and a theist and the two are compatible," then that person should expect to be called on the carpet.

I think we are in agreement there. I have no problem with examining religious beliefs critically just as any other belief, and criticizing the admittedly irrational ones on that basis (as I did in the case of Hal Bidlack), but I do have a problem with comments along the lines of "No one who believes in God has any right to be called a skeptic." Of course, you weren't the one making those comments.

[Luke T.]

Where does TLOP live?

[Complexity]

No one who believes in a god and is unable to produce extraordinary evidence for the existence of this god is being skeptical with respect to his/her religious beliefs.

Religious belief is absolute woo and continues to be the major cause of misery on this planet.

[Piggy]

I do have a problem with comments along the lines of "No one who believes in God has any right to be called a skeptic." Of course, you weren't the one making those comments.
Yes, I was. A person who believes in God can only be a person who is skeptical about some things and not others. That person is not "a skeptic", anymore than someone who eats mostly veggies but also eats meat is "a vegetarian".

Belief in God is a non-skeptical belief per se. Those who engage in it are not being skeptical.

And we must make a distinction between belief in God and other non-skeptical beliefs, such as belief in the Loch Ness Monster. Believing in the LNM on faith is a belief about one relatively insignificant fact. Belief in God goes to one's fundamental perception of reality itself.

So, while theists can be often-skeptical people, they don't have the right to say "I am a skeptic".

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I prefer to stay on the fence. I'll believe in God when I see God, and boy howdy do I have some questions for him.

[Piggy]

How about the track somewhat like JamesDillon is taking, wherein skepticism, like science, is an approach to problem solving, rather than a dogmatic position?
It already is. The skeptical approach is to withhold belief if there is no credible evidence. Faith in God is belief without credible evidence. It is non-skeptical.

Like automagickally filling in the metaphysical hole from God with, "the universe just IS?"
Why must one always be explaining?

Jimbo07, there is no metaphysical hole except the one you imagine. It is a non-thing. Stop concerning yourself with it and it will vanish, without a trace of contradiction.

Questions regarding the origin of the universe are merely unanswered questions like any others. Of course, there are fewer of them now than there used to be.

t=0 is such a special condition, that I don't think you can make any claims about the nature of material reality at t=0.
Why is that?

I'm arguing for the metaphysical hole filled by a Creator.
Then you are arguing for a nothing filled by a fantasy.

"mind-control devices," are a specific, physical claim. Specific physical claims can be debunked, or at least shown demonstrations against.
Have you done so? Has anyone proven there are NOT devices implanted in ANY cell phone towers which could be influencing some people's emotions? If not, then it has not been disproven, and according to the weak definition of skepticism proposed in this thread, belief on faith in their existence must qualify as a skeptical position until someone provides positive proof that these things exist nowhere.

Belief in God cannot be totally discounted, no matter how much atheists want to.
Belief in God cannot be discounted. God, however, most certainly can.

Anyone can dream up a loose set of conditions, pile them up, and tack on the condition that they are (for unknown reasons) inherently immune to proof or disproof.

And that's what God is. To say "God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and whose existence is neither provable nor disprovable" is nothing but a trick of language, a meme-pile.

Atheism is not skepticism...
Of course it is. Skepticism is the withholding of belief in the absence of credible evidence. The God theory has its roots in superstition and myth, has no consistent set of necessary postulates (if you don't believe me, take a peek at last year's "What Is God?" thread on the Straight Dope board, where theists couldn't agree on one single essential characteristic for God), has been continually reformulated to account for the advancement of science, has no objective supporting evidence, and has a built-in escape valve of merely asserting with no justification that it can't be disproven tho no one can say why that should be. Furthermore, there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for why people should be likely to believe in God.

The God theory is a humbug. Belief in it -- even a neutral position on it -- is not skeptical.

[De_Bunk]

Well....after all this...

I've yet to see what all these Christian 'skeptics' would call someone who absolutely believes a book can be possessed and in invisible beings that live everywhere...

Do they claim that is the thought and beliefs of a normal, rational thinking human....

After all this time...They still run from answering a simple question...

They cannot justify a single claim they make...They refuse to answer...

My only objection was that they dare call temselves 'skeptics'

I have seen everything they wouldnt call someone..and yet, as christian skeptics..they haven't a word for someone, as described above...and yet they feel they have the right to label and name mediums and psychics as frauds and woos...

Way to go...

DB

[Luke T.]

Where does "The Big Bang" live?

[JamesDillon]

Yes, I was. A person who believes in God can only be a person who is skeptical about some things and not others. That person is not "a skeptic", anymore than someone who eats mostly veggies but also eats meat is "a vegetarian".

Belief in God is a non-skeptical belief per se. Those who engage in it are not being skeptical.

And we must make a distinction between belief in God and other non-skeptical beliefs, such as belief in the Loch Ness Monster. Believing in the LNM on faith is a belief about one relatively insignificant fact. Belief in God goes to one's fundamental perception of reality itself.

So, while theists can be often-skeptical people, they don't have the right to say "I am a skeptic".

Then we are in disagreement after all, but I don't think there's much to be said, on my side at least, that hasn't already been said. Belief in God on faith alone (I hope that was implied in your statement above) is, as is any belief lacking an evidentiary basis, a deviation from the skeptical ideal. I'm not ready to start purging the theistic heretics from our ranks, though, for several reasons. First, I just think it's arrogant. Second, I would be running the risk of hypocrisy, because I'm not at all certain that I don't hold any irrational beliefs myself (and if I were certain of that, that belief itself would probably be irrational). Third, many of those people are highly intelligent and have a great deal to offer us-- again, I return to Hal Bidlack as an excellent example. Fourth, I find the very concept of the "true skeptic," and the endless debates about who qualifies as one, tiresome, unproductive, and frankly a little creepy-cultlike. We can certainly take any particular belief held by any particular individual and evaluate whether it is or is not based on empirical evidence sufficient to warrant provisional agreement, and as I've said I will readily concede that belief in God based on faith falls short of that standard, but the additional step of classifying individuals into ingroup and outgroup on the basis of their agreement with a list of enumerated orthodox views, such as atheism, is something that I really want no part of. If that precludes my membership in the "true skeptics" club, I can't say that I'm particularly concerned about that.

[lostnick3]

I prefer to stay on the fence. I'll believe in God when I see God, and boy howdy do I have some questions for him.

how will you know its Him?

[Luke T.]

how will you know its Him?

By the burning bush nearby.

[lostnick3]

would that bush also be lighting the underbelly of a radio astronomy antenna looking for invisible civilizations that are not there?

[Jimbo07]

Well, I should've known I'd get into trouble. :D

I'll probably wind up looking like some IDer when the dust settles, but, I guess, in for a penny in for a pound...

Religious belief is absolute woo and continues to be the major cause of misery on this planet.

Really? Not the lust for money? Not man's ihumanity to man? Not the cold-hard demands of nature?

Religion? Really? the major cause...

Which religion were the Khmer Rouge again?


Jimbo07, there is no metaphysical hole except the one you imagine. It is a non-thing. Stop concerning yourself with it and it will vanish, without a trace of contradiction.


Gee, I'd almost think you were agnostic. I'm not really concerned with it on a day-to-day basis, but the 'imaginary' hole is big enough to see the vitriol in this thread as unwarranted. I get the feeling that De was responding to somebody, or something in particular.


Questions regarding the origin of the universe are merely unanswered questions like any others.

It may be, however that there are questions that cannot be answered, at least in terms of physics. I have profs who have clearly stated as much (usually in lecture 1, just to limit the bounds of ridiculous questions in class, and moving on very quickly from there).


Of course, there are fewer of them now than there used to be.


Of course. This has been the traditional demonstration that any appeal to a god-of-the-gaps is shaky.


Then you are arguing for a nothing filled by a fantasy.


I'll grant you a fantasy, but a fantasy which cannot be discounted merely because you have not seen God show up on your doorstep with a bouquet of roses.


Have you done so? Has anyone proven there are NOT devices implanted in ANY cell phone towers which could be influencing some people's emotions? If not, then it has not been disproven, and according to the weak definition of skepticism proposed in this thread, belief on faith in their existence must qualify as a skeptical position until someone provides positive proof that these things exist nowhere.


This is strange and disjointed from your previous posts. I perhaps chose a poor example, because this invokes conspiracy theory. In order for you-and-I to prove this, we would have to commit industrial sabotage.

How about homeopathy? It could be tested in a double-blind experiment to determine whether it had any effect beyond placebo. Is that a sufficient physical example?

Do you get my point about debunking physical claims? Again, from those profs, essentially you can only measure what can be measured.


discounted. God, however, most certainly can.


Cannot.

I guess we're at a stalemate... :(

To say "God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and whose existence is neither provable nor disprovable" is nothing but a trick of language, a meme-pile.

Verbal trickery is all that's needed. A neither provable, nor disprovable proposition, no matter how weak, is an open hole. To some it may be uninteresting, but it is still there.

This is exactly what I said earlier. God is omnipotent, ominpresent blah blah blah. The real theologians have got themselves covered. They've maneuvered the debate to a point where neither you, me, Complexity nor Hawking can conclusively disprove God.

It's probable that ghosts, alien probes and TV infomercials do nothing of utility in our lives, but it might be True that God exists. Dogmatic atheism is a statement of the Truth of the universe. See a million other threads for my distaste for "truth". ;)

I guess I see God and religion as two entirely different things (but that's just me).


Furthermore, there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for why people should be likely to believe in God.


You mean to "not believe in God," right?

I would phrase it, "there are perfectly good physical explanations as to why it is unlikely that God interferes in the physical affairs of the universe."

Oh yeah, and as to why I say the conditions at t=0 are special is because we don't know whether t=0 is even valid, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch There may have been a singularity, there may not. Certainly, if there was a singularity, it did not exist in a physical environment. Time and space would not exist in, or before a singularity. Was there a metaphysical environment? I don't know.


...

I've been treating the idea that no first cause is necessary as being a functional equivalent to the idea that a first cause is necessary. It is a positive assertion about the state of the universe.

Can there even be an answer to the question of cause? My answer is no. That, I think, makes me agnostic. However, I'm sympathetic to the idea of a first cause not being necessary, so it probably makes me some kind of weak atheist.

...

On the idea of skeptical approach...

I guess I am skeptical, not "a skeptic." I am skeptical, then, of anyone who says, with certitude, that they are a skeptic and I am not!

:D

[De_Bunk]

Well...

Lets put it this way...

You need a babysitter...for your 5yr old child

And hey...A babysitter turns up claiming that invisible beings live everywhere and the book they are carrying is possessed and that they absolutely, 100% believe it...

According to the christian skeptics here...that person would be perfectly acceptable to look after their child...no problem whatsoever...

DB

[Jimbo07]

According to the christian skeptics here...that person would be perfectly acceptable to look after their child...no problem whatsoever...

DB

This is why I was wondering if you were responding to somebody/something in particular.

Not every religious person would make such a ridiculous claim, tho some might. :rolleyes:

[Complexity]

Then we are in disagreement after all, but I don't think there's much to be said, on my side at least, that hasn't already been said. Belief in God on faith alone (I hope that was implied in your statement above) is, as is any belief lacking an evidentiary basis, a deviation from the skeptical ideal. I'm not ready to start purging the theistic heretics from our ranks, though, for several reasons. First, I just think it's arrogant. Second, I would be running the risk of hypocrisy, because I'm not at all certain that I don't hold any irrational beliefs myself (and if I were certain of that, that belief itself would probably be irrational). Third, many of those people are highly intelligent and have a great deal to offer us-- again, I return to Hal Bidlack as an excellent example. Fourth, I find the very concept of the "true skeptic," and the endless debates about who qualifies as one, tiresome, unproductive, and frankly a little creepy-cultlike. We can certainly take any particular belief held by any particular individual and evaluate whether it is or is not based on empirical evidence sufficient to warrant provisional agreement, and as I've said I will readily concede that belief in God based on faith falls short of that standard, but the additional step of classifying individuals into ingroup and outgroup on the basis of their agreement with a list of enumerated orthodox views, such as atheism, is something that I really want no part of. If that precludes my membership in the "true skeptics" club, I can't say that I'm particularly concerned about that.
The only person here talking about purges is you.

I doubt that many people are skeptical in all aspects of their lives, regardless of what they might believe. The notion of a 'True Skeptic' is a strawman.

Many of us are skeptics-in-progress - trying to be as skeptical as we can. This means that, if we become aware of an aspect of our beliefs that needs skeptical analysis, we do so - no belief is safe from consideration.

Many of us are skeptical in some or most aspects of our lives, but choose not to examine some beliefs skeptically. I have problems regarding these people as skeptics. They deliberately choose to cling to some superstitous beliefs unskeptically. They are complacent about remaining partly woo.

That said, people will label themselves as they wish. Their idea of what 'skeptic' means may differ from mine, but that's ok, as long as it doesn't do any damage. I may regard them as 'mostly skeptic' or 'teensie sliver of skeptic' as their beliefs may warrant.

If the question arises, or they make a claim to be 'skeptic' in the full-fledged sense, or their statements result in people becoming confused about what skepticism is, then I'll be happy to call them on their inconsistency.

Me, I'm a skeptic-wannabe, or a skeptic-in-progress. I haven't always been. These days, when I smell woo around myself, I hunt it down and rip it out. I'm under no illusion that I've found it all. I can say that I won't tolerate the continued existence of any that I find in myself.

I think and hope that JREF and this forum is a big tent, that it can and wants to accommodate all flavors of skeptics, from those taking baby steps, to those who have faced most of their demons, to those who do battle with all of their demons, to those (if any) who have washed all woo away.

We skeptics are, in general, moving in a good and honest direction. Some of us will stumble or get stuck. Very few of us will reach the destination. The journey is all.

[De_Bunk]

Jimbo07

What claim...???

DB

[lostnick3]

db witch book ?

[De_Bunk]

Lostnick3

Well, my copy of 'Run spot, Run' is giving me evil vibes...

DB

[Jimbo07]

This claim.

And hey...A babysitter turns up claiming that invisible beings live everywhere and the book they are carrying is possessed and that they absolutely, 100% believe it...

According to the christian skeptics here...that person would be perfectly acceptable to look after their child...no problem whatsoever...



Some Xians take the Bible as allegorical, the writing guided by the Holy Ghost, the book itself containing no spirits nor powers. Nor would they allow God to look after their children, with no human intervention.

That's why I think you're responding to particular people.

[lostnick3]

db I'll see if thats covered in my copy of demonology and witchcraft

[Piggy]

Let's face it, folks. The God theory is an under-ager in the skeptical bar.

But the skeptical bar has no bouncers. So he gets to hang out as long as there's someone who'll bring him.

Still, his pals shouldn't be surprised that there are those among us willing to call a shovel a shovel, willing to say, "Sorry, kid, you don't belong here, and I ain't buying you a drink."

[Piggy]

Verbal trickery is all that's needed.
Maybe in a philosophy classroom. In the real world, it walks.

I apply the undetectable dog test.

I can imagine this room as it seems. I can imagine it with an undetectable dog. If I imagine it with the undetectable dog, I can trade a lot of real questions (What made that noise? Where's that pen I just laid down?) for nonsense questions about the paradoxical nature of the undetectable dog and where it might have come from.

In doing so, I have taken them out of the realm of actual inquiry and into the realm of metaphysics, where they will loll around with all the others for eternity.

Better to dispense with the undetectable dog and tackle real questions as they are, even if at the moment they seem to have no ready answer.

When I stop imagining the undetectable dog, I lose nothing. No new problems are created. The metaphysical questions simply become physical questions.

Ditto with the God theory. It is useless. Which is only one of the reasons why it must be dispensed with if we are to get anything done on this planet.

[Jimbo07]

Maybe in a philosophy classroom. In the real world, it walks.


For some, philosophy has something to say about reality.


I apply the undetectable dog test.

I can imagine this room as it seems. I can imagine it with an undetectable dog.

You got something against Sagan's elephant? :D


In doing so, I have taken them out of the realm of actual inquiry and into the realm of metaphysics, where they will loll around with all the others for eternity.


I guess it depends whether or not you believe metaphysics has anything to say about the nature of material reality.


Better to dispense with the undetectable dog and tackle real questions as they are, even if at the moment they seem to have no ready answer.


Agreed. Couldn't agree more. Real questions, such as those in daily life, are what are really important. What should I make for supper? What were the assumptions made in the mathematical model I'm using at work?

Declaring that the universe has no first cause and that anyone who even considers it isn't a skeptic has nothing to do with real work, nor tackling real questions. :rolleyes:


Ditto with the God theory. It is useless. Which is only one of the reasons why it must be dispensed with if we are to get anything done on this planet.

Patently false. History of science and technology suggests that western monotheism was a good breeding ground for the idea that the universe is knowable.

If you care to debate this last point, I'm afraid citations and so forth will have to wait, because I'm going home. Plus, it's a lot of work, considering you and I agree on a lot of things. To begin with, I enjoyed reading Pacey for some 'history of technology.'

[Piggy]

Declaring that the universe has no first cause and that anyone who even considers it isn't a skeptic has nothing to do with real work, nor tackling real questions.
Always explaining... always explaining....

When I said that business above about solving the problem by declaring the universe had no cause, I was illustrating a point. I was saying that if you can simply wave away God's cause, then why not save yourself a step and wave away the universe's cause? My point was that either "solution" is bunk.

Of course the universe has a cause, and positing God leads to nowhere. It's an investigative dead end. Useless.

History of science and technology suggests that western monotheism was a good breeding ground for the idea that the universe is knowable.
Before there is knowledge, there is always a pre-existing ignorance. Just because one particular flavor of one particular brand of ignorance was the darkness from which the light emerged, that's no good reason to go rushing back into that darkness.

[Huntster]

....Religious belief is absolute woo and continues to be the major cause of misery on this planet.

Actually, I think you're quite wrong. It provides great comfort for some.

What appears to cause most of the misery on this planet are the sins which all (religious or not) are capable of perpetrating: greed, selfishness, hatred, revenge, carelessness, lust, etc.

[De_Bunk]

Huntster...

"Great comfort to some people"...

Yeh...Just before they go and kill someone in Gods name...

DB

[Piggy]

I perhaps chose a poor example, because this invokes conspiracy theory. In order for you-and-I to prove this, we would have to commit industrial sabotage.
Indeed. But again I ask, has this been disproved? If not, then under the weak definition of skepticism, I can accept it on faith and still be counted as a skeptic.

As for homeopathy, you do not get to change the subject. It was me, not you, who chose this example.

For some, philosophy has something to say about reality.
This is what is known in rhetorical circles as "rhetorical drift" -- a way of changing the subject by raising a tangentially related point. The fact that some folks believe that philosophy has something to say about reality doesn't change the fact that in the real world your "verbal trickery" takes a hike.

I guess it depends whether or not you believe metaphysics has anything to say about the nature of material reality.
Indeed it does. I find that metaphysics has nothing to say about the nature of material reality. If you believe it does, then please, show one instance where metaphysics -- except where it overlaps with physics -- has anything to say about material reality.

I'll grant you a fantasy, but a fantasy which cannot be discounted merely because you have not seen God show up on your doorstep with a bouquet of roses.
Delivering flowers is not the standard. It is a fantasy which can be discounted because it has its roots in myth and superstition, has no credible supporting evidence, has no consistent description, has been continually reformulated to account for advances in productive and provable materialism, and can be accounted for by entirely naturalistic explanations.

Cannot.

I guess we're at a stalemate...
Not at all. I explained why the God theory can be discounted. You issued a one word denial worthy of a kindergarten playground.

You mean to "not believe in God," right?
No. That was not a typo.

There are coherent naturalistic explanations for why human beings should be inclined to believe in God.

Our brains have evolved to search for patterns, meaning, and human traits. This is why we erroneously hear meaningful speech in gibberish such as speech played backward. This is why we see a face on the moon and on mars. This is why we mistake amorphous shapes in the dark for lurking human figures rather than, say, rabbits or tractors.

Our being born helpless and dependent causes us to take enormous -- even overwhelming -- comfort in parental figures. When we are very sick, we crave the presence of those who are close to use, especially family, and most of all our parents (unless there is some intervening social pathology involved).

Given all that (and the above is the bare-bones Cliff's Notes version) it would be amazing if people did not invent gods.

But some of us have moved beyond that. Won't you join us?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07 :
I'll grant you a fantasy, but a fantasy which cannot be discounted merely because you have not seen God show up on your doorstep with a bouquet of roses.
Delivering flowers is not the standard....

Indeed, it's not.

However, some believe that God can send someone delivering flowers.

Or, a child of God can deliver flowers of their own accord (and perhaps much more).

... It is a fantasy which can be discounted because it has its roots in myth and superstition, has no credible supporting evidence, has no consistent description, has been continually reformulated to account for advances in productive and provable materialism, and can be accounted for by entirely naturalistic explanations....

All correct. It can be discounted.

Free will is part of the deal.

Count and discount as you see fit, and respect the decision of others as they exercise their free will.

...Given all that (and the above is the bare-bones Cliff's Notes version) it would be amazing if people did not invent gods.

But some of us have moved beyond that. Won't you join us

Thanks, but no thanks.

I love my God.

I think He's pretty neato.

[De_Bunk]

Huntster..

Be sure to tell him that next time you see him..

DB

[Piggy]

some believe that God can send someone delivering flowers.

Or, a child of God can deliver flowers of their own accord (and perhaps much more).
Some believe that airplane contrails are "chemtrails" being spread by the government.

All correct. It can be discounted.

Free will is part of the deal.
It cannot be discounted merely because I have free will, or the right of free speech. It can be discounted on its merits (or lack thereof) for the reasons I have already stated.

The fact that these are being ignored by God theory proponents speaks volumes.

Count and discount as you see fit, and respect the decision of others as they exercise their free will.
Respecting the rights of others to express themselves does not include piping down when others are peddling nonsense on a skeptics' board.

[Jekyll]

Declaring that the universe has no first cause and that anyone who even considers it isn't a skeptic has nothing to do with real work, nor tackling real questions. :rolleyes:

The 'primal cause' question posed by theists really annoy me.

Time and space began with the universe. Before the universe the was no time.

Now our idea of a causal relationship is implicitly dependent on the idea of time, so in order for us to be able to talk about any kind of cause outside the universe you have to come up with a new causal framework.

The only people who address this in anyway are, unsuprisingly, the physists with their "Suppose the universe was a small part of a structure that looks like this, then the big bang could have happened when this bit here bash against that bit over there."

Theology just utterly ignores the interesting question here of "What exactly do you mean by cause?" and imposes its own little, glib god of the gaps on the world.

[/rant]

[Jimbo07]

Not at all. I explained why the God theory can be discounted. You issued a one word denial worthy of a kindergarten playground.


This is your explanation?


Belief in God cannot be discounted. God, however, most certainly can.

Anyone can dream up a loose set of conditions, pile them up, and tack on the condition that they are (for unknown reasons) inherently immune to proof or disproof.

And that's what God is. To say "God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and whose existence is neither provable nor disprovable" is nothing but a trick of language, a meme-pile.

The God theory has its roots in superstition and myth, has no consistent set of necessary postulates... has been continually reformulated to account for the advancement of science, has no objective supporting evidence, and has a built-in escape valve of merely asserting with no justification that it can't be disproven tho no one can say why that should be.

So... because some posters on a web board couldn't get their act together, there is conclusive proof that God does not exist? Q.E.D.? Good grief! Are you sure you didn't deserve a 1-word schoolyard answer?

Always explaining... always explaining....


Speaking of schoolyard approaches...


When I said that business above about solving the problem by declaring the universe had no cause, I was illustrating a point. I was saying that if you can simply wave away God's cause, then why not save yourself a step and wave away the universe's cause? My point was that either "solution" is bunk.


Um. Agreed. That's why I believe that both Xianity and strong Atheism are bunk. Both are hand-waving solutions to nothingness. We can't answer an ultimate question, if we don't even know if it's valid!


Of course the universe has a cause, and positing God leads to nowhere. It's an investigative dead end. Useless.


I don't know if the universe has a cause.

Remember what I said about getting myself into trouble? Here I have to concede defeat. Conceding defeat is upsetting (because I'm not convinced I've lost), but it's better than leaving you the impression that I'm somehow opposed to further physical investigation! :eek:

Nothing could be further from the truth about me. The boundaries should always we pushed. Perhaps there is something to M-Theory. I'm concerned that it only pushes the God question back one stage, but it would be neat to try to find some experimental evidence, anyway!


Before there is knowledge, there is always a pre-existing ignorance. Just because one particular flavor of one particular brand of ignorance was the darkness from which the light emerged, that's no good reason to go rushing back into that darkness.

I think these generalizations gloss over the complexity of historical issues. "The church hunted witches, therefore the church is all bad," whitewashes over 2000 years of history! In fact, if we are rushing into a sort of darkness, you can almost guarantee, that it won't take the exact same form.


No. That was not a typo.

There are coherent naturalistic explanations for why human beings should be inclined to believe in God.


Oh, okay. Gotcha now. Agreed. It's a biological extension of the idea that, "if God did not exist, man would have had to invent him." Umm... true, actually.

The problem here is that this sort of reasoning could be used by the religious to say, "Well, God designed it that way, so we would need faith!"


But some of us have moved beyond that. Won't you join us?

Join who? Militant Atheists? Been there, done that. Some of us have moved beyond that ;)

I'm worried that one's mind gets closed... not to woo-woo ideas, but on the human side, to potential skeptical allies. For example, liberal Catholics make good allies in the fight against politicised ID. A separate school teacher once proudly told me how he was allowed to teach evolution as science while public school teachers were constrained to wrap it in the hullabaloo of religious disclaimers or misuse of the word "theory."

ETA: Equating Atheism with Skepticism creates a real-world problem, rather than solving any. If Atheism is equated with Skepticism, the skeptical message will not be heard by some on the religious borderline. It's like people who say, "oh, it's just Randi again." turning themselves off to something that may otherwise be a good point.

Oh, and another thing (call it a subject change again, but it's my choice, since I'm really just rambling), I've used the word God a lot, and invoked Xiantity, Catholicism, what have you. This is only because I'm most familiar with these religions, and not with something like Buddhism, ancestor worship, etc. I once got myself into a heap of trouble by saying, "all religions have the same purpose." :cool:

...

So, okay, Piggy:

I agree with you that there is no compelling evidence to believe in an OOOC. I agree with you that accepting OOOC as a hole-plugger does nothing to help study the nature of that hole. I agree that OOOC can simply be defined, through words, to be unassailable. I agree that there probably are good reasons to suspect that organized religion is a scam foisted on populations, by exploiting biological imperatives. I agree that physical effects of metaphysical causes seems highly unlikely, especially in an earthly context, where human emotions are involved (i.e. weeping statues, face-smeared shrouds, telekinesis, astral projection, etc.).

It's just that... gngngn... none of those agreements conclusively preclude God. The 'primal cause' question doesn't go away, just because it's annoying. One may have to make a deliberate choice to ignore it (a primal cause, or lack thereof, may not affect my daily life), but Atheism is an attempt to answer that primal question. By adopting Atheism, by deliberately saying, "There is no God," you are tacitly giving validity to the asking of a possibly unanswerable question! It's like declaring that you have found a particular negative solution to an intractable problem. A lack of solutions does not automatically imply the validity of the trivial solution.

I'd better stop before I also get in trouble with the real math wonks. :boxedin:

Can I just give up? :D

[Piggy]

So... because some posters on a web board couldn't get their act together, there is conclusive proof that God does not exist? Q.E.D.? Good grief! Are you sure you didn't deserve a 1-word schoolyard answer?
Why are you focusing on a parenthetical example and ignoring the argument itself? I have twice listed the core reasons why the God theory can be dismissed for the same type of reasons that the leprechaun theory or the dragon theory may be dismissed. The reference to the Web board was to provide an example of what happens when you ask a group of theists to agree on necessary characteristics of God. I'm not saying they need to agree on all the details, but when a concept is so incoherent that there is not even a general understanding among proponents of one or two indispensible core postulates to define it, then can it be called a concept at all?

[Luke T.]

If Kim Bassinger (http://www.leninimports.com/kim_basinger_gallery_21.jpg) isn't evidence there is a God, then childrens' hospitals aren't evidence there is no God.

[Jimbo07]

Why are you focusing on a parenthetical example and ignoring the argument itself?

Sorry. Okay. Is this the core of your argument, without parentheses?


Belief in God cannot be discounted. God, however, most certainly can.

Anyone can dream up a loose set of conditions, pile them up, and tack on the condition that they are (for unknown reasons) inherently immune to proof or disproof.

To say "God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and whose existence is neither provable nor disprovable" is nothing but a trick of language, a meme-pile.

The God theory has its roots in superstition and myth, has no consistent set of necessary postulates... built-in escape valve...

IF this is your argument, I think you are too quickly dismissing the rhetorical value of the escape valve. Why are philosophy and rhetoric important here? Obviously, because there's nothing that can be measured. This is an unscientific discussion from the start (and by extension, I may then say, unskeptical).

It is a different discussion in kind from people trying to scientifically prove the existence of ghosts, telepathy, and so forth (and failing, pretty much).

Can my rhetoric fail? Jinkies! Both religious folks and non-religious have, at various times, shown themselves to be better rhetoricians than I! :blush:

[Piggy]

I think these generalizations gloss over the complexity of historical issues. "The church hunted witches, therefore the church is all bad," whitewashes over 2000 years of history! In fact, if we are rushing into a sort of darkness, you can almost guarantee, that it won't take the exact same form.
That wasn't the point of my statement. You proposed, as defense of theism, the historical perspective that scientific investigation grew out of monotheism. But by the same token, Darwinian theory grew out of an environment of alternative evolutionary theories and certain philosophical and social movements which have not stood the test of time and investigation. So the fact that monotheism led to science, even if true, is not a validation of monotheism itself.

Join who? Militant Atheists?
Why that word "militant"? Do you refer to militant heliocentrists? Militant evolutionists? Militant quantum mechanists?

The God theory is empty. There is nothing militant about rejecting it and getting on with things.

I'm worried that one's mind gets closed... not to woo-woo ideas, but on the human side, to potential skeptical allies.
This is the "Let my buddy in, he's a good guy" argument again. I'm all for people of all stripes participating here and in other skeptical forums and events and publications and helping to expose fraud. But religion and theism, many of us firmly believe, is the biggest fraud going, and we're going to say so.

Really, it's like asking scientists not to gripe about creationism because they'd have so many more supporters among the public if they'd just be quiet about all that.


It's just that... gngngn... none of those agreements conclusively preclude God. The 'primal cause' question doesn't go away, just because it's annoying. One may have to make a deliberate choice to ignore it (a primal cause, or lack thereof, may not affect my daily life), but Atheism is an attempt to answer that primal question. By adopting Atheism, by deliberately saying, "There is no God," you are tacitly giving validity to the asking of a possibly unanswerable question! It's like declaring that you have found a particular negative solution to an intractable problem. A lack of solutions does not automatically imply the validity of the trivial solution.
I don't understand that. Can you explain it?

[Luke T.]

When the Allies bombed Germany and killed a lot of civilians in the process, did that mean the Allies were evil?

If the laws of physics and nature that make cancer cells possible were suspended, would life itself be possible?

It sure would be nice if the law of gravity could be suspended whenever a welfare mother throws her unwanted baby out an apartment building window. But the universe is defective, I guess.

Everybody else should behave morally perfect so I can do whatever the hell I want and enjoy life.

Nah. I'd rather bitch. 'Smore fun.

God or no God, ain't nothing I can do about that. I'm in the dark on what's gonna happen next. I can barely manage my own life, I ain't got the balls to say how God should run things. So I write letters to Congressmen and Senators and tell them how to run things. It's about as effective as prayer. :D

[Jimbo07]

That wasn't the point of my statement. You proposed, as defense of theism, the historical perspective that scientific investigation grew out of monotheism.

Actually, this is why I proposed it:


Ditto with the God theory. It is useless. Which is only one of the reasons why it must be dispensed with if we are to get anything done on this planet.

I thought you were starting an argument on utility. It reminded me of people who say, "Philosophy is dead. It's useless. Remove the salaries of tenured philosophy profs." I read it as a gross generalization, that didn't practically address the historical utility. We shouldn't discard religion entirely because we now deem it as useless, nor should we impose it as a model of productivity. This whole line was a non-sequiter, especially in light of our discussion.


Why that word "militant"? Do you refer to militant heliocentrists? Militant evolutionists? Militant quantum mechanists?


Poor choice of words? Lack of anything better? I've already addressed heliocentrism. Similarly, evolution and quantum mechanics are observable, workable things.

Atheism is not.

You and I are discussing whether Atheism is equatable to skepticism. Since I feel that skepticism is an approach, and Atheism a conclusion, I'm arguing that they are not. I fell I am attacking a conclusion. The comparison is with militant religious folks, not scientists. Hmm, and I realize the violent implications of religious militantism... so Assertive Atheism? Strong Atheism?

Be very careful not to try to equate Atheism and the practice of science.


The God theory is empty. There is nothing militant about rejecting it and getting on with things.

I would say there is nothing militant about "ignoring" it and getting on with things. Ignoring an issue and rejecting a solution are two different things.


This is the "Let my buddy in, he's a good guy" argument again.


What's the point of a club that wouldn't have my buddy? :D

But religion and theism, many of us firmly believe, is the biggest fraud going, and we're going to say so.

Religion? Possibly. Although that does wilfully ignore the truly selfless work done by some individuals in the name of their religion.

God? I don't have a strong enough faith against God to fully agree.


Really, it's like asking scientists not to gripe about creationism because they'd have so many more supporters among the public if they'd just be quiet about all that.

Creation/non-creation is a religious argument, not a scientific one. ID is a political argument that misrepresents science. If you read popular press rebuttals by scientists, they don't actively discount God, only that certain criticisms of evolution are invalid. It's an important difference, both politically and in terms of recognizing the limits of what one can study.



I don't understand that. Can you explain it?

Probably not without accidentally saying something untrue :D

(I seem to be doing a better job right now of wasting time than giving up! :boxedin: ) Nurtz... where is that starch-to-ethanol process diagram I had on my desk...

[Piggy]

I said, and still say, that the GT is useless. If it was ever useful or productive in the past is another question. We know better now.

[Huntster]

....A separate school teacher once proudly told me how he was allowed to teach evolution as science while public school teachers were constrained to wrap it in the hullabaloo of religious disclaimers or misuse of the word "theory."....

An excellent point that should be considered by all, especially those (on all sides) who wish to continue politicizing the public school system.

[Huntster]

When the Allies bombed Germany and killed a lot of civilians in the process, did that mean the Allies were evil?

If the laws of physics and nature that make cancer cells possible were suspended, would life itself be possible?

It sure would be nice if the law of gravity could be suspended whenever a welfare mother throws her unwanted baby out an apartment building window. But the universe is defective, I guess.

Everybody else should behave morally perfect so I can do whatever the hell I want and enjoy life.

Nah. I'd rather bitch. 'Smore fun.

God or no God, ain't nothing I can do about that. I'm in the dark on what's gonna happen next. I can barely manage my own life, I ain't got the balls to say how God should run things. So I write letters to Congressmen and Senators and tell them how to run things....

Excellent post. That's pretty much how I feel about things.

...I write letters to Congressmen and Senators and tell them how to run things. It's about as effective as prayer....

Actually, I've found prayer to much more effective than writing to political figures, calling the police, etc.

God is much easier to deal with than other people............

[J. Arthur Hastur]

IF There is a God, he is histories greatest criminal after all no evil can be committed without his approval. This means that he approved the Inquisition, The Crusades, The Black Death, Hitler, Pol-Pot etc. etc.

[Jimbo07]

I said, and still say, that the GT is useless.

Largely, I agree. There isn't much use I can personally get out of the GT.

... but... for people who concern themselves with finding the truth oooh, GT can't be fully discounted.

I guess, academically, G-unit seems to have a place in some legit philosophical discussions, whereas ghosts, E.T. cattle mutilators and perpetual motion machines do not. This is probably where some of these people get off claiming to be skeptical.

whatever.

[Huntster]

IF There is a God, he is histories greatest criminal after all no evil can be committed without his approval.....

I don't know why I bother with such posts:

Approve (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=approve):

To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
Obsolete. To prove or attest.


Allow (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allow):

To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee break.
To plan for in case of need: allow two inches in the fabric for shrinkage.
To grant as a discount or in exchange: allowed me 20 dollars on my old typewriter.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I stand by my use of 'approved' , God obviusly didn't do that all himself, he simply signed Satan's parental consent form.

[Huntster]

I stand by my use of 'approved' , God obviusly didn't do that all himself, he simply signed Satan's parental consent form.

So you accept the existence of God and Satan, the story of Satan's fall, and God's allowance of evil?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

So you accept the existence of God and Satan, the story of Satan's fall, and God's allowance of evil?

We're forgetting the big IF in my other post ;) . IF God exists, then why wouldn't Satan?

[Jimbo07]

A note on Satan:

I've been supporting (mostly as exercise) the possibility of a Creator. Note that I do not support any of the follow-on trappings, such as: Satan, afterlife, angels, etc. A metaphysical hole for a creator in no way implies the trappings of any particular religion. Satan wouldn't need to exist, obviously, unless you were now straying into a study of morals.

When the Greeks wrote of a First Cause, they didn't also write that the First Cause was responsible for Original Sin, sent Noah on a one-boat regatta, or foretell a reappearance of a Messiah.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

A note on Satan:

I've been supporting (mostly as exercise) the possibility of a Creator. Note that I do not support any of the follow-on trappings, such as: Satan, afterlife, angels, etc. A metaphysical hole for a creator in no way implies the trappings of any particular religion. Satan wouldn't need to exist, obviously, unless you were now straying into a study of morals.

When the Greeks wrote of a First Cause, they didn't also write that the First Cause was responsible for Original Sin, sent Noah on a one-boat regatta, or foretell a reappearance of a Messiah.

So then God is directly responsible for evil. I was at least giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Huntster]

So then God is directly responsible for evil.....

You seem pretty insistent on blaming an entity that you doubt exists for the evil that people perpetrate.

Why is that?

...I was at least giving him the benefit of the doubt...

Funny; it didn't look that way to me.........

[Jimbo07]

So then God is directly responsible for evil. I was at least giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Well... yes. Assuming that 'evil' even exists as anything independent of the relationships of actors, god-as-creator would have to be responsible for everything including evil, if truly a First or Primal Cause. That's exactly what I'd be saying.

Much like people saying that the facts don't care what you want, God would exist, independently of whether you want to believe in evil, or not. God, if God exists, exists regardless of our opinions and wishes. Just like a rock, or dead tree branch.

You nailed what I was saying right on the head.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

You seem pretty insistent on blaming an entity that you doubt exists for the evil that people perpetrate.

Why is that?


IF God exists, he should challenge my blame and settle both questions once and for all. I never said I didn't believe or not believe in God, I said I would reserve judgement until there was proof one way or the other.

I am just positing questions that make the existance of God an implausible scenario.

IF an all powerful benovolent creator exists, why dos he allow or cause bad things to happen?

[Huntster]

IF God exists, he should challenge my blame and settle both questions once and for all......

IF God exists, do you really think He'd be very impressed with your accusations, or feel some sort of requirement to fulfill your desires?

Maybe He has every intention of doing so, but not at the time or place of your choosing?

...I never said I didn't believe or not believe in God, I said I would reserve judgement until there was proof one way or the other.

Maybe that's when God will "challenge your blame and settle both questions once and for all"?

IF an all powerful benovolent creator exists, why dos he allow or cause bad things to happen

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#e

EVIL: The opposite or absence of good. One form of evil, physical evil, is a result of the "state of journeying" toward its ultimate perfection in which God created the world, involving the existence of the less perfect alongside the more perfect, the constructive and the destructive forces of nature, the appearance and disappearance of certain beings (310). Moral evil, however, results from the free choice to sin which angels and men have; it is permitted by God, who knows how to derive good from it, in order to respect the freedom of his creatures (311).

[Nyarlathotep]

IF God exists, do you really think He'd be very impressed with your accusations, or feel some sort of requirement to fulfill your desires?


If God exists (at least the Christian, Jewish or Muslim God) he seems concerned enough about us beleiving that he exists that he is willing to have us tortured for alleternity if we don't believe. So one would think that, under those circumstances, he would let himself be known to people who doubt his existance. Unless he is a sadistic bastard who ENJOYS torturing people.

[Huntster]

If God exists (at least the Christian, Jewish or Muslim God) he seems concerned enough about us beleiving that he exists that he is willing to have us tortured for alleternity if we don't believe. So one would think that, under those circumstances, he would let himself be known to people who doubt his existance. Unless he is a sadistic bastard who ENJOYS torturing people.

Torture? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture) (You used the word twice):

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Do you have some evidence that God "is willing to have us tortured for alleternity if we don't believe"?

[Nyarlathotep]

Do you have some evidence that God "is willing to have us tortured for alleternity if we don't believe"?


What is all the talk of hell and "lakes of fire" (i.e. Revelations 20:15) if not eternal torture? Being burned in a lake of fire pretty much fits my definition of it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Do you have some evidence that God "is willing to have us tortured for alleternity if we don't believe"?
What is all the talk of hell and "lakes of fire" (i.e. Revelations 20:15) if not eternal torture? Being burned in a lake of fire pretty much fits my definition of it.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.

This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.

This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically.

Why is it that those critical of Christianity refuse to take most scripture literally, then take other parts (especially that part that is clearly symbolic, dream-like, etc) literally to the point of being ridiculous?

[Nyarlathotep]

[url]
Why is it that those critical of Christianity refuse to take most scripture literally, then take other parts (especially that part that is clearly symbolic, dream-like, etc) literally to the point of being ridiculous?


One could ask the same thing of many Christians, i.e. if I were having this same discussion with a Jack Chick style fundy, I don't know what the answer to my question would be but it would most assuredly NOT be that the Lake of Fire is clearly intended to be symbolism. Among many Christians, "unbelievers are going to burn in hell" is an unquestionable fact.

So given that, exactly what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively? How do you know this?

[RSLancastr]

..And still...The 'so called' Christian skeptics refuse to answer...De, I doubt many of them even bothered to open this thread, given the title.

[Jimbo07]

One could ask the same thing of many Christians, i.e. if I were having this same discussion with a Jack Chick style fundy,

It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder if De was originally responding to particular people, or a particular argument.

I tried to demonstrate that there is a weak argument for a Creator of some kind, but certainly not in the Fundy sense of affecting things for which definite physical claims can be tested.

That is, arguing that Amercian Xian Fundamentalists are extreme and present incorrect claims does not mean that Atheism is correct, nor that only an Atheist is a Skeptic.

If I claimed that the world was created in 6 periods of 24 hours, only a few thousand years ago and then claimed that people who believe in ghosts are woo... then I'd HAVE to agree with De_Bunk.

If I claimed that everyone who posts on this board is sitting in a four-legged chair, and De said, "No they're not, and if you make that claim you're not a skeptic," well De doesn't know. They very well could be. It's different than if I say, "De is sitting in a chair at 4:59 p.m. De can debunk this (or not) quickly, without having to wonder if everyone is lying about their status."

Assertions about a Creator/no Creator is a religious argument, entirely outside science, and outside of any but the most dogmatic skeptical discussions. There's no relation. There's nothing to measure.

Atheists are not skeptics, simply by having the belief of Atheism. Atheists may in fact be skeptical, or they may have decided (as some do), without any sort of contemplation. "there's no God. So there."

Here the woos (if you insist) win with the statement absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Piggy]

IF this is your argument, I think you are too quickly dismissing the rhetorical value of the escape valve. Why are philosophy and rhetoric important here? Obviously, because there's nothing that can be measured. This is an unscientific discussion from the start (and by extension, I may then say, unskeptical).
My field is rhetoric, so believe me when I say I'm not too quickly dismissing it. I recognize it for what it is.

Rhetoric has its uses. But in order to be positive and practical (as opposed to being used for, say, humor or propaganda or deceit) it must have some contact with reality. Using rhetoric to generate hypotheses rather than express them is folly.

If you care to engage in unchecked freelance rhetoric and philosophy, that's your choice, but there's no use pretending that such parlor games should be taken seriously in discussions of what is and is not actual.

Now that you admit plainly that what you're on about is unscientific and unskeptical, then we can end this discussion if you also admit that it's not connected with reality, that it's all a meme-game in your head.

It is a different discussion in kind from people trying to scientifically prove the existence of ghosts, telepathy, and so forth (and failing, pretty much).
The proof of the falsity of the God theory is different in kind from the proof of the falsity of telepathy etc. But not because the GT has any more value.

The GT as you propose it is a meme game, in which the qualities of indetectability, non-provability, and non-disprovability are built into the object. It is an undetectable dog in the room. And, like the undetectable dog, it doesn't become credible merely by assertion.

You claim that atheism is not a positively provable position, therefore one should stop at agnosticism. If you believe that, then a-undetectable-dog-ism, which is also not a positively provable position, is untenable as well, along with an infinite number of a-X theories where X is an unsubstantiated position regarding self-validating propositions with no demonstrable connection to reality.

It is not up to rationalists, naturalists, and materialists to disprove God. Until and unless some evidence is brought out, what you call "atheism" is every bit as tenable as a-undetectable-dog-ism, and is in fact the default position of rigorously rational or skeptical persons.

There are good reasons to dismiss the theory of the undetectable dog, despite the fact that the UD theory insists that the UD is by nature undetectable and immune to scientific discovery.

Ditto for the God theory.

[Huntster]

....So given that, exactly what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively?

I don't know. I generally review the footnotes in the New American Bible, then judge the individual passage myself. Usually, I don't even consider whether or not passages need to be "taken literally".

For example, the entire John Chapter 9 is one of my favorite gospel chapters. I never found the need to dissect whether or not Jesus actually lived, actually healed the man born blind, sent him to the pool of Siloam, etc. I simply found the story to fit what I would expect of the players, marvelled at the wisdom of the man called Jesus, enjoyed the way the man born blind replied to the Pharisees, etc.

Seems to me once the reader gets over or gives up on the "literal" struggle, the readings take on new meaning.

[Piggy]

I don't have a strong enough faith against God to fully agree.
This is your fundamental mistake. One does not need faith against God. One merely needs to stop engaging in faith, and God disappears.

This is what makes God different from real things. Stop believing in trucks and you still get run over if you stand in front of one.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07 :
I don't have a strong enough faith against God to fully agree.
This is your fundamental mistake. One does not need faith against God. One merely needs to stop engaging in faith, and God disappears......

That is correct.

...This is what makes God different from real things. Stop believing in trucks and you still get run over if you stand in front of one

But then, after being run over by the truck, with or without faith (and much to the dismay of the faithless), God may become a very real "thing".

[Jimbo07]

This is your fundamental mistake. One does not need faith against God. One merely needs to stop engaging in faith, and God disappears.

Hmm. Okay.

So is (hmmm not belief, but acceptance?) acceptance of a negative conclusion, in an unmeasurable scenario, a belief? If not, why not? What fallacy am I making, or what nuance of language is going on (say in the definition of belief) that I'm missing?

In fact, short of accusing the UD theorist of wishful thinking (certainly a valid point, and how could the UDer know, if neither of us can measure the UD), how can we say that a UD is not there? We can practically assume it isn't, and I thought this was the point of Sagan's elephant analogy... whether it's there or not, we should act like it isn't.

In fact, if you'll check my posts, nowhere have I advocated acting irrationally, or based on wishful thinking. Serious theologians would not recommend this either.

The remaining question is, "is the origin of the universe a special case?" I don't see why it should be. The Big Bang is a growing idea, with a growing preponderance of evidence, of what happened. It does not answer why it happened. It doesn't even answer the question, "is asking why it happened even a valid question?" The thing is, there's nothing to suggest it shouldn't be a special case, either. That was my point about M-theory.

Say the Big Bang really resulted from colliding branes in some multi-dimensional construct. Um... where did this construct come from? Hasn't this only pushed the God question back one stage? Of course, we can't test this experimentally yet, but even if we ever can, don't we somehow still reach an intellectual point where we're going to have to throw up our hands? An intellectual Gordian (sp.?) Knot that physical measurement can't untangle?


This is what makes God different from real things. Stop believing in trucks and you still get run over if you stand in front of one.

Um, I can measure the speed of a truck with sufficient precision to decide not to be in the way.


If you care to engage in unchecked freelance rhetoric and philosophy, that's your choice, but there's no use pretending that such parlor games should be taken seriously in discussions of what is and is not actual.


With your background in rhetoric, you'll know then, that for a long time, the Church provided a rhetorical forum, and an environment for critical thinkers (and conversely periods of unfortunate dogmatic oversight). Who are we to say what should be taken seriously in discussions of what is and is not actual.

Anyway, that is why I engage in it on web boards. It's a more satisfying form of video game... ;)


Now that you admit plainly that what you're on about is unscientific and unskeptical, then we can end this discussion if you also admit that it's not connected with reality, that it's all a meme-game in your head.

The discussion is not a scientific debate. That doesn't mean we've reached a scientific conclusion. I've been merely trying to point out that: Skepticism may imply Atheism, but an Atheist is not, by default, a skeptic. An individual may be both atheist and skeptic, but some atheists will be dogmatic, more angry at religion than rational, and some skeptics may not be atheists. That's my response to the O.P. There's some sort of association fallacy there that doesn't reflect the motivations of individuals. I'm personally satisfied with thinking that Skeptic (like Scientist) is a job description, while Atheist is a point of view.


You claim that atheism is not a positively provable position, therefore one should stop at agnosticism. If you believe that, then a-undetectable-dog-ism, which is also not a positively provable position, is untenable as well, along with an infinite number of a-X theories where X is an unsubstantiated position regarding self-validating propositions with no demonstrable connection to reality.

I've worked myself into a corner, so to at least save myself the embarrassment of inconsistency (lesser of 2 evils?), I will say that yes, absolute denial of any self-validating proposition is, at heart, a belief (see my first question on my potential mistake).


It is not up to rationalists, naturalists, and materialists to disprove God. Until and unless some evidence is brought out, what you call "atheism" is every bit as tenable as a-undetectable-dog-ism, and is in fact the default position of rigorously rational or skeptical persons.

We're, perhaps, a hair's breadth from each other's position. I would have thought that the default skeptical position would be something akin to apathetic agnosticism (i.e. your claim has no value to me, unless I see some evidence... I'm bored). It would not be an immediate flat denial of a claim.

There would be room for a flat denial of a specific claim you have heard 1000 times before. Atlas, holding up the world on genuine shoulders, is patently false, as is God selecting a particular race as superior.

Does the origin of the universe present us with a special case? Like the pink elephant, it's fun to worry at, but doesn't seriously affect my day-to-day work (I keep this browser open in the background :D ).

[Hellbound]

I think a lot of the confusion on this thread comes from changes in the use of the words "atheist" and "agnostic".

The viewpoint you're talking about, Jimbo, is more properly termed "antitheist", or one who believes there are no gods.

Atheist, as most skeptics use it, refers to "one who does not believe in god(s)". Therre is a difference. I withhold belief until such a time as evidence can be presented, one way or another. Do I believe God exists? No, because there's been no evidence for him/her/it/them. Can I categorically state he doesn't? No, but I can feel free to act and think as if he doesn't, which is the default position. It's simply an extension of Occam's Razor. The first cause argument only suggests that something caused the universe. Applying the term "God" to that first cause is meaningless, for multiple reasons. If you simply define "God" as "first cause", then you just get into semantic arguments, and the term "God" itself becomes meaningless. Thus, saying you believe in God, with this meaning, is an empty statement. Might as well say "I believe something caused the universe". A much more clear, and accurate statement of the position. "God" and similar terms have associations and meanings that go far beyond a simple "first cause".

Agnostic is often used to describe those who simply say "I don't know", but that's popular usage rather than a precise meaning. Agnostic comes from the prefix "a-", meaning without or apart from, and the root "Gnosis", meaning knowledge. The agnostic is one who holds that the existence or non-existence of a God is completely unknowable (not just unknown).

The essential argument is that non-belief is the default position. Otherwise, you get caught into semantic arguments (redefining "God" to be a meaningless term) or ina position of inconsistency (as you then cannot disbelieve in anything, because there's always a possibility....Santa claus, Easter bunny, etc...otherwise you aren't applying your reasoning evenly. I believe most of us would agree with you about the militant, 100% atheists (there is no God and there never will be, he'll never be proven, etc, etc). For the rest of us, we disbeive, but if evidence is found that belief is subject to revision.

Hope that clears it up a bit, and hope I haven't mis-stated what Piggy was trying to get to (feel free to make corrections as necessary, for all concerned) :)

[J. Arthur Hastur]

IF God exists, do you really think He'd be very impressed with your accusations, or feel some sort of requirement to fulfill your desires?

Well, if he's not impressed with me and not going to answer my questions or my prayers, then why should I possibly worship him? Should I worship anyone that is more 'powerful' than me?


Maybe He has every intention of doing so, but not at the time or place of your choosing?Maybe that's when God will "challenge your blame and settle both questions once and for all"?

I have a feeling he won't ever do so.



http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#e

Links to religious dogma won't do anything. Christianity and all the major religions are co-equal in their defiance of logic. An all-powerful benevolent creator would not allow bad things to happen, no matter what your religious dogma is, that is simply illogical.

So either:

a.) God does not exist

b.)God is not benevolent and does not care about us

or

c.)God is powerless to act to prevent bad things from happening.

In any of those above events, he is most certainly not deserving of my worship, belief or my respect.

[Piggy]

I'll get around to a more detailed response later, but the fundamental error comes from classifying atheism/antitheism as a belief in the first place.

In fact, both these terms are misleading, because they imply that the position is counter to some valid theory or that it occupies a necessary space in some valid area of inquiry. It is not, and it does not. It is the absence of a theory with regard to something which has never been demonstrated to exist at all, in an area of inquiry (theology) which has not been shown to have any substance whatsoever. In other words, it is the absence of a theory where none is required.

Would you speak of aleprechaunism, and insist that it's somehow a belief, and that because leprechauns, being magical, can't be proven not to exist, then all these aleprechaunists should instead be, at best, agnostic on the subject?

Of course not. Aleprechaunism is merely normal thought, devoid of any appeal to leprechauns whatsoever. It does not require a special designation.

Ditto for a-unicornism, or a-dragonism, or a-bigfootism, or a-the-world-is-an-illusion-caused-by-aliens-ism, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

The reason we have a special word for people who don't concern themselves with the G-theory is merely historical.

If we decide that people must be labeled specially for their nonbelief in merely self-verifying, irrational, unprovable, undisprovable memegames, then everyone will need to carry around an infinite number of a-labels. And if we go further, and declare that "I don't know" is the strongest negative statement anyone can make about such ideas, then we all become agnostics in an infinte spectrum of humbuggery.

Rejecting the G-theory is not a positive position. It is simply normal thought devoid of that theory. Giving it an a-label doesn't change that.

Instead, it is the responsibility of those proposing this outlandish theory to demonstrate that it deserves even to be considered by rational folk.

[Jimbo07]

So either:

a.) God does not exist

b.)God is not benevolent and does not care about us

or

c.)God is powerless to act to prevent bad things from happening.

In any of those above events, he is most certainly not deserving of my worship, belief or my respect.

Now these I fully agree with. Unless God IS as I've descriped (omin-everything), there is no reason to respect the idea, much less worship. God could, at best, be some merely very powerful thing.

I think a lot of the confusion on this thread comes from changes in the use of the words "atheist" and "agnostic".

The viewpoint you're talking about, Jimbo, is more properly termed "antitheist", or one who believes there are no gods.

I'd be inclined to agree, that yes, there may be a terminology issue here. Question: who is terming this particular viewpoint as "antitheist", I mean politically, culturally? Who then, in the popular press is now not only distinguising atheist vs. faithful, nor even atheist vs. agnostic vs. faithful, but antitheist vs. atheist vs. agnostic vs. faithful?

In the same way that I've simply defined OOOC into existence, don't we run the risk of defining everyone into very tight little packages?


Can I categorically state he doesn't? No, but I can feel free to act and think as if he doesn't, which is the default position. It's simply an extension of Occam's Razor.

Again, a tool, not a proof, and may fully break down if, indeed, the origin of the universe is some kind of special case.

"God" and similar terms have associations and meanings that go far beyond a simple "first cause".

There's the rub. There's a cultural connotation, much (I'd suggest) like atheism. Sorry. I'm not sure that antitheism is in the cultural headspace.

"Prove me wrong, children. Prove me wrong." - Principal Skinner


Agnostic is often used to describe those who simply say "I don't know",


Partly me, but the word I'd use is Ignorant, rather than Agnostic.


The agnostic is one who holds that the existence or non-existence of a God is completely unknowable (not just unknown).

Unmeasurable => unknowable

I have yet to see any metric (short of revelation, which some skeptics will not generally accept) of knowledge that suggests otherwise (a real problem with this is 'what constitutes a measurement' and I've already blown this one with Tez :o ). Even the language of 'metric' that I've used is loaded! :rolleyes:

The only way to know God would be through faith, then. I also do not see how a denial could not be faith-based.


you get caught into semantic arguments (redefining "God" to be a meaningless term) or ina position of inconsistency (as you then cannot disbelieve in anything, because there's always a possibility....Santa claus, Easter bunny, etc...

And, as I've noted, at least as far as this discussion is concerned, I've backed myself into this corner. There is a small possibility that fluffy pink unicorns exist :( I can, at least, refute certain claims about Santa Claus: Santa does not live at either the geometric, nor magnetic North Poles (at least in 4-D spacetime :D).

ETA:


And if we go further, and declare that "I don't know" is the strongest negative statement anyone can make about such ideas, then we all become agnostics in an infinte spectrum of humbuggery.

Yes, and all we're left with is probabilistic (read: practical) determinations to decide courses of action.

[Huntster]

Well, if he's not impressed with me and not going to answer my questions or my prayers, then why should I possibly worship him?....

So that He may be more willing to be impressed with you, and then answer your questions and prayers?

...Should I worship anyone that is more 'powerful' than me?....

Probably not "anyone". I don't "worship" all who are more 'powerful' than me, but I tend to be impressed by them.

...I have a feeling he won't ever do so....

I'm sorry.

...Links to religious dogma won't do anything...

I provided the link to answer your question:

...IF an all powerful benovolent creator exists, why dos he allow or cause bad things to happen...

That explanation, documented in the catalogue of accepted doctrine by the world's largest Christian church, is one that, after consideration and comparison with other aspects of that doctrine, I find plausible.

...Christianity and all the major religions are co-equal in their defiance of logic....

I disagree.

...An all-powerful benevolent creator would not allow bad things to happen, no matter what your religious dogma is, that is simply illogical....

Not if the goal is to allow free will in order to be able to later seperate those who are good from those who are not.

...So either:

a.) God does not exist

b.)God is not benevolent and does not care about us

or

c.)God is powerless to act to prevent bad things from happening.....

Or,

d) God has allowed "bad" things to happen because the very nature of physical life is limited by death and change, and this overall design also allows for a spiritual entity with free will to demonstrate it's choice of good vrs. evil.

...In any of those above events, he is most certainly not deserving of my worship, belief or my respect

And that is your choice.

[Piggy]

I submit the leprechaun test:

If you follow the rules of a certain philosophy and they lead you to the conclusion that the strongest negative statement that can be made regarding an unsupported claim is "I don't know", then apply the identical logic to leprechauns.

If, by applying these rules to the question of whether leprechauns are real, the strongest negative statement you can make is still "I don't know", then your philosophy is a load of horsefeathers.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

So that He may be more willing to be impressed with you, and then answer your questions and prayers?



Probably not "anyone". I don't "worship" all who are more 'powerful' than me, but I tend to be impressed by them.



I'm sorry.



I provided the link to answer your question:



That explanation, documented in the catalogue of accepted doctrine by the world's largest Christian church, is one that, after consideration and comparison with other aspects of that doctrine, I find plausible.



I disagree.



Not if the goal is to allow free will in order to be able to later seperate those who are good from those who are not.



Or,

d) God has allowed "bad" things to happen because the very nature of physical life is limited by death and change, and this overall design also allows for a spiritual entity with free will to demonstrate it's choice of good vrs. evil.



And that is your choice.


Well, now we are back to the original problem, you are attempting to use religious dogma, to prove God exists and to define his motives and actions.

Just because the Catholic Church is the largest church and says it's so, does not make it so. Remember, these are the same people that said that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe, witches are real, and demonic possession is a reality. NOW that the churches dogma has been scientifically proven so categorically wrong in it's astrologicol views WHY would I accept their dogma on other views?

WHY would I trust ANY church that claims to know God's motives when they cannot even prove there is a God? How can a non-existant being be ascribed motives?

[JamesDillon]

I submit the leprechaun test:

If you follow the rules of a certain philosophy and they lead you to the conclusion that the strongest negative statement that can be made regarding an unsupported claim is "I don't know", then apply the identical logic to leprechauns.

If, by applying these rules to the question of whether leprechauns are real, the strongest negative statement you can make is still "I don't know", then your philosophy is a load of horsefeathers.

I suppose that's a pretty succinct statement of the epistemological difference between you and, if I may presume to speak for him, Jimbo and me. I don't know whether leprechauns exist; I can only say that I've seen no evidence thus far tending to suggest that they do, and on that basis I'm justified in adopting a provisional belief that there are no such things as leprechauns, which could always be proved wrong later. You can call that "horsefeathers" if you like, but it would seem that some respected intellectuals subscribe to a similar view of scientific knowledge. See, e.g., Sagan (the invisible fire-breathing dragon discussion in The Demon-Haunted World), Shermer (characterization of science as provisionally justified belief in Why People Believe Weird Things), Popper (evolutionary account of scientific knowledge as a set of potentially falsifiable statements in The Logic of Scientific Discovery). On the other hand, Dawkins hasn't written much on scientific epistemology (maybe a bit in Unweaving the Rainbow, but I haven't read that yet), but I get the sense he would probably be on your side.

[Piggy]

I suppose that's a pretty succinct statement of the epistemological difference between you and, if I may presume to speak for him, Jimbo and me.
OK, good. If that's true, then this is the point where we shake hands and say, well, we know where we stand. Because if y'all can't accept the leprechaun test, if you're really serious about having to allow any doubt whatsoever about leprechauns, then we are never going to agree on the fundamentals of this issue, no matter how long we talk.

Good game, guys.

[Jimbo07]

OK, good. If that's true, then this is the point where we shake hands and say, well, we know where we stand.

Yup.


Because if y'all can't accept the leprechaun test, if you're really serious about having to allow any doubt whatsoever about leprechauns,

even a smidge... after all, I can't get enough 'o me Lucky Charms! :D


then we are never going to agree on the fundamentals of this issue, no matter how long we talk.

Probably not.

Good game, guys.

And the same to you!

[RSLancastr]

Hope that clears it up a bit, and hope I haven't mis-stated what Piggy was trying to get to (feel free to make corrections as necessary, for all concerned) :)Unfortunately, it only clears up what those terms mean to you!

These sorts of debates always get bogged down because there are so many definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic." Even the dictionary gives multiple (and conflicting) definitions for the terms.

Here are some of the ways I have seen the terms defined (The columns represent how a person would answer the question "Is there a god or gods?"):

#|No|I Don't Know|It's unknowable
1|Atheist|Atheist|Atheist
2|Hard Atheist|Soft Atheist|Soft Atheist
3|Atheist|Agnostic|Agnostic
4|Atheist|Soft Agnostic|Hard Agnostic
5|Atheist|Agnostic|Classic Agnostic


... and I'm sure there are others.

These types of discussions are rarely fruitful unless everyone in the discussion agrees on the terminology (and they almost never do).

[Huntster]

Well, now we are back to the original problem, you are attempting to use religious dogma, to prove God exists and to define his motives and actions....

I tried to "prove God exists" with that post?

How so, with language like this:

...That explanation, documented in the catalogue of accepted doctrine by the world's largest Christian church, is one that, after consideration and comparison with other aspects of that doctrine, I find plausible....

If I find something plausible, that is an attempt to "prove" it?

You have an interesting interpretation of the English language, and it varies dramatically from the dictionaries that I'm familiar with.

As far as "define his motives and actions", I simply posted the official Catholic doctrine (which differs from yours), stated that I had considered and compared it to the rest of that doctrine, and found it "plausible".

...Just because the Catholic Church is the largest church and says it's so, does not make it so....

That is correct.

And just because J. Arthur Hastur, an unknown individual (who may even be writing under a pseudonym) says:

...An all-powerful benevolent creator would not allow bad things to happen, no matter what your religious dogma is, that is simply illogical....

doesn't make it so.

...Remember, these are the same people that said that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe, witches are real, and demonic possession is a reality....

Before it was established otherwise, nearly everyone said that "the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe, witches are real", etc.

...NOW that the churches dogma has been scientifically proven so categorically wrong in it's astrologicol views WHY would I accept their dogma on other views?...

Because those "other views" haven't been "scientifically proven so categorically wrong"?

...WHY would I trust ANY church that claims to know God's motives when they cannot even prove there is a God?....

Because proving that there is a God may not be possible?

... How can a non-existant being be ascribed motives?...

I don't know about "non-existant beings", but God might be ascribed motives by prophets or others to whom He has made them known.

[lostnick3]

RSLancastr


Before it was established otherwise, nearly everyone said that "the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe, witches are real", etc.


as the sun travels around the Galaxy, in the long run would it not travel around the earth.(I've always liked that answer thought i would throw it in)one by one these myths been explored and explained by science. recently i heard of the "old hag syndrome" on one of the other threads. the person would wake up feeling there was someone on their chest preventing them from breathing as in a old hag. that turned out to be part of a sleeping disorder called sleep apnea. another problem or the problem is the person stops breathing for extended periods of time. i can go for more than a minute myself. so in biblical times how are they going to interpret such things? it sounded good to me.

[RSLancastr]

RSLancastr

Before it was established otherwise, nearly everyone said that "the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is the center of the universe, witches are real", etc.Sorry lostnick, but I have no idea which of my posts this was in resopnse to... :confused:

[Hellbound]

Unfortunately, it only clears up what those terms mean to you!

Quite true, which is what I, in my long-winded and inefficient way, was trying to get at :)

I by no means meant the definitions I gave were definitive, or the accepted usage. I was trying to point out the original meaning of the words, and the point that when most peopel think atheist they'd more correctly be thinking of anti-theist (which is not an accepted word, but more closely relates to what people think of as atheist).

I was trying to get closer definitions to what people on the thread were using as definitions, at least for skeptics when we say atheist. I may have been wrong, but if nothign else that definition is what I mean when I say atheist. I don't believe there isn't a god(s), but I don't believe there is, either. It's a non-issue. I do disbelieve in some gods, though, such as the Greek Pantehon living on Mt. Olympus.

The problem that comes into play is that the only meaningful, possibly realistic definition of god basically makes it the thing that pushed over the first domino and then left the room. Thus, the only way to allow for god is to re-define it to the point that the word is meaningless.

Just as you point out about my defining of atheist and agnostic, the arguments in this thread for theism basically achieve it by redefining the words to the point that they're meanignless. Thus, claiming to believe in god, in this case, is an empty statement (if you simply mean a first cause). And if you mean anything more than this, there's simply no evidence for it.

[lostnick3]

Sorry lostnick, but I have no idea which of my posts this was in resopnse to... :confused:

the quote you sited is yours i believe. I'm still working on my computer skills, still pushing wrong buttons and still typing with two fingers.

[edge]

Well De_Bunk you should know the answer to the question.
It’s simple, if he’s not in your heart he is nowhere.

[De_Bunk]

Edge...

That is a fair comment.


Keep your eyes on the skies...( you know what i mean..;) )



DB

[edge]

True!
How ya been?
Get over your health thing?
Do you know about the watchers?

[Huntster]

....It’s simple, if he’s not in your heart he is nowhere.

I like that.

Well written, edge.

[edge]

Thanks Huntster, you also make good points.
Here's a link to a deep site, lots of research done by these guys.
I still haven't read all of it.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/ufos.html

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/stones.html

http://www.xfacts.com/

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/chamishgiants.html

De_Bunk this will inform you about what we talked of in the past.
Yaweh {sp} knows of this.I just read his post tonite on another thread.

There's tons more D.B.

[Huntster]

Thanks Huntster, you also make good points.
Here's a link to a deep site, lots of research done by these guys.
I still haven't read all of it....

Thanks for the kind words and the links. I glanced through them. The first one (regarding angels) I found very interesting.

I'm not much of a UFO guy. I fully believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life might exist, but I just haven't devoted much of myself into it. I guess I see too much here on Earth, within the natural elements as well as among men, to devote much consideration to UFO's and extraterrestrial life.

[edge]

My computer is slow so bear with me.
It's about history repeating itself.
It's about a great lie.
The one link is a different site.
What do we need more now than anything to keep running ?
Possably a new type of phyisics.
And what are the changes in attitude, morals,and respect.
There is some one for instance here, with me that can't believe what is said as she reads over my shoulder, at just this one site,thread.
Because she is a christan.
It's an awakening to know what's out there, in her own words its apaulling to her.
I only showed her page 1 and 9.

[Donn]

Piggy and Jimbo - thanks for an entertaining debate. I am disappointed that it could not reach clarity because of vague definitions of words.

I sometimes wish that this forum would devote a sticky thread to the debate of word meanings and then elect official meanings of common key words such that conversations can be oriented about a common ground.

[De_Bunk]

Everyone...

Edge is a long time poster..( forget the joining date, he was here long before that )

There's many good points about 'Edge'...he took the JREF challenge...failed...and then came here and admitted it. Explaining everything fully and honestly...He admitted his mistakes and then tried to correct them. He listened to the arguments against his claims and responed politely...Whenever Edge was asked for proof of his claims...he always supplied dozens of links, claims, stories, pictures...etc...real concise kinda stuff..

Edge has always been a bit of a kook...but a very interesting and thorough one. I'm glad he is back here.


DB

[Piggy]

Piggy and Jimbo - thanks for an entertaining debate. I am disappointed that it could not reach clarity because of vague definitions of words.

I sometimes wish that this forum would devote a sticky thread to the debate of word meanings and then elect official meanings of common key words such that conversations can be oriented about a common ground.
Hi, Donn.

Well, it may have been more than just definitions. As explained ad nauseum on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55330), there were probably some fundamental differences over what we accept as valid evidence/proof.

I also would like to see a page of stipulative definitions with posting privileges limited to admins. It would be great if it also included standards of evidence, an explanation of what constitutes a claim, and descriptions of common logical errors.

[Paulhoff]

He is back (Edge), there goes the thinking with dumb metaphors again.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

....There is some one for instance here, with me that can't believe what is said as she reads over my shoulder, at just this one site,thread.
Because she is a christan.
It's an awakening to know what's out there, in her own words its apaulling to her......

That was my first impression of this forum, as well.

I first came here from the Bigfoot Forums when I learned that there was a thread here discussing the Patterson-Gimlin film. Perusing around, I was astounded to read the God-hating and Religion-hating posts.

I wonder about an outlook that blames God for the acts of men.

[Piggy]

I was astounded to read the God-hating and Religion-hating posts.
Atheists don't hate God any more than we hate the Easter Bunny, Gandalf, or the alligators in the New York sewer system. From our point of view, it's impossible (or delusional, or at the very least simply mistaken) to hate God.

Many of us are highly critical of religion, or certain religions, or certain religious people. Some atheists are very angry at certain religious people or groups, or with religion in general.

There's good reason for that. Like right now there are religious people trying to keep kids in school from learning science and who want to turn my state into a theocracy. I'm strongly oppose that, and I fight it, and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.

I wonder about an outlook that blames God for the acts of men.
So do we!

No atheist blames God for anything.

When an atheist says "God killed the kids in that mudslide", it's a contrary-to-fact hypothetical statement, intended to force theists to confront the fact that if their beliefs were true and God is the source of everything, then you'd have to blame him for the bad just as much as you praise him for the good. That's all. No atheists really believes that God does anything at all.

[Paulhoff]

I have not once seen anyone write that they hate a god that does not exist, not once. Dislike people, who think they know this god, yes, hate, no. Everyone that believes in this god, does not believe the same as everyone else. You all have a different view on this god. Will you please give me a definition of this god of yours, so you god people can start to fight with each other on how the other does not get it quite right about god. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

Paul Paul Paul, That voice in your head what does it tell you? When you need to know what to do?
I'll give you an example,
Go ahead and flirt with the Skepchicks your old lady won't have a clue, you never know where that can go! You might get some!

Then there's the other voice that says, no you shouldn't because it's wrong to cheat on her.
Plus Edge will tell!

Where do you think that comes from, and if you don’t have that you lie!
Because you just like myself and D.B. are his creations.
You may not hate us but you sure do go off when something viable proves a point about God.
That’s Another way of seeing through the veil.
Now you honestly tell us that those things didn't pop up in your mind.
When you are there.

Yes Huntster it's hard to put yourself into the midst of the dislike.
This is the place to witness though.
I'm a little hard on Paul but there's something about him that is good.
I know, it’s his name.

This was such perfect timing I forgot my pie in the oven, but I just pulled it out and it's perfect! I walked the dog the pie was in, i WROTE THIS and I just remembered and wow.Cherry pie

[Paulhoff]

Gee, Edge I like hearing your simple minded thoughts, it gives me no hope for the human race. Why aren't you out looking for water.

[Paulhoff]

Yes it takes a small-minded christian to bring someone's family into it. That usually means one of two things, jealousy, or blaming someone else for something you are doing yourself, or both.

[Piggy]

Where do you think that comes from, and if you don’t have that you lie!
There are perfectly good evolutionary explanations for human sexual fidelity (as well as promiscuity) and guilt, which don't involve imaginary creators. You should try reading them sometime.

[Hellbound]

There are perfectly good evolutionary explanations for human sexual fidelity (as well as promiscuity) and guilt, which don't involve imaginary creators. You should try reading them sometime.

I think I've discovered the fatal flaw in your advice, Piggy ;)

[edge]

Them thoughts pop into my mind always.
Now answer my question Paul.

I have the power to read your mind hahaha......_
Just joking!

[Paulhoff]

Well I do have a mind, you on the other hand, Hahahahahahaha.

[edge]

There are perfectly good evolutionary explanations for human sexual fidelity (as well as promiscuity) and guilt, which don't involve imaginary creators. You should try reading them sometime.

I'm talking about your Conscience piggy.
Or is it intervention?

[Paulhoff]

I am going to bed with a non-judgemental woman, you should try it sometime.

[Piggy]

I'm talking about your Conscience piggy.
First you must show that an actual entity exists to talk about. What you have described is thought and behavior. If you ascribe that to an entity (which you name "Conscience"), then get about demonstrating what it is. As I've said, there are perfectly good evolutionary explanations for the phenomena you describe, which do not require any entity called "Conscience" to wonder about the origins of.

[Piggy]

I am going to bed with a non-judgemental woman
Pshaw! Next you'll try telling me you're going to bed with an athletic invalid! :D

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I was astounded to read the God-hating and Religion-hating posts.

Atheists don't hate God any more than we hate the Easter Bunny, Gandalf, or the alligators in the New York sewer system. From our point of view, it's impossible (or delusional, or at the very least simply mistaken) to hate God....

I don't think I mentioned athiests.

I was talking about the God-haters, of whom there are plenty here.

...Many of us are highly critical of religion, or certain religions, or certain religious people....

Me, too.

And I consider myself a religious person.

...There's good reason for that. Like right now there are religious people trying to keep kids in school from learning science and who want to turn my state into a theocracy....

Who is that?

... I'm strongly oppose that, and I fight it, and I make no apologies for that whatsoever....

Me, too.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I wonder about an outlook that blames God for the acts of men.

So do we!

No atheist blames God for anything.

I agree.

The God-haters and Religion-haters do.

...When an atheist says "God killed the kids in that mudslide", it's a contrary-to-fact hypothetical statement, intended to force theists to confront the fact that if their beliefs were true and God is the source of everything, then you'd have to blame him for the bad just as much as you praise him for the good. That's all. No atheists really believes that God does anything at all....

So, who says that dying physically is bad?

Everybody and every other living thing does it. It regenerates the Earth. It is natural.

[Paulhoff]

It regenerates the Earth.

Give me a brake.

Again, how do you hate something that does not exist. I quess you would like us to put words in your mouth, and say that you had ideas that you didn't say you did, too.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

I have not once seen anyone write that they hate a god that does not exist, not once....

Look (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1574620&postcount=2), and see.

F**k the pope and f**k his imaginary God!!!!!!!

....Will you please give me a definition of this god of yours...

Definition (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#g):

GOD: The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation (198, 279).

....so you god people can start to fight with each other on how the other does not get it quite right about god...

I don't live in Northern Ireland. We don't kill each other here over God (and, frankly, they don't kill each other in Northern Ireland over God, either).

If you have problems, it's between people. God ain't the problem; He's the solution.

Quit blaming the wrong entity. Get the problem solved, or hide and shut up.

[Paulhoff]

That is your god, is not a Muslims god, is not a Jewish god, and is not a Hindu’s god, the list is long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God)

"f**k his imaginary god"

That is a majority of one person.

"Northern Ireland"

And all that killing in the Middle East, none has do with the different ideas on a god.

"Quit blaming the wrong entity. Get the problem solved, or hide and shut up."

Feel the love, tell someone to hide and shut up on his or her idea of god, next there is a fight and then someone dies.

"He's the solution" only when people believe the same way about a god, not when it is different, you seem to be blind to this, because I see it all the time. I see the hate in christian’s eyes all the time if you challenge their ideas of a god. Tell them that Jesus was not the son of their god, and run for the hills. Look at how many different denotations of the christian church there are. One god, NO WAY HOZAY.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

Give me a brake.

Again, how do you hate something that does not exist.

You can hate the idea that other people love something that you don't believe exists.

I quess you would like us to put words in your mouth, and say that you had ideas that you didn't say you did, too.

Nope.

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

I don't like that.

[Paulhoff]

There is a big differant between you idea on the word believe and mine. I know that there is no chirstain god, not believe, the word is KNOW.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

That is your god, is not a Muslims god, is not a Jewish god, and is not a Hindu’s god, the list is long........

I worship God. He is the God of Abraham, Christianity, Islam, and He is the Great Spirit of the Native American Nation.

He is the one God of humanity.

Clearly, you do not know Him.

"f**k his imaginary god"

That is a majority of one person.

Only the one who typed it.

"Northern Ireland"

And all that killing in the Middle East, none has do with the different ideas on a god.

And the "different ideas" are whose fault?

God's?

]"Quit blaming the wrong entity. Get the problem solved, or hide and shut up."
Feel the love, tell someone to hide and shut up on his or her idea of god, next there is a fight and then someone dies.[/QUOTE]

Feel the love?

Sorry. I don't feel it here.

If "telling" someone something will lead to a fight, and someone dies, there'd be a whole lot of dead people around this forum.

Talking (typing) is "free" here, and it's damned safe.

"He's the solution" only when people believe the same way about a god, not when it is different....

No, He's the solution despite how you believe, or even if you don't believe.

You just don't get it, do you?

...you seem to be blind to this, because I see it all the time. I see the hate in christian’s eyes all the time if you challenge their ideas of a god....

Have you seen my eyes?

Have you challenged "my ideas" of God?

Do "my ideas" of God have bearing on this?

... Look at how many different denotations of the christian church there are....

Look at how many different sects of Islam there are.

Look at how many different sects of athiesim there are.

Look at how many different sects of agnosticism there are.

Look at how many different sects of Taoism there are.

Look at how many different sects of Hinduism there are.

Need I go on?

[Huntster]

There is a big differant between you idea on the word believe and mine....

Okay.

What does the dictionary (ook at how many different denotations of the christian church there are.) say believe means:

To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

I know that there is no chirstain god, not believe, the word is KNOW.

You're right. There is no "chirstain" god that I know of.

As far as God is concerned, I have every reason to believe in Him.

[slingblade]

I worship God. He is the God of Abraham, Christianity, Islam, and He is the Great Spirit of the Native American Nation.

There's no such thing as a Native American Nation. There are over 500 different nations, and they differ widely across the spectrum. Not all of them, by any means, have this "Great Spirit" Hollywood has obviously taught you so much about.

Clearly, you do not know Him.

Clearly, it doesn't exist.


Look at how many different sects of athiesim there are.

Atheists got sects? I never get any sects.

Look at how many different sects of agnosticism there are.

ibid.

Need I go on?

Nope. Not one word more. That'd suit me just fine.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I worship God. He is the God of Abraham, Christianity, Islam, and He is the Great Spirit of the Native American Nation.

There's no such thing as a Native American Nation. There are over 500 different nations, and they differ widely across the spectrum. Not all of them, by any means, have this "Great Spirit" Hollywood has obviously taught you so much about.

You're right; there's no such thing as a 'native american nation'.

It was a native american continent, filled with tribes, and they did, indeed differ widely across the spectrum. Not all of them, by any means, have this "Great Spirit" Hollywood has obviously taught so many about.

But one thing is for damned sure:

There weren't any athiests among native americans.

Clearly, you do not know Him.

Clearly, it doesn't exist.

Prove it.

[Paulhoff]

No the proof is on you to prove that this god exist. It is an idea, not anything more than that. And you still do not get the point, for everyone there is a different idea of a god, that is if you believe in one.
So children are at fault for their own diseases now. Cancer,and
amebiasis
bacterial meningitis
bilharzia
campylobacteriosis
Chagas disease
chickenpox
CMV
cold, common
croup
cryptosporidiosis
cyclosporiasis
cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection
diarrhea
diphtheria
dog and cat flea tapeworm infection
dwarf and rat tapeworm infection
ear infection
E. Coli infection
Epstein-Barr Virus infection
fifth disease
flu
German measles
giardiasis
group B streptococcal disease
hand, foot, and mouth disease
head lice
hepatitis A and B
Hib disease
hookworm
human parainfluenza virus infection
influenza
intestinal Roundworms
Kala-azar
Kawasaki syndrome
leishmaniasis
lice infestation
listeriosis
lockjaw
malaria
measles
meningitis (bacterial and viral)
mite infestation
mononucleosis, infectious
mumps
non-polio enterovirus infections
parvovirus B19 infection
pertussis
pinworm infection
pneumonia
polio
racoon roundworm
ringworm
rotavirus infection
roundworm infection, zoonotic
RSV infection
rubella
rubeola
toptop
salmonellosis
scabies
scarlet fever
schistosomiasis
shigellosis
streptococcal infections (including strep throat)
tetanus
thrush
toxoplasmosis
tuberculosis
whipworm infection
whooping cough
I am sure that there is more to the list, but I will leave it at this.
Nice god you have there, lets these things happen to children, or is it that god's plan thing. You know, let of old man off. He created everything but is not to be held responsible for anything. I could do this job as well has him. And what is it about this god being a male, you would think a real god would be sexless.

Paul

:) :) :)

No, atheist among American Indians, that is not provable.

[Piggy]

I don't think I mentioned athiests.

I was talking about the God-haters, of whom there are plenty here.
Really? Cite them, please, with links. I haven't seen any. You're saying there are people on this board who both (1) believe in God, and (2) hate God. The very idea is so nutty, I'll have to see it for myself.

There's good reason for that. Like right now there are religious people trying to keep kids in school from learning science and who want to turn my state into a theocracy
Who is that?
Where do I start? My state legislature recently passed resolutions in support of "the Ten Commandments" (although they don't seem to know what these are), declaring them the basis of law for all of Western civilization, endorsing bogus citations allegedly from 2 founders/presidents in support of a religious basis of government, and urging the passage of federal legislation to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving the establishment clause.

A former State Superintendant of Schools attempted to ban evolution from the curriculum. She's now running for governor. Ralph Reed is running for lt. governor.

Many churches, and many people I work with, are actively involved in the campaign to "take back America for Christ", define the US as a "Christian nation", and rework the law so that their faith is given privilege and official sanction.

So, who says that dying physically is bad?Brother, if you don't know anyone who thinks that the deaths of a school full of children in a mudslide is bad, then you need to get off the couch, turn off the religious programming, and do a little meet-and-greet in the real world.

But in any case, you misunderstand my point. My point was, referencing your claim that God-haters are somehow blaming God for things, that you are obviously misreading what's being posted.

In every case that I've seen on this board, when someone "blames God" for evil things, they don't actually believe that God does anything at all. It's a rhetorical device to make theists think. That's all.

Wake up!

[Huntster]

No the proof is on you to prove that this god exist........

I've been told repeatedly (ad nauseum) that when you make a claim or assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence or proof.

Swingblade clearly made an assertion (post # 386).

Why do I have to "prove" anything?

[Huntster]

Really? Cite them, please, with links. I haven't seen any.....

You can't be serious. This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1574620&postcount=2) is just a single example, and I could find hundreds (if not thousands) of similar examples on this forum.

[Piggy]

You can't be serious. This is just a single example, and I could find hundreds (if not thousands) of similar examples on this forum.
Then there's no use talking to you anymore. The post you cite clearly calls God "imaginary". I clearly asked you to cite a post from a person who believes God is real and hates God.

Obviously, when it comes to discussions about God, you have a blindspot that makes it impossible for you to think clearly.

Game over.

[Paulhoff]

No, the proof is still on the one saying that something exist, when there is no sign of it. I do not have to prove that a tree exist, cows, horses, the earth, moon, sun, etc. I can’t see gravity or magnetic fields, radio waves, electrons etc. but I can see the results of them. I see nothing of this god we hear about from the religious people, and who among them is right about her or his definition about this god, yours. Where is this god and show it to me or show the results of it, and not your faith.

Paul

:) :) :)

[psy kick]

Atheists got sects? I never get any sects.



Thast cuz you look funny.
;)

[Paulhoff]

People do not hate a non-existed god; they hate the thought of other people shoving their idea of a god down their throat. That is the idea behind the separation of church and state, your ideas of a god stop when they interfere with my ideas on a non-god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

Then there's no use talking to you anymore. The post you cite clearly calls God "imaginary". I clearly asked you to cite a post from a person who believes God is real and hates God.....

So, what does that say about someone who hates something that they don't believe exists? Is that psychologically healthy? Is that some sort of psychological phenomenon that I am unaware of? Can it be so common among people on this forum, yet uncommon among the general population?

...Obviously, when it comes to discussions about God, you have a blindspot that makes it impossible for you to think clearly....

Really?

I clearly see hatred in that post, and the post clearly mentions both the pope and God.

You see the word "imaginary".

Do you see the hatred?

Clearly, your "vision" can recognize that, can't it?

...Game over.

Funny. I never considered these discussions a "game".

[Huntster]

No, the proof is still on the one saying that something exist, when there is no sign of it......

Perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I wrote "God exists" like how I pointed out where swingblade clearly wrote (in post # 386):


Clearly, it doesn't exist.

[Huntster]

People do not hate a non-existed god; they hate the thought of other people shoving their idea of a god down their throat....

I don't know you from the next guy. Where have I "shoved" anything "down your throat"?

....That is the idea behind the separation of church and state, your ideas of a god stop when they interfere with my ideas on a non-god....

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with this private forum?

[Paulhoff]

Were did I put you forum name and god together in the same sentence.

[Paulhoff]

1. If a religion basically says "We are right, everyone else is wrong", it is harmful.

2. If people within the religion are not able to challenge their religion, it is harmful.

3. If a religion holds back or puts down anyone within the religion, it is harmful.

4. If a religion does not allow anyone to leave and or change their believes, it is harmful.

5. If a religion holds back or puts down anyone outside their religion, it is harmful.

6. If a religion says that god is only behind their country, it is harmful.

7. If a religion keeps you blind to the people real needs, then it is harmful

8. If people within a religion lies to protect it’s members, then it is harmful.

9. If a religion lies to protect itself from the truth, then it is harmful.

10. If a religion lies about the truth, then it is harmful.


There are more that people will come up with, but these ten should cover most of it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[hellaeon]

Can you religious folk explain why god would answer your prayers for a good price on a new car or for good grades for yourself or your children ABOVE the starving or war weary people on their knees begging for mercy at the clouds.

Seems a bit racist perhaps? what have you done to be more deserving of his great power?

Can you update the world on where heaven is now? Perhaps its in the clouds on another planet in another system in another galaxy an impossible distance from here.

Why does the bible omit specific books that go against the traditional story presented? Dont you find that this must have then defined a specific border around your belief? Dont you want to know what the other scriptures say? What makes the ones accepted as valid and the ones discounted as not? These days your constantly shifting the goalposts closer to the middle on what was already a junior sports field.

There are so many reasons NOT to put a blind faith on a belief in some ultra higher being.

Most religions are stuck in scriptures written in a language up to 2000 years old. Hell the number might be wrong but I can guarentee a christian bible from TODAY's understanding of the world would be far less 'God did it' then the bible from the prehistoric thinking of that time.


When an atheist says "God killed the kids in that mudslide", it's a contrary-to-fact hypothetical statement, intended to force theists to confront the fact that if their beliefs were true and God is the source of everything, then you'd have to blame him for the bad just as much as you praise him for the good. That's all. No atheists really believes that God does anything at all.


Amen. The ideal of the whole thing is what I dislike. Im more annoyed at the idea of a belief of it. We can do amazing things us humans, yet still believe in God.

[hellaeon]

Where do you think that comes from, and if you don’t have that you lie!
Because you just like myself and D.B. are his creations.
You may not hate us but you sure do go off when something viable proves a point about God.
That’s Another way of seeing through the veil.
Now you honestly tell us that those things didn't pop up in your mind.
When you are there.


Am I to understand my voice in my head is 'proof' of your God.
So when I read a book to myself, thats god reading it I presume?
I can even write back to this.
Please tell me I have the understanding of your post wrong.
My own MORALS and a way of putting myself in someones shoes is what I usually base my choices on.

[hellaeon]

...and dont tell me my morals and all that jazz are because 'God' is there doing it or telling them to me! As Piggy says...much more realistic explanations....uhhhh so absurd!


He is the Great Spirit of the Native American Nation


Sweet, Never thought he would want to come down to Oz anyway, in the summer you'd swear your in hell.

[Huntster]

Can you religious folk explain why god would answer your prayers for a good price on a new car or for good grades for yourself or your children ABOVE the starving or war weary people on their knees begging for mercy at the clouds.....

I don't know that God cares about the price you pay for a new car, or what your grades are.

...Seems a bit racist perhaps? what have you done to be more deserving of his great power?...

It obviously has nothing to do with race.

How about just the fact that you pray, and not always to "ask for a good price on a new car or for good grades for yourself or your children".

Sometimes praying for "starving or war weary people on their knees begging for mercy at the clouds" is a good thing to do.

...Can you update the world on where heaven is now?...

Nope. Even if I had the address, I doubt the Postal Service would deliver there.

...Perhaps its in the clouds on another planet in another system in another galaxy an impossible distance from here....

Maybe, if is truly a place for souls, or spirits, it isn't a physical place. Perhaps it is beyond the physical.

...Why does the bible omit specific books that go against the traditional story presented?...

Review the history involving the Council of Nicea.

... Dont you find that this must have then defined a specific border around your belief?...

Yup.

... Dont you want to know what the other scriptures say?...

I've read them. The Church can't stop me from reading them.

...What makes the ones accepted as valid and the ones discounted as not?...

The ruling of the Council are accepted by the Church. I accept them, too.

That doesn't mean I don't accept the Apocrypha.

...These days your constantly shifting the goalposts closer to the middle on what was already a junior sports field....

Huh?

...There are so many reasons NOT to put a blind faith on a belief in some ultra higher being...

Just like throughout human history, there is also so many reasons NOT to put blind faith in man.

...Most religions are stuck in scriptures written in a language up to 2000 years old. Hell the number might be wrong but I can guarentee a christian bible from TODAY's understanding of the world would be far less 'God did it' then the bible from the prehistoric thinking of that time....

The Bible was "written" over a thousand years. You can see the evolution of humanity from Genesis to the Epistles.

Why can't religion evolve like everything else? As the non-religious learn things about nature and science, the religious should also be able to glean understanding.

...When an atheist says "God killed the kids in that mudslide", it's a contrary-to-fact hypothetical statement, intended to force theists to confront the fact that if their beliefs were true and God is the source of everything, then you'd have to blame him for the bad just as much as you praise him for the good. That's all. No atheists really believes that God does anything at all....

Nobody gets promised a rose garden, and everyone cannot be saved:

...A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold....

[hellaeon]

if religion had evolved, why is there not an updated bible? Its the same crap decorated in modern lingo. Why does creationism still exist and strongly?

And again, why should your prayers be answered over someone in much dire need? I'll rewrite it for clearer clarity.

Why does a religous person feel:

a) they pray for something like better grades, or good weather for the crops (etc)

overweighs

b) A desperate starving person or war torn citizen screaming to the skies in a much more desperate manner.

Do you seriously think your god would give you credence over that situation and if so why?

[Paulhoff]

It always amazes me how people who have never seen and or met god, know so much about him, they can tell you what god likes and doesn’t like. And every religion is the same way, and they are all right, and do fight over who is right. BS

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

if religion had evolved, why is there not an updated bible? Its the same crap decorated in modern lingo. Why does creationism still exist and strongly?.....

The Bible is a history book as well as a foundation of faith. You don't change history. That's what Nicea was all about.

Along with the folks that take creationism literally are folks like myself, who are still reviewing interpretations that fit with what we learn as we evolve in knowledge.

...And again, why should your prayers be answered over someone in much dire need?...

In my opinion, they shouldn't.

But I'm not God, so I don't know the protocol.

...I'll rewrite it for clearer clarity.

...Why does a religous person feel:

a) they pray for something like better grades, or good weather for the crops (etc)

overweighs

b) A desperate starving person or war torn citizen screaming to the skies in a much more desperate manner.....

Who says that religious people feel that way?

...Do you seriously think your god would give you credence over that situation and if so why...

Like I wrote above, no I don't.

And, by the way, in my daily prayers is a plea that "all His children enjoy the peace, love, and prosperity that I enjoy."

[Huntster]

It always amazes me how people who have never seen and or met god, know so much about him, they can tell you what god likes and doesn’t like. And every religion is the same way, and they are all right, and do fight over who is right. BS....

Yeah, me, too.

I'm also amazed how many people who have never seen and or met God, know so much about Him, and can tell you that God is a horrible entity who delightfully provides murderous disasters that kill many, many people. They also profess that every religion is the same way, and they are all wrong, and do fight over who is right. BS..................

[Paulhoff]

Well if you make something and are all-powerful and all knowing then you are accountable for it, or you not a god. This is not the story we make up, it is the BS we heard from many if not all the religious people we talk too.
Paul

:) :) :)

[hailslaanesh]

Hunster wrote:
And, by the way, in my daily prayers is a plea that "all His children enjoy the peace, love, and prosperity that I enjoy."

Aww how sweet. You are definately going to heaven now. :rolleyes:

[lostnick3]

I'm a big fan of pascals wager and if God did create the universe could it be considered a lab project (7Xn)? and while in this universe would he not have to play by the same rules he made at the start of the project?

[Paulhoff]

if if if if if if if if if if if if if if and if. :teacher:

Paul

:) :) :)

[lostnick3]

if if if if if if if if if if if if if if and if. :teacher:

Paul

:) :) :)

if your refering to my last post it looks more like:

if and if :confused:

[Paulhoff]

Yes, If''s never end.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lostnick3]

if your so concerned with the ifs in my last post doesn't your last two posts become pretty iffy themselves

[Huntster]

Well if you make something and are all-powerful and all knowing then you are accountable for it, or you not a god......

I think He put together a pretty impressive Creation out there. I'm nobody to critique it, that's for sure.

... This is not the story we make up, it is the BS we heard from many if not all the religious people we talk too.....

Well, that's what you've interpreted to mean, anyway.

[Paulhoff]

There is at He again for a god, a god that does not exist. Still waiting for the proof of a god, a non-bible god, since the bible was written by men.

Paul

:) :) :)

[hellaeon]

Its good that you do think a lot deeper then the average religious person out there and I know there are plenty like yourself but try this next time you pray.

"Hunster, I pray to myself to be givent the strength to succeed in whatever daily events come my way and I hope whatever events can befall those I am with, can be enhanced by my willingness to help them. I must realise whatever happens outside this is part of the process of the world and I cant change that. I am strong. Amen"

That way anything good that does happen you can attribute it to your skill and endeavour in that situation. Oh but wait, I know...god would have stepped in and done it. Never mind the thousands and thousands of others out there in more need of his 'stepping in' to help their lives. No, he is watching out for little ol you, forget the whole universe, all its goings on, stars exploding, planets forming, life possibly evolving, forget everything else he has...he has his ears ready to hear you.

come on. This just is absurd!

[Paulhoff]

There are more stars in the universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth, and this god is so worried about a bunch of smelly primates who can’t agree on what is god is. Talk about being an anal-retentive god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lostnick3]

Its good that you do think a lot deeper then the average religious person out there and I know there are plenty like yourself but try this next time you pray.

"Hunster, I pray to myself to be givent the strength to succeed in whatever daily events come my way and I hope whatever events can befall those I am with, can be enhanced by my willingness to help them. I must realise whatever happens outside this is part of the process of the world and I cant change that. I am strong. Amen"

That way anything good that does happen you can attribute it to your skill and endeavour in that situation. Oh but wait, I know...god would have stepped in and done it. Never mind the thousands and thousands of others out there in more need of his 'stepping in' to help their lives. No, he is watching out for little ol you, forget the whole universe, all its goings on, stars exploding, planets forming, life possibly evolving, forget everything else he has...he has his ears ready to hear you.

come on. This just is absurd!

for the thousands and thousands of people out there in need out there we humans have the freewill to address those needs individually and collectively why should God even have to step in? we have the means to feed the world.

[Huntster]

..."Hunster, I pray to myself to be givent the strength to succeed...Amen"...

Oh, boy! That's a recipe for disaster. Praying to the Huntster.............?

...That way anything good that does happen you can attribute it to your skill and endeavour in that situation....

But I would know better.

...Oh but wait, I know...god would have stepped in and done it. Never mind the thousands and thousands of others out there in more need of his 'stepping in' to help their lives....

I'm sure He blesses all who ask his blessings, whether it's me, you, or somebody on the other side of the planet.

...No, he is watching out for little ol you, forget the whole universe, all its goings on, stars exploding, planets forming, life possibly evolving, forget everything else he has...he has his ears ready to hear you...

Well, He certainly doesn't "forget the whole universe, all its goings on, stars exploding, planets forming, life possibly evolving, forget everything else he has,'' but as I seek His goodness, and am worthy to receive it, I believe I attain it.

[Paulhoff]

Bush, you and god, hey, that sounds like the father, son and holy ghost. It is so nice that you know so much about god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[hellaeon]

god damn this god

[hailslaanesh]

IF there was a god (which is infinitely unlikely) what makes you think he cares what you think?

I have been told that I will burn for eternity for not recognizing jesus as his son and him as the one true god. For that to be true, he would have to be very petty.

Look at it this way, in my eyes, my wife and I created my children. That is a provable fact. Would you consider me a sane person if I forced my children to worship me? No, I would be a nutcase. So why do christians believe a god that is all loving would be as vindictive as eternal damnation for not worshipping him? The whole religion does not make sense. All they normally say in response to the question is "how dare you compare yourself to god".

[Paulhoff]

Why wouldn’t anyone not want to be a freewilled puppet on a string?

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

IF there was a god (which is infinitely unlikely) what makes you think he cares what you think?.....

Did I write that I think God cares what I think?

... I have been told that I will burn for eternity for not recognizing jesus as his son and him as the one true god...

By whom? God?

...Look at it this way, in my eyes, my wife and I created my children. That is a provable fact. Would you consider me a sane person if I forced my children to worship me? No, I would be a nutcase....

And a criminal.

...So why do christians believe a god that is all loving would be as vindictive as eternal damnation for not worshipping him?...

You don't seem to get it. If you spurn Him, you choose life without Him, and eternal seperation from God is the definition of Hell.

[Paulhoff]

There you go, god is a criminal, it all thru the bible, tells people to kill and all other BS. Not a nice god at all. Bad god, bad. Wait till this god finds out that it is not the top god. There are other gods pulling it's strings.

Paul

:) :) :)

[hailslaanesh]

Did I write that I think God cares what I think?

Well you pray to him don't you, or are you admitting that the prayers fall on deaf ears.

By whom? God?

No, by the xians i have met who like to preach

You don't seem to get it. If you spurn Him, you choose life without Him, and eternal seperation from God is the definition of Hell.
Well that is but another theory coming from the xians. It appears that no two xians have the same beliefs. Maybe ... just maybe ... it is because of lack of evidence that none of you can agree on a standard set of beliefs.

[De_Bunk]

So...

After all this...

We got...

1. God lives everywhere

2. God lives in your heart

3. God lives somewhere

4. Books can be possessed

5. There are giant men with wings

6. There was a man who was dead, then woke up and didnt need wings to fly to heaven...Which apparently isnt in the sky, even tho' he floated up towards the sky to ascended to heaven....but then we are told heaven isnt up in the sky..so who knows where he was flying off to..?

7. Satan lives everywhere

8. Satan lives in your heart

9. Satan lives somewhere

10. Christians accept there is an invisible being, as fact, without any proof whatsoever, other than a 'feeling' that they cannot explain...to no one..


Thanks Christians for explaining everything so clearly...

That sure has cleared that question up..

What a crock of Sheeite...

DB

[hellaeon]

So...

After all this...

We got...

...



hahaha thats pretty much as it comes across hey.

all good.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by hailslaanesh :
IF there was a god (which is infinitely unlikely) what makes you think he cares what you think?.....
Did I write that I think God cares what I think?
Well you pray to him don't you, or are you admitting that the prayers fall on deaf ears....

My prayers usually consist of apologies for my transgressions, peace for my children and community, peace and prosperity for those in need, and praise and wonder at His glorious creation.

I’m not sure if he “cares” about my prayers, because I’m a pretty unworthy person. But I pray, nonetheless.

... I have been told that I will burn for eternity for not recognizing jesus as his son and him as the one true god...

By whom? God?

...So why do christians believe a god that is all loving would be as vindictive as eternal damnation for not worshipping him?...

You don't seem to get it. If you spurn Him, you choose life without Him, and eternal seperation from God is the definition of Hell.

...Well that is but another theory coming from the xians. It appears that no two xians have the same beliefs....

That is not accurate. While I agree that there are numerous Christian sects, the same is true of “science”. There are numerous “scientific theories” on just about every scientific question out there.

...Maybe ... just maybe ... it is because of lack of evidence that none of you can agree on a standard set of beliefs....

Maybe so. However, the largest single organized church on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church, does have a standard set of beliefs (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm). In it is the definition of Hell (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h):

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

As you can see, it fits my quote above:

...If you spurn Him, you choose life without Him, and eternal seperation from God is the definition of Hell...

[Paulhoff]

Do what you want, a little prayer will take it away until the next time.

Paul

:) :) :)

[De_Bunk]

Lets not forget all the sex case child killing perverts on Death Row who have found God..

Looks like you can go around all your life molesting and killing children...Ask God to come into your life..Apologise for your little transgressions...And Hey..You get a ticket to Heaven, no probs..

Christianity loves child killers that claim to have found God...

How nice...

DB

[Huntster]

Lets not forget all the sex case child killing perverts on Death Row who have found God..

Looks like you can go around all your life molesting and killing children...Ask God to come into your life..Apologise for your little transgressions...And Hey..You get a ticket to Heaven, no probs.....

Sez who?

...Christianity loves child killers that claim to have found God...

Again, sez who?

[Paulhoff]

sez who?

The Jesus lovers, were have you been, you have't heard this before, and if not, you have not talking any christains.

[lostnick3]

Lets not forget all the sex case child killing perverts on Death Row who have found God..

Looks like you can go around all your life molesting and killing children...Ask God to come into your life..Apologise for your little transgressions...And Hey..You get a ticket to Heaven, no probs..

Christianity loves child killers that claim to have found God...

How nice...

DB

Christian or Muslim groups in prison are just big freebie groups to avoid having to align with a gang. if you follow whats considered Christian or Muslim rules you get a pass unless your a chester but step over the line once and you'll get shanked (stabbed)

[De_Bunk]

Huntster...

Please...havent you read every 'last statement' from every prisoner that about to executed...

'I'd like to thank God'......'I'll see you all in heaven'...and so on and so on...

Then there the hundreds of Christian clergy that claim the convicted is now a 'good person'....

Every appeal the convicted puts before the board, claims that they are now 'God fearing'...and don't deserve death...this is backed up by every religious nutball, confirming they have now found god..

Then there a the obligatory, local nutball christian group...praying outside the prison...

Don't you watch TV or read the newpapers...don't you watch the news...?

What planet are you living on today...?

What you are also claiming is that if someone states to have found God...after killing someone, they automatically must be liars....

Doesnt the Bible state that if you ask God to come into your life, you are forgiven...Surely you would accept a fellow christian...If he's found his and your saviour...

DB

[Huntster]

sez who?

The Jesus lovers, were have you been, you have't heard this before, and if not, you have not talking any christains.

I've been in Alaska, I've heard it before, and I talk to lots of christians.

Again, I've pointed out the RCC's official position, and it has nothing to do with "burning" in Hell.

[lostnick3]

Huntster...

Please...havent you read every 'last statement' from every prisoner that about to executed...

'I'd like to thank God'......'I'll see you all in heaven'...and so on and so on...

Then there the hundreds of Christian clergy that claim the convicted is now a 'good person'....

Every appeal the convicted puts before the board, claims that they are now 'God fearing'...and don't deserve death...this is backed up by every religious nutball, confirming they have now found god..

Then there a the obligatory, local nutball christian group...praying outside the prison...

Don't you watch TV or read the newpapers...don't you watch the news...?

What planet are you living on today...?

What you are also claiming is that if someone states to have found God...after killing someone, they automatically must be liars....

Doesn't the Bible state that if you ask God to come into your life, you are forgiven...Surely you would accept a fellow christian...If he's found his and your saviour...

DB

if you knew you were going to be executed wouldn't you be trying every trick in the book and then some, hell every million to one shot would be on the table.

if you thought you might have to answer to a higher power for what you've done in this side on the other side wouldn't you be looking for forgiveness on this side just in case?

one of the favorite pass times in prison is going to the law library looking for loop holes in your case. the convicts will use anyone if helps them anyone at all.

[Huntster]

Huntster...

Please...havent you read every 'last statement' from every prisoner that about to executed...

Of course not. I haven't read any.

Have you read "every 'last statement' from every prisoner that about to executed"?

...Then there the hundreds of Christian clergy that claim the convicted is now a 'good person'....

Do you have any links or names? I don't need 'hundreds'. Several will do.

...Then there a the obligatory, local nutball christian group...praying outside the prison...

You won't see me there.

...Don't you watch TV or read the newpapers...

Nope.

...don't you watch the news...?

Very, very rarely.

...What planet are you living on today...?

Earth.

...What you are also claiming is that if someone states to have found God...after killing someone, they automatically must be liars....

Nope.

But that doesn't mean that I have to believe them, either.

...Doesnt the Bible state that if you ask God to come into your life, you are forgiven...

One "ask" doesn't a forgiveness make.

...Surely you would accept a fellow christian...If he's found his and your saviour...

Depends on what you mean by the word "accept".

[Paulhoff]

Again, I've pointed out the RCC's official position, and it has nothing to do with "burning" in Hell.

Remember, that is only your opinion, and other christians will not agree with you, and neither you or they can prove that neither of you are right or wrong, there is nothing that gives you the last word on what you god says.

Paul

:) :) :)

[De_Bunk]

Huntster...

So now you are inferring that not all christians are christians....

Err...I'm confused....so who or what is a christian then...Evidence or proof please that all convicted criminals who claim to be christian, are not..and who are you to judge their level of faith...

That you wouldnt forgive, or believe a fellow christian, even tho' they claimed to have found god..after they committed the crime..

Christians discriminate against other Christians on the validity of their 'belief'...And there was me thinking that only God could judge a person true character..Are you claiming to be God and fully able to judge anothers faith in Christ on how they were and acted before...

Wow...this religion business just sounds better every day...

DB

[Meffy]

Just for the record, here's a recipe for religious Nut Balls -- delicious Jewish ones:

http://judaism.about.com/od/tubshvatrecipes/r/cookie_nut.htm

[Huntster]

Remember, that is only your opinion....

No, it is the official position of the RCC (linked for your confirmation).

[Paulhoff]

So god talked to them, mmmmm.

[Huntster]

Huntster...

So now you are inferring that not all christians are christians....

Nope. That isn't for me to say.

I can state that all christians don't act as christians should (I'm proof of that).

...Err...I'm confused....

Clearly.

...so who or what is a christian then...

CHRISTIAN (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#c):

...A name derived from that of Christ himself. The name refers to all those who have been anointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism; hence, the followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church. According to Acts 11:26 "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians" (1289)....

Evidence or proof please that all convicted criminals who claim to be christian, are not..and who are you to judge their level of faith...

I have no evidence or proof that all convicted criminals who claim to be christian are not, because (like I have written) I don't have the authority or knowledge to say so.

...That you wouldnt forgive, or believe a fellow christian, even tho' they claimed to have found god..after they committed the crime..

My forgiveness has nothing to do with them fulfilling their legal sentence under the civil laws of the land, and them doing so may very well have a bearing on God's judgement.

...Christians discriminate against other Christians on the validity of their 'belief'...

True.

...And there was me thinking that only God could judge a person true character...

I agree.

...Are you claiming to be God and fully able to judge anothers faith in Christ on how they were and acted before...

Nope.

Wow...this religion business just sounds better every day...

It sure does!

[Huntster]

So god talked to them, mmmmm.

They certainly prayed to God. Why wouldn't God talk back?

They certainly didn't curse God, like some on this forum.

[Paulhoff]

Because he isn't there, have fun with your delusion.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

Because he isn't there....

I assume you have some proof or evidence of that? (Excuse me; that's such a common demand on this forum; I figured I'd try using it....)

[Paulhoff]

Yes, hello god, calling god, come in god, nothing there.

[hailslaanesh]

Yes, hello god, calling god, come in god, nothing there.

Hello Paul. It is me "God" speaking through a lowly vessel. I love you all, especially the ones of you who get down on thier knees for me.

Whoooa what was that. :eek: I swear I couldn't control my hands then. Oooh weee oooh. :D

[Jeff Corey]

Maybe you should keep you hand off the "vessel", my son.

[De_Bunk]

Huntster...

Quote..."I can state that all christians don't act as christians should (I'm proof of that)..."

Hang on a minute...

Now your admitting that people who don't act like true christians, actually are...and people who actually are true christians are not...


DB

[Huntster]

....Now your admitting that people who don't act like true christians, actually are...and people who actually are true christians are not...

That's not what I admitted, but it might well be so.

[De_Bunk]

Huntster...

Which eventually boils down to "You can't trust any christian becuase they may or may not be a christian"

DB

[Jimbo07]

Huntster...

Which eventually boils down to "You can't trust any christian becuase they may or may not be a christian"

DB

One would assume that Christian, skeptic, atheist, agnostic, Pastafarian, whatever...

One would choose to trust others based on the content of their character as displayed in their actions and manners and not by some unverifiable degree of faith...

Or what have I missed?

:boggled:

[Dr. MAS]

Belief in something that is invisible...

Yeh...Thats real critical and intelligent thinking isnt it....

DB

Putting question in another format? You do not believe on God? Ok but why? Just because it is invisible?

[De_Bunk]

Dr Mas...

No...I do not believe in God because its supposedly invisible...it because since the beginning of mankind it has never, ever proven itself to exist...Plus the fact their is no reason for God...

Artifacts brought foward as proof have been proven fake...

World 'proven' history does not correspond to the Bible's version of how we evolved.

Want me to believe something is real...prove it...show me one shred of solid evidence that God exists...

Look at what christians fully and without any doubt believed in..

The Shroud of Turin...400yrs old...

The spear of christ...totally the wrong type for the time of the alleged crucifixion..made using methods discovered hundreds of years later....

And yet..the gullible still claim these to be true relics of Christ..


DB

[westphalia]

Look at what christians fully and without any doubt believed in..

The Shroud of Turin...400yrs old...

And yet..the gullible still claim these to be true relics of Christ..

Not to nit-pick here, but church authorities at the time of the Shroud's "discovery" roundly denounced it as a hoax, including the bishop on the spot.

I'm not supporting its authenticity, mind you, but facts should never take a back seat.

[Piggy]

Just for the record, here's a recipe for religious Nut Balls
Excellent!!! Thanks much, Meffy. These are definitely going on my table at the holidays, proudly labeled "Religious Nut Balls"!

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by De_Bunk :
Huntster...

Which eventually boils down to "You can't trust any christian becuase they may or may not be a christian"

One would assume that Christian, skeptic, atheist, agnostic, Pastafarian, whatever...

One would choose to trust others based on the content of their character as displayed in their actions and manners and not by some unverifiable degree of faith...

Or what have I missed?...

I don't think you missed a thing.

Christians are human just like everybody else.

[Huntster]

....Want me to believe something is real...prove it...show me one shred of solid evidence that God exists...

I think it is well recognized that such "proof" is not available, and not likely to become available.

That is why "belief", or "faith" is required if accepting religion.

[Paulhoff]

"Christians are human just like everybody else."

Now there is a debate.

Paul

:) :) :)

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Accepting things on belief and faith alone, seem a little crazy and totally illogical to me.

[Paulhoff]

Faith is something you do when you have no time to think about it, like jumping from a burning building. It is not what you do when you have the time to think about it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I'm going to stop and look, and think about it, before I jump out of a burning building, personally. If no one is there to catch me, I don't think buring would be any less painful than squishing. :D

[Paulhoff]

But squishing gets to the real inner you.

Paul

:) :) :)

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I reject your 'squishing dogma' burning reveals the real you after it burns away your flesh and outer bits. I accept on faith that burning is better for the soul than squishing.

[Paulhoff]

To clean, where is all the fun, nothing to throw-up about after the screaming is done.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Meffy]

"Christians are human just like everybody else."

Now there is a debate.

*hmf* As a Mephitis anthro-mephitis and a card-carrying member of "everybody else" I agree that the issue's open to debate.

[Just Me]

Hi, sorry to jump in, just joined the forum do to this thread's mention of Mormons a few times.
I am working on starting a thread under Religion and Philosophy For those to ask me questions about it.
I was a Mormon for almost 20 yrs but broke away.
Thanks,
Just Me.

[edge]

From Mr. Huntster,


I first came here from the Bigfoot Forums when I learned that there was a thread here discussing the Patterson-Gimlin film. Perusing around, I was astounded to read the God-hating and Religion-hating posts.

I wonder about an outlook that blames God for the acts of men.
__________________




They call this place I live in Bigfoot country.
I haven’t seen one yet and hope I don’t.
The Indians’ have their stories and legends here, about Bigfoot.
They are the Wintu tribe, locally here.
You know what is said,They will believe a lie and even the elect will be deceived.

Paul said, Yes it takes a small-minded christian to bring someone's family into it. That usually means one of two things, jealousy, or blaming someone else for something you are doing yourself, or both.


I wouldn’t tell on you, how could I?
Why would I ?
I flirt sometimes Paul.
But it’s not jealousy.
Really Paul answer and stop dodging.


and piggy said,
There are perfectly good evolutionary explanations for human sexual fidelity (as well as promiscuity) and guilt, which don't involve imaginary creators. You should try reading them sometime.



So I should put my faith into a theory?
I think not.
The word of God is what I put my faith in and every day.
It’s a choice I make And you do what you feel is right.
But for me what you put you faith in is empty with out the rest of gods words.
We all evolve but evolution alone is not what talks to you. Can’t you tell?
Life and death is evolution, and the word is coming through me to you direct.
What do you think of that?
That’s what God says.


Pual said,
I am going to bed with a non-judgemental woman, you should try it sometime.


Lucky for you but shouldn’t you liberate her?

You still haven’t answered my question.....


First you must show that an actual entity exists to talk about.



First you must believe that Christ died as a sacrifice to save us.
Then you pray and learn to pray and you will have no doubt piggy.
So the simple faith part is what will open your eyes to him.


Again, how do you hate something that does not exist.
Paul said that...


What is it that you do hate, and why do you hate?
I try not to hate but what makes you hate?
So we give you the way and you give us ?
Of course you won’t answer will you Paul.

Paul for some one who doesn’t believe you sure have a lot of disbelief to put out.


Look at how many different denotations of the christian church there are.



Do you have any idea why that is paul?

Then you say this,

So children are at fault for their own diseases now. Cancer,and
amebiasis
bacterial meningitis
bilharzia
campylobacteriosis
Chagas disease
chickenpox
CMV
cold, common
croup
cryptosporidiosis
cyclosporiasis
cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection
diarrhea
diphtheria
dog and cat flea tapeworm infection
dwarf and rat tapeworm infection
ear infection
E. Coli infection
Epstein-Barr Virus infection
fifth disease
flu
German measles
giardiasis
group B streptococcal disease
hand, foot, and mouth disease
head lice
hepatitis A and B
Hib disease
hookworm
human parainfluenza virus infection
influenza
intestinal Roundworms
Kala-azar
Kawasaki syndrome
leishmaniasis
lice infestation
listeriosis
lockjaw
malaria
measles
meningitis (bacterial and viral)
mite infestation
mononucleosis, infectious
mumps
non-polio enterovirus infections
parvovirus B19 infection
pertussis
pinworm infection
pneumonia
polio
racoon roundworm
ringworm
rotavirus infection
roundworm infection, zoonotic
RSV infection
rubella
rubeola
toptop
salmonellosis
scabies
scarlet fever
schistosomiasis
shigellosis
streptococcal infections (including strep throat)
tetanus
thrush
toxoplasmosis
tuberculosis
whipworm infection
whooping cough
I am sure that there is more to the list, but I will leave it at this.
Nice god you have there, lets these things happen to children, or is it that god's plan thing. You know, let of old man off. He created everything but is not to be held responsible for anything. I could do this job as well has him. And what is it about this god being a male, you would think a real god would be sexless.



Sounds like most of the things I have had, and if not I was vaccinated against it.
These come from where and who has rein on the earth for a short time?
Where do you think the cures come from? Who guides the surgeons hand?

He’s not going to fix it all yet. He’s not ready to show his hand totally yet and that is written.
He is allowing time for faith?
But you won’t get that, I hope you do before it’s too late.
Hope, there’s the word.

Piggy said

In every case that I've seen on this board, when someone "blames God" for evil things, they don't actually believe that God does anything at all. It's a rhetorical device to make theists think. That's all.



So who do you think really is to blame?
Why would you blame some one whose innocent, and not the real culprit?
Why would you want injustice and not the truth?

Paul said,
People do not hate a non-existed god; they hate the thought of other people shoving their idea of a god down their throat. That is the idea behind the separation of church and state, your ideas of a god stop when they interfere with my ideas on a non-god.


If your not here then you get what you want, If you are here talking, then you do not,there is some thing driving you here Paul.
What do you think it is?
You are still not convinced and if we can offer anything that can turn you into believing, ultimate proof, if we could where would that leave you?
But you see, you don’t listen.
You need to make the first contact.

About your post #400,
The harmful one.
That sounds like most of the false ones don’t it.
What does a God of love have to do with this? You are accusing all religions aren’t you?


Hellaeon said,


Can you religious folk explain why god would answer your prayers for a good price on a new car or for good grades for yourself or your children ABOVE the starving or war weary people on their knees begging for mercy at the clouds.

Well you need to be a little more specific, who are on their knees and who do they pray to?
If they are praying to the clouds then they got it wrong.
Just because you pray for those things, if you do, doesn’t make them right or come true. Most christans pray for others also.
With the guidance of the one greater than the one in the world, along with the faith that’s required then you walk with God at which point you'll have your proof.
AT that point the guidance gets to you and you follow it, if not you fall again and after several times you might get it.
But you can always get it as long as you do not cross certain lines.

Hellaeon says, Am I to understand my voice in my head is 'proof' of your God.



I don’t know, what is it telling you? Is it telling you to flame me because it doesn’t believe any of this or is it telling you to read on this thread for opinions ?
There’s me, myself and I .
You got to sort them out, what do you think it is that tells you to do things, bad or good and yourself in there choosing? The word of God tells us what it is.


My own MORALS and a way of putting myself in someones shoes is what I usually base my choices on.


Looking at your picture I got to ask, how do your morals compare to Gods?
Are you with him or not?
If I could see into your eyes I would know where you stand, and that’s a fact, you either have the light or not.
And that has not failed me in the choice of friends.
You know why? I have seen the results of my choices.

from the Huntster,


Originally Posted by Paulhoff post1582149post1582149:
It always amazes me how people who have never seen and or met god, know so much about him, they can tell you what god likes and doesn’t like. And every religion is the same way, and they are all right, and do fight over who is right. BS....

Yeah, me, too.

I'm also amazed how many people who have never seen and or met God, know so much about Him, and can tell you that God is a horrible entity who delightfully provides murderous disasters that kill many, many people. They also profess that every religion is the same way, and they are all wrong, and do fight over who is right. BS..................


Good answer Huntster


De_Bunk said,

Lets not forget all the sex case child killing perverts on Death Row who have found God..

Looks like you can go around all your life molesting and killing children...Ask God to come into your life..Apologise for your little transgressions...And Hey..You get a ticket to Heaven, no probs..

Christianity loves child killers that claim to have found God...

How nice...

DB


Prove this as his judgment..
And really D.B. prove that they even have converted?
We have no need to worry about their judgment, only our own.
I think because they are there in prison, that judgment has begun.
The ones that are not caught probably will never contemplate converting.
At that point it’s probably too late, they can say all they want, about changing what else do they got?
More like a ploy.
That’s some diabolical sheot.
That’s on the same level as Hitler getting there.
The Bible is pretty straightforward on that.
There is a point of no return.


D.B says,

Doesnt the Bible state that if you ask God to come into your life, you are forgiven...Surely you would accept a fellow christian...If he's found his and your saviour...

DB


Your suppose to do this before you go so bad or you go insain D.B. And do you believe a pathological liar?
Would you not keep a eye in the back of your head?
Because the convicted say it, that doesn’t make it so.......
What about the ones that are out and do not comply with the rules such as keeping the law informed on their locations and living quarters.
Most try to disappear.Even after saying that they now believe.


Good point Lostnick,

if you knew you were going to be executed wouldn't you be trying every trick in the book and then some, hell every million to one shot would be on the table.

if you thought you might have to answer to a higher power for what you've done in this side on the other side wouldn't you be looking for forgiveness on this side just in case?

one of the favorite pass times in prison is going to the law library looking for loop holes in your case. the convicts will use anyone if helps them anyone at all.


Just in case isn't going to cut it is it.....

I’m going to post a link for you De_Bunk, It’s what we read every day here at my house and it will address your first questions.
It’s from the R.B.C. Ministries, it is called the Daily Bread.

Every day we read it and It always seems to fit right in.
You can read it if your not scared or too locked in on your thinking.

http://www.rbc.org/odb/odb-04-21-06.shtml

Read it for a couple of days and see for yourself what is good or bad.
The collar suits U !!!


Ok Just Me, why?

This is a day the Lord has made rejoce and be glad in it....

[De_Bunk]

Edge...

I will check out your link.

Your barking mad ...but your an honest mad person...and i have found some of your links very interesting...:D

Your mate...

DB

[edge]

I never was a good lier.
My mother always knew when I was.

[edge]

The time on my post is wrong it's1:02 here and I have to go to work tomorrow.
I'll post again soon I got some really good stories to tell that happened to someone close.
Good nite.

[AmyWilson]

God lives in Heaven with the angels and other spirits. :)

It's true. :) Everyone knows that.

[De_Bunk]

Edge...

You earnt your right to post here, years ago...

If i recall, you are the first nutball to publicly, on this board, accept defeat...then went back to find out where you thought you went wrong...

And then you were were tested...By Randi...

You 100% believed in your abilities...and then you listened to reasonable arguments as to why you failed...

I have never seen you post in anger...or flame anyone...No matter what was posted about you...

Were 'old time' adversaries...but you have my respect...You took your beliefs...and placed them right on the table...Just like i have always done...

You actually done what you said you would do....Be tested...The respect comes from you still being here...knowing that you failed and admitted it...


Now you know what i'm gonna do to your stories...Don't you..

Lets have some old style 'battles'...;) ...Like we used to..

DB

[Paulhoff]

Edge is not honest, he does put words in peoples mouths, he changes the wording of what they say like most christains do to make to other person look bad. He takes thing way out of context all the time. I never, never, never said that I hated a non-god. The word hate and god, outside of me saying that I do not hate a non-god have ever been put together by me. There is no god, and most certainly not a so-called jealous, self centered, child killing, earth drowning, christain god.

And honest about dowsing, "Guska says in hindsight that he wasn't happy with the conditions — but that's what every dowser, without exception, says. After failing".

Play silly games will we.

And has for not flaming anyone, there are other forums and he has flamed me by bringing up what I PM to him about my wife.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Also not once, not anytime, have I posted anything about any of Edge's family.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Piggy]

From Mr. Huntster,




They call this place I live in Bigfoot country.
I haven’t seen one yet and hope I don’t.
The Indians’ have their stories and legends here, about Bigfoot.
They are the Wintu tribe, locally here.
You know what is said,They will believe a lie and even the elect will be deceived.

Paul said,

I wouldn’t tell on you, how could I?
Why would I ?
I flirt sometimes Paul.
But it’s not jealousy.
Really Paul answer and stop dodging.


and piggy said,



So I should put my faith into a theory?
I think not.
The word of God is what I put my faith in and every day.
It’s a choice I make And you do what you feel is right.
But for me what you put you faith in is empty with out the rest of gods words.
We all evolve but evolution alone is not what talks to you. Can’t you tell?
Life and death is evolution, and the word is coming through me to you direct.
What do you think of that?
That’s what God says.




Lucky for you but shouldn’t you liberate her?

You still haven’t answered my question.....





First you must believe that Christ died as a sacrifice to save us.
Then you pray and learn to pray and you will have no doubt piggy.
So the simple faith part is what will open your eyes to him.


Paul said that...


What is it that you do hate, and why do you hate?
I try not to hate but what makes you hate?
So we give you the way and you give us ?
Of course you won’t answer will you Paul.

Paul for some one who doesn’t believe you sure have a lot of disbelief to put out.





Do you have any idea why that is paul?

Then you say this,




Sounds like most of the things I have had, and if not I was vaccinated against it.
These come from where and who has rein on the earth for a short time?
Where do you think the cures come from? Who guides the surgeons hand?

He’s not going to fix it all yet. He’s not ready to show his hand totally yet and that is written.
He is allowing time for faith?
But you won’t get that, I hope you do before it’s too late.
Hope, there’s the word.

Piggy said




So who do you think really is to blame?
Why would you blame some one whose innocent, and not the real culprit?
Why would you want injustice and not the truth?

Paul said,



If your not here then you get what you want, If you are here talking, then you do not,there is some thing driving you here Paul.
What do you think it is?
You are still not convinced and if we can offer anything that can turn you into believing, ultimate proof, if we could where would that leave you?
But you see, you don’t listen.
You need to make the first contact.

About your post #400,
The harmful one.
That sounds like most of the false ones don’t it.
What does a God of love have to do with this? You are accusing all religions aren’t you?


Hellaeon said,



Well you need to be a little more specific, who are on their knees and who do they pray to?
If they are praying to the clouds then they got it wrong.
Just because you pray for those things, if you do, doesn’t make them right or come true. Most christans pray for others also.
With the guidance of the one greater than the one in the world, along with the faith that’s required then you walk with God at which point you'll have your proof.
AT that point the guidance gets to you and you follow it, if not you fall again and after several times you might get it.
But you can always get it as long as you do not cross certain lines.

Hellaeon says,


I don’t know, what is it telling you? Is it telling you to flame me because it doesn’t believe any of this or is it telling you to read on this thread for opinions ?
There’s me, myself and I .
You got to sort them out, what do you think it is that tells you to do things, bad or good and yourself in there choosing? The word of God tells us what it is.




Looking at your picture I got to ask, how do your morals compare to Gods?
Are you with him or not?
If I could see into your eyes I would know where you stand, and that’s a fact, you either have the light or not.
And that has not failed me in the choice of friends.
You know why? I have seen the results of my choices.

from the Huntster,



Good answer Huntster




Prove this as his judgment..
And really D.B. prove that they even have converted?
We have no need to worry about their judgment, only our own.
I think because they are there in prison, that judgment has begun.
The ones that are not caught probably will never contemplate converting.
At that point it’s probably too late, they can say all they want, about changing what else do they got?
More like a ploy.
That’s some diabolical sheot.
That’s on the same level as Hitler getting there.
The Bible is pretty straightforward on that.
There is a point of no return.


D.B says,


Your suppose to do this before you go so bad or you go insain D.B. And do you believe a pathological liar?
Would you not keep a eye in the back of your head?
Because the convicted say it, that doesn’t make it so.......
What about the ones that are out and do not comply with the rules such as keeping the law informed on their locations and living quarters.
Most try to disappear.Even after saying that they now believe.


Good point Lostnick,


Just in case isn't going to cut it is it.....

I’m going to post a link for you De_Bunk, It’s what we read every day here at my house and it will address your first questions.
It’s from the R.B.C. Ministries, it is called the Daily Bread.

Every day we read it and It always seems to fit right in.
You can read it if your not scared or too locked in on your thinking.

http://www.rbc.org/odb/odb-04-21-06.shtml

Read it for a couple of days and see for yourself what is good or bad.
The collar suits U !!!


Ok Just Me, why?

This is a day the Lord has made rejoce and be glad in it....

Edge, could you elaborate, please?

[edge]

Some one got angry.

D.B. that link I gave you, go to it and go back one day.
It's at the bottom of the page.
You'll see three pieces of text, all short.
The main page, today’s bible reading, and the insight, very important.

Piggy I thought I did.


Here's how it goes for me.
The very first post that I posted in here is the truth.

By letting you in on that piece of truth, I was attacked in the real world.
By a demon infested 17 year old on my property, I won't elaborate.

So when I write what I’m about to write, I have to really think about it.
So here we go.

Because a person who has no beliefs in one God, the New Testament "Christian covenant" won't see any proof from him of Him.

The reason I know this is that when you are on that side of things you are already lost, the devil has no need to attack you either. So you won't see proof of him.

Ah, but when you are Christian, you see proof through fellowship with God and because the Devil, Satin doesn't have your soul. He then sends his demons to make you fall.

You see proof of both sides if you don't surccumb to the deception.
If you do fall as a Christian, you may not even know it till days later.
Then you lose grace. As we all know, grace comes by faith!

[edge]

Read all of this De_Bunk....

http://odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4207

[psy kick]

Because he isn't there, have fun with your delusion.

Paul

:) :) :)
Silly. he KNOWS when you are sleeping, he knows when youre awake

[Piggy]

Here's how it goes for me.
The very first post that I posted in here is the truth.

By letting you in on that piece of truth, I was attacked in the real world.
By a demon infested 17 year old on my property, I won't elaborate.
That's odd b/c, after making my first post here, I went out to get my paper, and this college co-ed was just coming out for a jog, saw me there in my jammies, and asked if I'd like to have dark chocolate consumed from off my naked body. I said, "Sure". I won't elaborate. It took several hours.

[Paulhoff]

What a childless god, this god has demons and a devil laying around for its amusement. Let us all hope that this god may grow up to that least a 10 year old some day.

I always felt that christians followed a lesser god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

.....They call this place I live in Bigfoot country.
I haven’t seen one yet and hope I don’t.
The Indians’ have their stories and legends here, about Bigfoot.
They are the Wintu tribe, locally here.
You know what is said,They will believe a lie and even the elect will be deceived.....

It's rare to interact with a man of God on this forum. I enjoy your posts.

You also appear to be a man who may know of native ways.

I've spent lots of time in the woods. I was out there today (spent the weekend hunting for bear). I've never seen a sasquatch. I believe I've seen sign.

That is enough for me to refuse to dismiss the phenomenon with a wave of the hand. I've seen sign. I've read the stories of others. I've seen the PG film. I believe.

[Paulhoff]

You spend lots of time in the woods. Why does a bear have to die. I guess if it doesn't have a so-called soul it's OK to kill it.

I spent plenty of time outdoors and try not to kill a thing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

....Why does a bear have to die......

Why not?

...I spent plenty of time outdoors and try not to kill a thing....

Well, good for you.

[Paulhoff]

Why not?


A very typical reply from a so-called nature lover. Why the need, is there something missing in your life that need fulfillment in the death of a bear, or anything else that has done you no harm.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Huntster]

A very typical reply from a so-called nature lover.....

Similar to the very typical challenge from someone without a clue.

... Why the need, is there something missing in your life that need fulfillment in the death of a bear, or anything else that has done you no harm.....

Dinner.

I suppose you're a vegetarian, as well?

[edge]

Bear stew yum yum!!!!
Boil for several hours on an open fire, add plenty of garlic,caqrrots, potatos, onions.
High energy meal.....

In todays Daily Bread, the link is above on this page read one more D.B..
here's the scripture part of it today.


Ecclesiastes 3
A Time for Everything
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.


Some ones going to be mad...


Almost forgot, this link is for you all but Hunster you'll find it a great resource.

It's Lambert Dolfins,read the biography and check the science and archeolagy,very very intresting.

http://www.ldolphin.org/

[Paulhoff]

A time to throw around the BS, and a time to stop.

Paul

:) :) :)

So stop throwing the BS.

[Stellafane]

That's odd b/c, after making my first post here, I went out to get my paper, and this college co-ed was just coming out for a jog, saw me there in my jammies, and asked if I'd like to have dark chocolate consumed from off my naked body. I said, "Sure". I won't elaborate. It took several hours.

She ate dark chocolate from off your body? Oh man, you had it all backwards!

Sex is all well and fine, but we're talking dark chocolate here. Mmm...dark chocolate....

[psy kick]

You spend lots of time in the woods. Why does a bear have to die. I guess if it doesn't have a so-called soul it's OK to kill it.

I spent plenty of time outdoors and try not to kill a thing.

Paul

:) :) :)Bears die because people don't want to step in **** in the woods?
not to kill a thing? Hey, I would be happy if a lot of bees died so they could quite harrassing me!

[Beleth]

Where Does God Live ?
By August Gold & Matthew J. Perlman
ISBN 1-893361-39-X (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/189336139X/sr=8-2/qid=1145948167/ref=sr_1_2/104-0492468-5134331?%5Fencoding=UTF8)


"Where does God live?"
was the question she had.

"God lives in us all!"
said her mom and her dad.

"God's all that there is
and all that you see!"

"But I Still don't see God
so how can it be?"

(formatting like the original)


Now of course the book goes on with from there with the usual "god is everywhere" stuff, unfortunately.

I'd like to thank my father in law and his wife for giving my son a copy of this book.
I'd like to, but I can't.

[Dr. MAS]

Dr Mas...

1. No...I do not believe in God because its supposedly invisible...2. it because since the beginning of mankind it has never, ever proven itself to exist...3. Plus the fact their is no reason for God...

DB

From your reply, I can derive the following

1. A thing that is invisible cannot exist. An intelligent skeptic approach. (intelligent means stupid).

2. If anything that does not prove itself (in other words not interested in proving itself) cannot exist. A good skeptic advancement. (good means poor).

3. There is no reason to God exist. A sensible believe. (sensible means foolish).

[De_Bunk]

Dr.Mas

From your reply i can derive...


1. "A thing that is invisible"...That means something that cannot be seen, heard or touched or proven to exist by any methods known to science and mankind....('You're a kook' means you believe in someting that cannot be proven by any method known to mankind )

2. "If anything that does not prove itself"...It cannot be 'any thing' if it does not exist or can be proven to exist ( That job in the 'call centre' is looking better each day, means that job in the 'call centre' is looking better each day )

3. "There is no reason for God to exist"...No, there is not ( "Hello, This is the Help Desk, Dr.Mas speaking", means '2 rupees per 14hr day' )


DB

[clarsct]

Has MAS been speaking in doublethink all this time?!


That clears up much....


MAS, You're a muslim, are you not? (Curiousity)

[Dr. MAS]

No there are so many mas who are non muslims.

Click on this link. Here one mas is celebrating x-mas day.

[Huntster]

..."A thing that is invisible"...That means something that cannot be seen, heard or touched or proven to exist by any methods known to science and mankind....

No, that is not what “invisible” means. Invisible means that it cannot be seen, and that is completely independent on whether or not it can be heard or touched.

Further, something can be “invisible” today, and might possibly be “visible” in the future, depending on technology, or some other factor. For example, microbes that were invisible to mankind many hundreds of years ago are quite visible today.

The same type of discovery has been going on for eons. Something "impossible" years ago is commonplace today.