Why do the God-haters persist?

[GISMYS]

EVERYTHING to gain and nothing to lose but hell!!!!===God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 “There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don’t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. 21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.”
JOHN 3:16-21

 

[sealybobo]

Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John 15:18

You are delusional. If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people. Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people. For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one. We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god. Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.

We don't hate gods word. We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god. At least the idea. It is completely unnecessary. In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point. In fact you guys use god to be assholes. You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you. How stupid are you? This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore. They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them? Of course fucking not.

WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 “There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don’t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. 21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.”
JOHN 3:16-21

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god

 

[GISMYS]

YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE satan's lies!!!! Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/

 

[Clement]

My mistake.

Now I did write this yet somehow it's quoted under Huggy?

Hey, I just hit the quote button.

 

[Clement]

Now I did write this yet somehow it's quoted under Huggy?

Hey, I just hit the quote button.

Now it's saying I said it.

 

[Montrovant]

Why would atheists not have any interest in religion? Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they shouldn't question why others do, or worry about possible repercussions of people believing (think radical Islamic terrorism).

Your sports analogy is actually pretty funny to me, because it is, like religion and politics, a subject that many people actually do get aggressive and rude about when talking of sports they don't like. There's been more than one thread on this board in that vein.

Because there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who uses that as a curtain to hide behind in their compulsion to be hateful and obnoxious to others.

--Sam

Yes, but that's true of anyone, whatever their beliefs. People will use religion, politics, nationalism, race, even sports as a vehicle to be hateful and obnoxious. Just about everyone is hateful and obnoxious some of the time, and it seems to be much more common on anonymous message boards such as this.

Regarding the OP, however, I continue to wonder how one determines that a person is not truly an atheist simply because they are hateful and obnoxious, which is a simplified summation of where this thread started.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
It simply is.

But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.

Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.

Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.

You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"

Oh, Bossy.
Another abortion of a post.
First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.
Who could blame him?
You try to make the case that I called Einstein an atheist and I have never done anything of the kind. If you think I have, quote me. I won't hold my breath.
As for "agnostic atheism" it is a common term that is well known and understood.
Not by you of course, but that is par for the course. Simple words that have common definitions mystify you, like "rationalization". Other times you make up words altogether and then accuse the people of pointing out that English seems to remain a second language for you are "grammar nazis". In reality, they are simply basically literate.
I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science. I have said that there is no proof or certainty of the spiritual nature that you are married to. I have given a perfectly understandable alternative to the popularity of spiritualism of all kinds, and shown that its wide spread appeal is not necessarily connected to the authenticity of the experience.
The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.
He's had one ever since.
The fear never leaves, because people still die, and they know it is coming.
And they just don't want to accept it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Explain it to me from the beginning. Why are you right and what is your position.

I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.

Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
You just keep running and running.
As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
My little Runaway.
Run, run, run, run Runaway!
(Thanks Del Shannon!)

Whatever, go argue with Gizmo, he's your intellectual equal.

You certainly aren't.

 

[Clement]

I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.

Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
You just keep running and running.
As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.

Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

1.

Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
It simply is.

Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
is also "not a choice" but their reality.

I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
That is not a choice I can change.
And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
2. As for your perception of my approach:

The goal isn't universality for its own sake. That is philosophical, not investigative.

2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
work and what makes them fail.

I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.

We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.

So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.

And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.

With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
Again yes, and yes.

By including all people and working out our differences,
then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.

One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.

Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
... If that investigation causes friction you are philosophically against it, because you, too, have a goal, and that is to calm the beast.

No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.

Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.

3. As for your points about Einstein:

Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
...
In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.

As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.

Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god. And so do I.

3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?

When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.

When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.

Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!

It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.

But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!

As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.

God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.

Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
That doesn't suddenly make them true.
Completely different arguments.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
You just keep running and running.
As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.

Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.

Talk to me when you have an argument.
The avoidance is just humiliating you.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
You just keep running and running.
As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.

Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.

you really are a very superficial,ignorant, unweighing, clay-brained, pule.

 

[I.P.Freely]

A free man.

nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.

You just had your ass handed to you and whine like a little baby...

strange I felt nothing.....now get back in the bushes you churlish hedge-born turd and wait for a dog to sniff you.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Time zones are a bastard, every thing I want to say has been said ( more eloquently than I could). So just incase I am not here on the 25th Dec
clic on pic to make bigger.

 

[Boss]

Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
It simply is.

But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.

Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.

Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.

You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"

Oh, Bossy.
Another abortion of a post.
First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.

Well you're simply LYING again, this time, about your own signature line that everyone can read beneath every post you make. Amazing!

Here's what he said: "...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.

As for "agnostic atheism" it is a common term that is well known and understood.

No it's not, it's an idiotic and nonsensical term devised by Atheists who want to bolster their numbers to include people who still have a doubt that no God exists.

Simple words that have common definitions mystify you, like "rationalization".

No, they mystify YOU because you can't seem to grasp that words have different contextual meaning.

I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science.

No, you've gone a step worse and claimed things that can't currently be explained by physical science are not "real" and cannot exist. Not only have you closed the door to any possible future knowledge being unlocked by science, you ridicule the notion that science doesn't already know everything.

The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.

But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.

 

[thebrucebeat]

But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.

Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.



You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"

Oh, Bossy.
Another abortion of a post.
First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.

Well you're simply LYING again, this time, about your own signature line that everyone can read beneath every post you make. Amazing!

Here's what he said: "...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.

He is clearly making the case for the naiveté of the idea of a personal god.If you cited my entire post you would see that the point I made is that Einstein's faith was rooted in his humility of what he didn't know and believed couldn't been known.

No it's not, it's an idiotic and nonsensical term devised by Atheists who want to bolster their numbers to include people who still have a doubt that no God exists.
This is just a continuation of your tortured relationship with English and a poor education. Nothing more. Not here to teach remedial English.


No, they mystify YOU because you can't seem to grasp that words have different contextual meaning.
The context was never in question when I used it. If anyone is too stupid to understand context you have clearly shown it is you.

I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science.

No, you've gone a step worse and claimed things that can't currently be explained by physical science are not "real" and cannot exist. Not only have you closed the door to any possible future knowledge being unlocked by science, you ridicule the notion that science doesn't already know everything.
you will have a very hard time showing that I have said this anywhere. Why? Because it isn't my position nor have I ever stated this.

The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.

But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.

you actually have done nothing of the kind. You have tripped all over yourself making contradictory suppositions about the animal kingdom with zero support. You have made yourself into a ridiculous caricature, complete with repeatedly childish avatar illustrations.

 

[emilynghiem]

I view "working within" a group of people so totally vacant of personal responsibility in seeing the simple truth to be beyond creepy.

The communication gymnastics I would have to go through would give me a permanent headache.

Yes, some people say the same about working with liberals or the Democrat Party.

To each, his own. Not everyone can work with everyone.
We do have to pick our battles or challenges we can do something about.
But overall, I find it is better to work with or within, rather than bitch back and forth from the outside which doesn't change or help anything, and just annoys both sides.

Either do something constructive to work toward change, or go focus elsewhere.

Sure ... some of these organizations are capable of addressing some of the worlds problems ... especially if they can take advantage of others fears and just bad luck and recruit the needy to god as an entity that will solve all of their problems.

Maybe for some it makes more sense to at least get something to eat or a blanket after a flood or some disaster in exchange for the luxury of a free will.

We here in the USA are indeed a very special group of people that have the freedom to think and speak whatever we believe....or what we do not believe.

I find each group has weaknesses and strengths.
For example the Jehovah's Witnesses reject Govt, other Christian groups, spiritual healing, blood procedures, etc. But they are good about setting up an internal system of enforcing their own standard policies among their own members, about education on the dangers of witchcraft/occult/spiritism. So they serve as a good model on some points.

Every group is like that. Every person, also, has good points and bad points.

So why not align on the good points, and get more done that way?

If we reject everyone for our bad points, we wouldn't have anyone left to work with.

So that's why the world is in the situation we are today; we have an abundance of resources, but are divided from each other by "condition" -- people segregated mentally socially and physically by barriers based on religious or political lines we refuse to cross, so we abridge our own rights to redress grievances, solve problems, and work more efficiently with the resources we do have. The flow of resources is obstructed, where the have's and have not's are separated by a backlog of bureaucracy and unresolved issues.

We could solve our problems freely and voluntarily if we were better organized, and quit
rejecting and limiting each other based on what people or groups we refuse to work with!

As long as only the criminals are greedy enough to get what they want to "cross over" lines and conspire with others, then the evil in the world can still get done; while the good conscientious people who are "offended" at mistakes or problems with others REFUSE to forgive and find ways to achieve common goals, then these goals take longer to achieve.

I've seen this in politics and the peace and justice movement -- where people are so busy pushing for their own causes, they can't always align with others, so they stay divided fighting separate battles. In the meantime, this keeps us vulnerable to others with more resources or power getting their way while the majority of people are divided in opposition.

If "not all people can work with all groups," it is even MORE important to organize a system BY groups, so each can represent themselves, and still form coalitions and partnerships.

I can see a system similar to the "United States" under one network, but organizing people by political party, religious affiliations or other civic or professional/academic associations.

Instead of competing with each other, the point is to collaborate and bring it all together.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sealybobo:
If you understand "Jesus" as representing the spirit of "Justice with Mercy"
or "Restorative Justice" universal for all humanity,
then you do not need to believe or need proof of any historical Jesus
to follow this process of "Justice" being established among men by
agreement in truth and by good faith relations among humanity.

this process of Justice for All is universal,
and does not depend on believing or proving anything in the Bible as a "condition."

it can be proven by simply following the process in one's own life
and in relationships with others. All life, all humans and relations
follow this spiritual process and path to Justice anyway. You can CHOOSE to use the Bible to represent it,
but it is not necessary. (I, for one, did not come to my current understanding of Jesus/God/Christianity/Bible
using the Bible, but got the concept by following life and forgiving past conflicts so I could see where the process was going in life.
Once I understood this same process was happening for all individuals in different ways, and collectively as humanity universally,
THEN I understood the spiritual process and stages of human development is what is symbolized in Buddhism, the Bible, and all religious teachings.
So the process exists and operates independently, and any person can describe it in their own way and it's still the same thing.)

whatever God/Jesus represents by definition must be universal for all humanity to be true;
so that cannot "depend on the Bible" which isn't universal to all people.

the Bible REFLECTS this universal truth and process, but is NOT a condition.

You are delusional. If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people. Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people. For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one. We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god. Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.

We don't hate gods word. We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god. At least the idea. It is completely unnecessary. In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point. In fact you guys use god to be assholes. You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you. How stupid are you? This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore. They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them? Of course fucking not.

WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 “There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don’t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. 21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.”
JOHN 3:16-21

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god

[Secular Gentiles, especially, tend to understand life through "natural laws and nontheistic" approaches,
and tend NOT to relate to the Bible and path of the religious believers who communicate using scripture and personifying God/Jesus.

There is one universal process all humanity goes through to reach spiritual maturity and unified understanding,
but not everyone is going to understand or express their part in this process using God/Jesus/Bible etc.
I certainly never got it that way, and it still amazes me to this day that ANYONE can communicate at all given our differences in language and perception.
To me, the Bible is like a foreign "second language," and I always find it better to consult with a "native speaker" because I come from a secular background.

I prefer to communicate using secular or Constitutional terms, which I believe are more common to more people than, say, Buddhism or Christianity which is
for specific audiences, and even then I interpret and apply Constitutional terms more figuratively to reflect "natural laws for all people"
in contrast with most people who only cite concepts in Constitutional laws literally to apply to US govt, not natural laws in general.

Under both scriptural laws and natural/secular laws, there is a common factor of seeking truth and establishing justice by agreement.
I find by sticking with that process of resolving conflicts or redressing grievances, then all other issues can be worked out in turn.
It takes mutual forgiveness and correction, so that what the Bible reflects overall -- the stages and process humanity goes through individually and collectively to correct wrongs and establish truth.]

 

[GISMYS]

Dear Sealybobo:
If you understand "Jesus" as representing the spirit of "Justice with Mercy"
or "Restorative Justice" universal for all humanity,
then you do not need to believe or need proof of any historical Jesus
to follow this process of "Justice" being established among men by
agreement in truth and by good faith relations among humanity.

this process of Justice for All is universal,
and does not depend on believing or proving anything in the Bible as a "condition."

it can be proven by simply following the process in one's own life
and in relationships with others. All life, all humans and relations
follow this spiritual process and path to Justice anyway. You can CHOOSE to use the Bible to represent it,
but it is not necessary. (I, for one, did not come to my current understanding of Jesus/God/Christianity/Bible
using the Bible, but got the concept by following life and forgiving past conflicts so I could see where the process was going in life.
Once I understood this same process was happening for all individuals in different ways, and collectively as humanity universally,
THEN I understood the spiritual process and stages of human development is what is symbolized in Buddhism, the Bible, and all religious teachings.
So the process exists and operates independently, and any person can describe it in their own way and it's still the same thing.)

whatever God/Jesus represents by definition must be universal for all humanity to be true;
so that cannot "depend on the Bible" which isn't universal to all people.

the Bible REFLECTS this universal truth and process, but is NOT a condition.

WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 “There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don’t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. 21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.”
JOHN 3:16-21

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god

BOTTOMLINE= Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.Psalm 53:1