Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[G.T.]

Has Science Buried God?

Even the Theory of Everything achieving consensus won't banish faith.

The Religious will never be thwarted - they take interpretive leisure all throughout history when Science or Secular Society forces them forward. When you cannot settle on what the definition of "is" is, as demonstrated by even this thread... by the RELIGIOUS demanding the definition of God (lolllll!!!!).....anything can mean everything. Spin doctoring is how Cult Linguistics actually works.

 

[cnm]

indeed, define the idea of God

An explanation for the gaps in our knowledge.

 

[Hollie]

Sounds like a college or private school elective...not something to posit to a Minor.

I see it as educating. One issue that truly bothers me is that not even Noah's Ark is taught properly. There are people who point to it as the foundation for their lack of belief. For me, one who has always lived among atheists, this is a parody of both the person of faith and the atheist. It is flattering to no one.

I've noticed that many christians in these threads are convinced that they, and they alone, hold the "true" interpretation of the bibles. They are inerrant in their version of truth and depending on the religionist, that truth ranges from literal interpretation of biblical tales and fables to all of it being an allegorical account.

Since the gods are not descending from the heavens with their black and white striped shirts and whistles to referee the match, I will assume the role of final arbiter of biblical "twoof".

The gods command it. Prove they didn't.

 

[cnm]

by the RELIGIOUS demanding the definition of God (lolllll!!!!)

Think of it as an opportunity...

 

[G.T.]

by the RELIGIOUS demanding the definition of God (lolllll!!!!)

Think of it as an opportunity...

I think of it as a burden shifting. I'm not the one arguing that there is any particular God or Gods - it's up to the one proposing an argument to define what they're arguing... and to sit in complaint that the cross examiner isn't making the definition is almost like having a discussion with a 3 year old.

 

[cnm]

Oh, a chance to indoctrinate...

 

[G.T.]

Oh, a chance to indoctrinate...

That wouldn't be a good end-goal.

 

[rightwinger]

You didn't complete the sentence. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When the government establishes preference of one religion over another, then it is establishing religion. When it forces people (especially school children who are required to be there) to participate in a religion they do not share, they are being prohibited their right to the free exercise of their religion.

Note I addressed that in the previous sentence. The Warren Court erred by not insisting that all religion enter the public square (public schools). Preventing any is not the same as opening it to all.

I would have loved to see fundamentalist Christians when atheists were allowed to come in and explain why Jesus never existed and could not possibly be the son of God

 

[Meriweather]

I would think that fear is the motivation used by religions to keep the adherents. Religions impose penities for "not believing". Religion requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any gods who reward fear over reason are not worthy of worship.

What are we talking of here? What is the penalty for not believing? In Catholicism, we are taught that Jesus, far from shouting that not following him would result in a penalty, matter-of-factly explained that before one chooses to follow him, like a builder, or like a king preparing for war, they must first tally up the cost. If a builder or a king cannot manage the cost, they do not start the project. Likewise, if a person cannot manage the cost of following Jesus, then they shouldn't.

Jesus also talked about people who believe in him turning away despite that belief. They would face the consequence that angels who believe in God faced when they decided they wanted an existence without God. There would be a complete separation.

Notice that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man did not end up suffering in the afterlife because of his lack of belief. His suffering was the consequence of not helping those suffering on his very doorstep during his life here on earth.

I do understand that some denominations teach hell for atheists and non-Christians, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches, and nor is it what Jesus or the Apostles taught. In one of his letters Paul clearly states that rather than being judged by a merciful God, atheists would be judged by their own hearts.

 

[Meriweather]

The Religious will never be thwarted - they take interpretive leisure all throughout history when Science or Secular Society forces them forward. When you cannot settle on what the definition of "is" is, as demonstrated by even this thread... by the RELIGIOUS demanding the definition of God (lolllll!!!!).....anything can mean everything. Spin doctoring is how Cult Linguistics actually works.

You are speaking of a fringe here, and broad-brushing all people of faith with that fringe.

 

[Meriweather]

I've noticed that many christians in these threads are convinced that they, and they alone, hold the "true" interpretation of the bibles. They are inerrant in their version of truth and depending on the religionist, that truth ranges from literal interpretation of biblical tales and fables to all of it being an allegorical account.

Since the gods are not descending from the heavens with their black and white striped shirts and whistles to referee the match, I will assume the role of final arbiter of biblical "twoof".

The gods command it. Prove they didn't.

People of the Jewish faith note that scripture should be studied, not read. Catholics kept to this tradition, explaining that the Bible needed to be taught--not simply read. Protestants decided that they could read and interpret scripture all on their own.

Going with Jewish or Catholic practice, a person goes back to the intent of the original author and the message, or the lesson, being presented to the original audience. This means studying the history, culture, and language of the time.

 

[Meriweather]

I would have loved to see fundamentalist Christians when atheists were allowed to come in and explain why Jesus never existed and could not possibly be the son of God

In fact, it is easier to prove Jesus' existence than Socrates' existence--a truth on which atheists may wish to acknowledge. Proving the existence of Jesus from non-Biblical sources is a piece of cake. The Jews already have the best reasoning behind why Jesus cannot possibly be the son of God or one with Him, and this reasoning is more sound than any I've heard an atheist offer.

 

[G.T.]

The Religious will never be thwarted - they take interpretive leisure all throughout history when Science or Secular Society forces them forward. When you cannot settle on what the definition of "is" is, as demonstrated by even this thread... by the RELIGIOUS demanding the definition of God (lolllll!!!!).....anything can mean everything. Spin doctoring is how Cult Linguistics actually works.

You are speaking of a fringe here, and broad-brushing all people of faith with that fringe.

I'm speaking of the entire Cult.

Anti-theists sometimes take things out of context, and fail to understand things through the lens of ancient near-eastern mores...and then theists use those instances and assert that ALL of the <horrid> / contradictory / ridiculous aspects of the texts can be swept/explained away under the same guise. It cannot, that's not actually true, and there are PhDs on Ancient Near Eastern History and language that explain concisely why.

You'll never be above the Cultish Linguistics when you feel free to spin in a cult-like manner that which flies in the face of true scholarship. That's why the sweeping under the rug that God gave Levitical law to Moses verbatim, and that Levitical Law is barbaric in any context...makes the biblical God of the Old Testament a Monster - and the fact that the New Testament swoops in with an all new set of Morals clearly shows that either the Cult was forced to accommodate what society found "newly" moral - or - that Old God actually does exist and is therefore not a source of objective morality...but instead, changes his/her/its morality over time visa vie "new and old" covenants. Covenants 'change,' = Moral Relativist God.

 

[G.T.]

I would have loved to see fundamentalist Christians when atheists were allowed to come in and explain why Jesus never existed and could not possibly be the son of God

In fact, it is easier to prove Jesus' existence than Socrates' existence--a truth on which atheists may wish to acknowledge. Proving the existence of Jesus from non-Biblical sources is a piece of cake. The Jews already have the best reasoning behind why Jesus cannot possibly be the son of God or one with Him, and this reasoning is more sound than any I've heard an atheist offer.

Historical Jesus cannot be proven, he's taken on-faith as existing through the testimony of 1 "established" Historian, Josephus, whose work was shown by scholars to have been modified. By, guess who are purported to have modified his work? You got it, Christians.There's no hard evidence, just hearsay and most of it based on Josephus who was born after Jesus was supposed to have died.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm speaking of the entire Cult.

Anti-theists sometimes take things out of context, and fail to understand things through the lens of ancient near-eastern mores...and then theists use those instances and assert that ALL of the <horrid> / contradictory / ridiculous aspects of the texts can be swept away under the same guise. It cannot, and there are PhDs on Ancient Near Eastern History and language that explain concisely why.

You'll never be above the Cultish Linguistics when you feel free to spin in a cult-like manner that which flies in the face of true scholarship. That's why the sweeping under the rug that God gave Levitical law to Moses verbatim, and that Levitical Law is barbaric in any context...makes the biblical God of the Old Testament a Monster - and the fact that the New Testament swoops in with an all new set of Morals clearly shows that either the Cult was forced to accommodate what society found moral - or - that Old God actually does exist and is therefore not a source of objective morality...but instead, changes his/her/its morality over time visa vie "new and old" covenants. Covenants 'change,' = Moral Relativist God.

This is targeting literalists and giving them a lot of oxygen. This is like arguing that the entire NASA Space program should be dismissed because of the small segment that insists there was no moon landings.

 

[Meriweather]

Historical Jesus cannot be proven, he's taken on-faith as existing through the testimony of 1 "established" Historian, Josephus, whose work was shown by scholars to have been modified. By, guess who are purported to have modified his work? You got it, Christians.There'shard evidence, just hearsay and most of it based on Josephus who was born after Jesus was supposed to have died.

I'm not speaking of Josephus. There are letters from other historical figures.

 

[G.T.]

I'm speaking of the entire Cult.

Anti-theists sometimes take things out of context, and fail to understand things through the lens of ancient near-eastern mores...and then theists use those instances and assert that ALL of the <horrid> / contradictory / ridiculous aspects of the texts can be swept away under the same guise. It cannot, and there are PhDs on Ancient Near Eastern History and language that explain concisely why.

You'll never be above the Cultish Linguistics when you feel free to spin in a cult-like manner that which flies in the face of true scholarship. That's why the sweeping under the rug that God gave Levitical law to Moses verbatim, and that Levitical Law is barbaric in any context...makes the biblical God of the Old Testament a Monster - and the fact that the New Testament swoops in with an all new set of Morals clearly shows that either the Cult was forced to accommodate what society found moral - or - that Old God actually does exist and is therefore not a source of objective morality...but instead, changes his/her/its morality over time visa vie "new and old" covenants. Covenants 'change,' = Moral Relativist God.

This is targeting literalists and giving them a lot of oxygen. This is like arguing that the entire NASA Space program should be dismissed because of the small segment that insists there was no moon landings.

No, it targets the entire cult - literalists and non. More-so the non, even, as they've got more poetic license to the Cult Linguistics...i.e. fitting the scripture to their whims.

 

[G.T.]

Historical Jesus cannot be proven, he's taken on-faith as existing through the testimony of 1 "established" Historian, Josephus, whose work was shown by scholars to have been modified. By, guess who are purported to have modified his work? You got it, Christians.There'shard evidence, just hearsay and most of it based on Josephus who was born after Jesus was supposed to have died.

I'm not speaking of Josephus. There are letters from other historical figures.

That's nice. There's no convincing evidence I've found...only hearsay, and at the time of the Religions of antiquity - - - - - folks were gnashing and clawing for their propaganda to stick.

 

[Ringtone]

Aside from being psychotic and hoish obsession, thats full of appeal to authority, false inference, and baseless assertion. And if ya dont believe me, go claim your nobel prize youve done it!!!!!

Atheist slogan speak.

 

[G.T.]

Aside from being psychotic and hoish obsession, thats full of appeal to authority, false inference, and baseless assertion. And if ya dont believe me, go claim your nobel prize youve done it!!!!!

Slogan speak.

I called it what it was - I'm not about to waste my time on some fuck-stick on the internet that makes 6, 000 errors in singular posts like that. Gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop so there!!!?!?!?!?!??


errmmm, no.