Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[Ringtone]

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.

Atheist slogan speak.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Atheist slogan speak.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Atheist slogan speak.

cool story, WLC cultist

 

[Hollie]

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.

I think you have outlined a part of the problem. The bible was written by men (some of the writers are unknown), who never met the alleged Jesus. The accounts of his life were written long after his death. Those accounts are taken with varying degrees of reliance by various sects / subsects of Christianity in this case. I would offer this is a part of the reason why Christianity has splintered into so many subsects.

We also must realize that study of the cultures which invented these gods are cultures that believed many gods existed and that it was the hand of those gods who were the Universe Winders who opened every flower, moved the planets and affected the ebb and flow of life.

It comes as a shock to the fundamentalists that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

 

[Meriweather]

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.

I cannot follow such a wide definition of 'cult'. Basically, this definition also puts (along with all religions) all government units, all organizations, clubs, businesses, and even classrooms and families under this label of "cult". So, what are you saying? That we humans establish cults in every aspect of our existence? Okay. So?

 

[G.T.]

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.

I cannot follow such a wide definition of 'cult'. Basically, this definition also puts (along with all religions) all government units, all organizations, clubs, businesses, and even classrooms and families under this label of "cult". So, what are you saying? That we humans establish cults in every aspect of our existence? Okay. So?

You didnt ask my definition, and then felt free to state that which my definition encompasses.

This is why getting in-depth on the internet always ends up being a waste of time...right? It's just goofy...assumption, strawmen, assertion, assertion, unsupported assertion, gish gallop, wall of text wall of text...

I'd be glad to have you on a podcast and speak verbally sometime, for sure though.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you have outlined a part of the problem. The bible was written by men (some of the writers are unknown), who never met the alleged Jesus. The accounts of his life were written long after his death.

Yes. This was taught to us back in elementary school. You see, early Christians were convinced Jesus was returning in their own lifetime. It wasn't until the generation of Jesus were dying off that convinced the following generation(s) that they needed to record what was being said/taught.

 

[Ringtone]

indeed, define the idea of God

An explanation for the gaps in our knowledge.

Atheist slogan speak.

 

[Meriweather]

Those accounts are taken with varying degrees of reliance by various sects / subsects of Christianity in this case. I would offer this is a part of the reason why Christianity has splintered into so many subsects.

Most (not all) of the splintering occurred during the Reformation. Before that, it was not so much a splintering, as some independent groups adopting some of Jesus' teachings into their own group's set of beliefs. Sometimes Jesus' teachings put new definition on what they had been teaching; other times, they put new definition on Jesus' teacings--a practice to which Paul and some others objected and warned their own followers against.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think you have outlined a part of the problem. The bible was written by men (some of the writers are unknown), who never met the alleged Jesus. The accounts of his life were written long after his death. Those accounts are taken with varying degrees of reliance by various sects / subsects of Christianity in this case. I would offer this is a part of the reason why Christianity has splintered into so many subsects.

We also must realize that study of the cultures which invented these gods are cultures that believed many gods existed and that it was the hand of those gods who were the Universe Winders who opened every flower, moved the planets and affected the ebb and flow of life.

It comes as a shock to the fundamentalists that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

I've seen so many theists go from their Book of choice, to a scaled-back assertion that looks more like the God of Spinoza.

The ego is where it all comes from, as "I don't actually know" is so far the fuck from their vocabulary that the mere thought that they've got something wrong makes them pretend they meant the other thing, likkity split.

It never fails.

 

[BreezeWood]

Now define God

I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.

The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.

Precisely! And that's the whole point of the OP, but, of course, you follow that as you know as well as I that to define God is to not only outline his fundamental attributes, but to concede what the immediate empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. These things are readily self-evident to anyone who seriously regards the problem of existence per the first principles of ontology. There's nothing mysterious about these things. The idea of God is a universally objective apprehension. But of the hundreds of atheists I've encountered, maybe two have seriously regarded the problem of existence and remain unconvinced that there is an actual substance behind the idea. Fair enough. But the others are just spouting slogans. As for those who claim to have seriously regarded the problem and yet still claim there is no evidence for God's existence, they're lying.

Of course, the other issue in the OP goes to natural and constitutional law. That too is a matter of first principles: Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

.
there is nothing in your post that even remotely addresses or verifies the authenticity of your false messiah religion of christianity rather the true spoken religion of antiquity all three desert religions have abandoned as the actual evidence for the Almighty.

There are 24,000 written manuscripts and the practices of early Christians that verify and authenticates the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What exactly do you have that verifies and authenticates that the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ didn’t happen?

.

There are 24,000 written manuscripts and the practices of early Christians that verify and authenticates the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What exactly do you have that verifies and authenticates that the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ didn’t happen?

the interpretative christian bible without attributions that do not exist and are fabrications, forgeries for political purposes.

you repeat yourself as a pathological liar - as the evidence is common knowledge there are no original documents from the period of occurrence, 1st century corroborating your 4th century document in regards to your messiah religion that isn't an undocumented fallacy. interpretive, the same as your own despotic religious panderings for self assurance.

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

it took till the 4th century for the crucifiers to write their illicit christian bible.

 

[Hollie]

I think you have outlined a part of the problem. The bible was written by men (some of the writers are unknown), who never met the alleged Jesus. The accounts of his life were written long after his death.

Yes. This was taught to us back in elementary school. You see, early Christians were convinced Jesus was returning in their own lifetime. It wasn't until the generation of Jesus were dying off that convinced the following generation(s) that they needed to record what was being said/taught.

I would submit that we have no reliable testimony of what Jesus said/taught. We have only hearsay, among that hearsay is from unknown authors. It’s just a fact that Paul never met Jesus and didn’t pen anything until long after the death of Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

You didnt ask my definition, and then felt free to state that which my definition encompasses.

Rather I read how you are applying the word cult, and that application is too broad for me. It fits everything. For example, the Physical Fitness Cult, the Vegan Cult. I myself belong to the Chinchilla Lovers cult.

 

[Meriweather]

I would submit that we have no reliable testimony of what Jesus said/taught. We have only hearsay, among that hearsay is from unknown authors. It’s just a fact that Paul never met Jesus and didn’t pen anything until long after the death of Jesus.

While I do believe the testimony is reliable, you are absolutely correct that it is all hearsay. The reason I believe it is reliable is because the same hearsay testimony correlates with other hearsay testimony. Further, I have found (and it is two thousand years later) that these teachings work.

 

[BreezeWood]

Has Science Buried God?

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

.

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

that is the purpose of faith - without achieving faith's goal, faith is meaningless in of itself.

 

[G.T.]

You didnt ask my definition, and then felt free to state that which my definition encompasses.

Rather I read how you are applying the word cult, and that application is too broad for me. It fits everything. For example, the Physical Fitness Cult, the Vegan Cult. I myself belong to the Chinchilla Lovers cult.

No, it doesn't fit everything. It fits Religion. You're making a flawed inference...and using it as a straw-man. No, bad, stop, cease.

 

[G.T.]

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...nswer/Yugan-Talovich?share=bb2e23c5&srid=kGOS

 

[Ringtone]

indeed, define the idea of God

An explanation for the gaps in our knowledge.

Atheist in the gaps slogan speak.

 

[diver52]

Yes, I do. I have already told you I was a student when what you wanted was happening. I know what that means. I know what happened then and I do not trust any assurances about what would happen if it is brought back. Your good intentions had its shot at me, it will not have its shot at my grandchildren.

Back in the fifties, you were at a school who offered these types of classes as an elective? What grade levels?

No classes. It began with kindergarten. You started out the day with a prayer, you had lunch with a prayer, you might be counseled by a teacher about Jesus. It was an ongoing barrage, all done with good intent. Fairly innocuous to most, but if you were Jewish.... a bit of a different story. But that was ok, because it was always in the kid's best interest. In third grade I watched as my best friend was asked, by our loving and caring teacher for whom I had something of a crush, if he wanted to go to hell. Scared the shit out of him, but it was with the best of intentions so it was fine.

So I don't trust your good intentions. I don't trust your classes. I don't trust that they won't give more attention to one religion and ignore others. I don't trust the teachers who will teach the classes. At the college level? That's fine. Now your dealing with adults. In a public school where you have children who have no choice and aren't equipped to challenge, no.

 

[Hollie]

I would submit that we have no reliable testimony of what Jesus said/taught. We have only hearsay, among that hearsay is from unknown authors. It’s just a fact that Paul never met Jesus and didn’t pen anything until long after the death of Jesus.

While I do believe the testimony is reliable, you are absolutely correct that it is all hearsay. The reason I believe it is reliable is because the same hearsay testimony correlates with other hearsay testimony. Further, I have found (and it is two thousand years later) that these teachings work.

I'd be careful about the teachings that "work". If you tried to conduct yourself per the teaching of the OT, for example, you would be quickly arrested.