Is there a god?

[john9blue]

Oh, look who's backpedaling already.

but not all of them pretend to be "logical freethinkers" who can think rationally and individually (lol). that is a misconception spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter.

So, care to enlighten me what you were actually trying to say with this statement?

i don't understand how i contradicted myself there, care to point it out?

Catholics are a subset of Christians. Do you dispute this?

i said "all Christians". a subset is not "all". quit trying to change the meaning of previous posts.

So then you believe that all of the scientists that talk about the Theory of Relativity (for instance) are just full of the same dogma, "groupthink" and lacking in logic because they all talk about it the same way? You're not being very rational here.

"all"? why are you guys obsessed with speaking in absolutes?

besides, the theory of relativity doesn't have cultural symbols and in-jokes like the MAM does. you would never see a group of people actively spreading their belief in the theory of relativity, because that is a scientific theory based on evidence. atheists doesn't have evidence, so they resort to other methods to spread their beliefs.

You cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you? How fucking dishonest ARE you, John?

> i say that atheists have a common idea about god
> natty identifies a common idea about god that all atheists share
> i say that i'm right

problem?

"the default position that people should take"...do you even pay attention to your own words? So provide evidence WHY that "should be" the default position. I maintain that "the default position" should be that there is no God until I can be shown that there very likely is one.

that's the point of this entire conversation, in case you weren't aware. i've posted more than i'd care to admit in religion threads over the years, go back and find my thoughts about atheism and belief if you want to.

[Woodruff]

So then you believe that all of the scientists that talk about the Theory of Relativity (for instance) are just full of the same dogma, "groupthink" and lacking in logic because they all talk about it the same way? You're not being very rational here.

"all"? why are you guys obsessed with speaking in absolutes?

What? You made the claim that ALL atheists believe the same thing. Are you not using that same absolute? (Of course, you snipped that part out of the quotes, like the dishonest f*ck that you are.)

You cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you? How fucking dishonest ARE you, John?

i say that atheists have a common idea about god
natty identifies a common idea about god that all atheists share
i say that i'm right
problem?

Yes...as I plainly stated, you cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you. You're being dishonest as hell here, which makes it very clear that you don't actually believe the bullshit that you're spouting. I'm not sure why you'd bother with all of this when it's not what you actually believe, other than maybe you just enjoy being an asshole.

"the default position that people should take"...do you even pay attention to your own words? So provide evidence WHY that "should be" the default position. I maintain that "the default position" should be that there is no God until I can be shown that there very likely is one.

that's the point of this entire conversation, in case you weren't aware. i've posted more than i'd care to admit in religion threads over the years, go back and find my thoughts about atheism and belief if you want to.

See...you don't want to provide what you're requiring of others. This strikes me as a significant point in showing that you don't actually believe what you're claiming. You should stop now...because you're just making yourself look foolish.

[john9blue]

What? You made the claim that ALL atheists believe the same thing. Are you not using that same absolute? (Of course, you snipped that part out of the quotes, like the dishonest f*ck that you are.)

Yes...as I plainly stated, you cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you. You're being dishonest as hell here, which makes it very clear that you don't actually believe the bullshit that you're spouting. I'm not sure why you'd bother with all of this when it's not what you actually believe, other than maybe you just enjoy being an asshole.

fine. show me where in this quote

Nope, the only common factor is that atheists don't believe in the existence of one. Some atheists make a positive claim that no god exists, and others don't make that claim but don't believe that one does.

disproves my claim that all atheists think the same thing: "god doesn't exist"

See...you don't want to provide what you're requiring of others. This strikes me as a significant point in showing that you don't actually believe what you're claiming. You should stop now...because you're just making yourself look foolish.

i'm sorry for not wanting to start an entire debate that i've had like 5 times already.

[natty dread]

i don't understand how i contradicted myself there, care to point it out?

You claim atheists "pretend" to be "logical freethinkers who can think rationally and individually". You also say this is a misconception "spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter".

As you claim it is a "misconception", you are in fact implying that atheists can not actually think rationally and individually. As you claim atheists "pretend" to be "logical freethinkers", you're in fact saying atheists are not actually logical freethinkers.

Then you say this:

i never said they did and i never said they couldn't.

So there, that's how you contradicted yourself there.

i said "all Christians". a subset is not "all". quit trying to change the meaning of previous posts.

Furthermore, there are no "Christian leaders".

So, the meaning of this previous post wasn't in fact that "there are no christian leaders". Ok. What was the meaning of this then?

There is no one who's in a position of authority to all Christians

Each sect of christianity has it's share of "holy men" whose job is to "interpret" the word of god to the believers. Priests and such. Are you saying priests are not in a position of authority to christians?

you would never see a group of people actively spreading their belief in the theory of relativity, because that is a scientific theory based on evidence. atheists doesn't have evidence, so they resort to other methods to spread their beliefs.

Ok, so what are these methods which atheists use to "spread their beliefs"?

[natty dread]

disproves my claim that all atheists think the same thing: "god doesn't exist"

That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that "all atheists have the same idea about god".

Clearly, if some atheists make a positive claim that god doesn't exist, and some atheists don't make that claim, then all atheists don't think the same way about god.

every atheist has the same idea about god by definition.

[Woodruff]

What? You made the claim that ALL atheists believe the same thing. Are you not using that same absolute? (Of course, you snipped that part out of the quotes, like the dishonest f*ck that you are.)

Yes...as I plainly stated, you cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you. You're being dishonest as hell here, which makes it very clear that you don't actually believe the bullshit that you're spouting. I'm not sure why you'd bother with all of this when it's not what you actually believe, other than maybe you just enjoy being an asshole.

fine. show me where in this quote

Nope, the only common factor is that atheists don't believe in the existence of one. Some atheists make a positive claim that no god exists, and others don't make that claim but don't believe that one does.

disproves my claim that all atheists think the same thing: "god doesn't exist"

John, your dishonestly is plain for everyone to see. This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same because they all believe in Christ. It's a meaningless triviality. Do you seriously intend to come across as that dumb?

See...you don't want to provide what you're requiring of others. This strikes me as a significant point in showing that you don't actually believe what you're claiming. You should stop now...because you're just making yourself look foolish.

i'm sorry for not wanting to start an entire debate that i've had like 5 times already.

I'm sorry that for someone who claims they don't want to start that debate, that individual keeps trying to make requirements of others that lead into that debate. In other words, you don't want the debate, you just want to make an unfounded statement against others.

[john9blue]

i don't understand how i contradicted myself there, care to point it out?

You claim atheists "pretend" to be "logical freethinkers who can think rationally and individually". You also say this is a misconception "spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter".

As you claim it is a "misconception", you are in fact implying that atheists can not actually think rationally and individually. As you claim atheists "pretend" to be "logical freethinkers", you're in fact saying atheists are not actually logical freethinkers.

Then you say this:

i never said they did and i never said they couldn't.

So there, that's how you contradicted yourself there.

oh okay. i intended to say that their devotion to atheism was not free-thinking, not that they weren't capable at all of rational thought.

So, the meaning of this previous post wasn't in fact that "there are no christian leaders". Ok. What was the meaning of this then?

"christian leaders" meaning someone who leads all christians.

using "christian leader" in your loose sense would make obama a "christian leader" since he is christian and a leader.

Each sect of christianity has it's share of "holy men" whose job is to "interpret" the word of god to the believers. Priests and such. Are you saying priests are not in a position of authority to christians?

this doesn't apply to all christians. b.k. barunt is a good example of this. he follows christianity directly from the bible.

Ok, so what are these methods which atheists use to "spread their beliefs"?

- pretty much everywhere on the internet
- best-selling books
- advertisements
- lectures/seminars/public debates/etc.

i think the most obvious of these is "advertisements" since you won't see advertisements for most scientific theories.

That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that "all atheists have the same idea about god".

Clearly, if some atheists make a positive claim that god doesn't exist, and some atheists don't make that claim, then all atheists don't think the same way about god.

every atheist has the same idea about god by definition.

i stand by my claim. the "strong/weak" distinction is false. it's a matter of degree, it's not binary. claiming that god does not exist, even if you're extremely unsure, is still an act of faith.

John, your dishonestly is plain for everyone to see. This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same because they all believe in Christ. It's a meaningless triviality. Do you seriously intend to come across as that dumb?

i never said all atheists were the same.

I'm sorry that for someone who claims they don't want to start that debate, that individual keeps trying to make requirements of others that lead into that debate. In other words, you don't want the debate, you just want to make an unfounded statement against others.

you can just read this thread if you want. i'm not repeating myself.

[Woodruff]

So, the meaning of this previous post wasn't in fact that "there are no christian leaders". Ok. What was the meaning of this then?

"christian leaders" meaning someone who leads all christians.
using "christian leader" in your loose sense would make obama a "christian leader" since he is christian and a leader.

More dishonesty from John. John, you know VERY WELL that's not how natty was using the term. Seriously...if you believe what you're saying, then you shouldn't have to resort to this sort of dishonesty to make your points. It seems clear to me that you don't even believe what you're saying.

Each sect of christianity has it's share of "holy men" whose job is to "interpret" the word of god to the believers. Priests and such. Are you saying priests are not in a position of authority to christians?

this doesn't apply to all christians. b.k. barunt is a good example of this. he follows christianity directly from the bible.

Which "sect" then does b.k. belong to? You see, natty is specifically speaking of the different formal groupings of Christians. b.k. resides outside of that arena as you say, because he interprets it for himself.

Ok, so what are these methods which atheists use to "spread their beliefs"?

- pretty much everywhere on the internet
- best-selling books
- advertisements
- lectures/seminars/public debates/etc.
i think the most obvious of these is "advertisements" since you won't see advertisements for most scientific theories.

What advertisements are there for atheism? Perhaps I've seen some...but I sure can't recall any.

That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that "all atheists have the same idea about god".

Clearly, if some atheists make a positive claim that god doesn't exist, and some atheists don't make that claim, then all atheists don't think the same way about god.

every atheist has the same idea about god by definition.

i stand by my claim. the "strong/weak" distinction is false. it's a matter of degree, it's not binary. claiming that god does not exist, even if you're extremely unsure, is still an act of faith.

You stand by your claim, yet natty just showed your claim to be false. That actually makes sense to you?

John, your dishonestly is plain for everyone to see. This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same because they all believe in Christ. It's a meaningless triviality. Do you seriously intend to come across as that dumb?

i never said all atheists were the same.

No, you didn't. And now you're trying to build up yet another strawman so you can tear it down. Stop with your dishonesty, John.

I'm sorry that for someone who claims they don't want to start that debate, that individual keeps trying to make requirements of others that lead into that debate. In other words, you don't want the debate, you just want to make an unfounded statement against others.

yes, i think i have the right to do that when nobody has given me any reason to think otherwise.

I'm not sure why you'd be so stupid as to admit your dishonesty, but at least now everyone knows they're wasting their time trying to talk to you about it when all you'll do is lie to make your point. So I guess this thread was good for proving that, at least.

[john9blue]

More dishonesty from John. John, you know VERY WELL that's not how natty was using the term. Seriously...if you believe what you're saying, then you shouldn't have to resort to this sort of dishonesty to make your points. It seems clear to me that you don't even believe what you're saying.

Which "sect" then does b.k. belong to? You see, natty is specifically speaking of the different formal groupings of Christians. b.k. resides outside of that arena as you say, because he interprets it for himself.

i'm not a mind reader. when you think of "christian leader" you think of a priest or something. his definition is unusual. quit calling me dishonest when i don't know exactly what someone else is thinking when they post (although it's a step up from "you have comprehension problems")

You stand by your claim, yet natty just showed your claim to be false. That actually makes sense to you?

making a claim that is opposite to mine != showing my claim to be false

John, your dishonestly is plain for everyone to see. This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same because they all believe in Christ. It's a meaningless triviality. Do you seriously intend to come across as that dumb?

i never said all atheists were the same.

No, you didn't. And now you're trying to build up yet another strawman so you can tear it down. Stop with your dishonesty, John.

This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same

not a strawman at all

I'm not sure why you'd be so stupid as to admit your dishonesty, but at least now everyone knows they're wasting their time trying to talk to you about it when all you'll do is lie to make your point. So I guess this thread was good for proving that, at least.

i changed my earlier post because this came across as too brash

[Woodruff]

More dishonesty from John. John, you know VERY WELL that's not how natty was using the term. Seriously...if you believe what you're saying, then you shouldn't have to resort to this sort of dishonesty to make your points. It seems clear to me that you don't even believe what you're saying.

Which "sect" then does b.k. belong to? You see, natty is specifically speaking of the different formal groupings of Christians. b.k. resides outside of that arena as you say, because he interprets it for himself.

i'm not a mind reader. when you think of "christian leader" you think of a priest or something. his definition is unusual. quit calling me dishonest when i don't know exactly what someone else is thinking when they post (although it's a step up from "you have comprehension problems")

Considering a priest to be a "Christian leader" is unusual but the idea of considering Obama as a "Christian leader" isn't? That's fucking dishonest, John. C'mon, you're not even trying here.

John, your dishonestly is plain for everyone to see. This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same because they all believe in Christ. It's a meaningless triviality. Do you seriously intend to come across as that dumb?

i never said all atheists were the same.

No, you didn't. And now you're trying to build up yet another strawman so you can tear it down. Stop with your dishonesty, John.

This is the same as claiming that all Christians are the same

not a strawman at all

A complete strawman, that you have continued to try to build off of your initial irrational statement. You've continued to try to snip and cut away at the quotes to get rid of the statements you've made in the hopes that people will forget them. It's not working. Stop being dishonest.

I'm not sure why you'd be so stupid as to admit your dishonesty, but at least now everyone knows they're wasting their time trying to talk to you about it when all you'll do is lie to make your point. So I guess this thread was good for proving that, at least.

i changed my earlier post because this came across as too brash

Of course...it couldn't possibly have been because you recognized was a dumbass statement it was and you couldn't have possibly just wanted to avoid having to admit that you made a dumbass statement that was wrong.

[john9blue]

Considering a priest to be a "Christian leader" is unusual but the idea of considering Obama as a "Christian leader" isn't? That's fucking dishonest, John. C'mon, you're not even trying here.

holy shit.

MY DEFINITION is not unusual. MY DEFINITION gives "christian leader" a narrow definition like "priest"

HIS DEFINITION is unusual and gives a broad definition that includes obama.

you really aren't even reading, are you?

A complete strawman, that you have continued to try to build off of your initial irrational statement. You've continued to try to snip and cut away at the quotes to get rid of the statements you've made in the hopes that people will forget them. It's not working. Stop being dishonest.

i delete earlier quotes either because i want to highlight a particular sentence, or because i don't want to waste page space on repeating posts. you are paranoid. if i'm "avoiding something" then call me out on it!

Of course...it couldn't possibly have been because you recognized was a dumbass statement it was and you couldn't have possibly just wanted to avoid having to admit that you made a dumbass statement that was wrong.

it wasn't a dumbass statement, and i noticed that you avoided answering my new post. good one.

[natty dread]

oh okay. i intended to say that their devotion to atheism was not free-thinking, not that they weren't capable at all of rational thought.

Ok, so what's your basis for this claim? Exactly who are these "atheists" who are "devoted" to atheism? Every atheist I know would admit that god is real if they saw credible enough evidence of it. How is that "devotion" to atheism? How is that opposite of free thought?

"christian leaders" meaning someone who leads all christians.

Ok, so there is no single leader who leads all christians (except Jesus, but he's not around)... So what? Most christians still take their cues from a religious leader, which basically tells them what to believe.

this doesn't apply to all christians. b.k. barunt is a good example of this. he follows christianity directly from the bible.

Yes, and the bible is the authority that he follows.

- pretty much everywhere on the internet
- best-selling books
- advertisements
- lectures/seminars/public debates/etc.

Sorry but those aren't "spreading beliefs" per se. As far as I can see, most atheists generally aren't out there telling people to become atheists. Most of the atheist narrative seems to me to be either directed to other atheists, or else it's just pointing out the discrimination, hate and bigotry and other harmful effects of some religious practices (not all), or defending atheism as a viewpoint from the attacks of religious people.

The reality is, that atheism is still, in many parts of the world, something you can get discriminated for - and even killed. There are places where you can get life in prison or even a death sentence just by being an atheist (or admitting being one).

i stand by my claim. the "strong/weak" distinction is false. claiming that god does not exist, even if you're extremely unsure, is still an act of faith.

No, this is just more word-bending from you.

Some atheists claim that god does not exist. These are strong atheists.
Most atheists however don't claim to know if a god exists, but they don't believe in one until they see evidence of one.

Surely you can see how these two are totally different positions to take? Surely you can see a distinction between asserting certain knowledge and making a statement of opinion?

it's a matter of degree, it's not binary.

That's a false dichotomy you're making there. Of course there are degrees and nuances. But the existence of more nuanced definitions doesn't make the binary definitions false, they are just supersets for the finer distinctions.

It's like how you can divide all the people in the world in 2 groups, or 6 billion groups, depending on the parameters. Neither grouping is false, they're just more or less specific.

[natty dread]

MY DEFINITION is not unusual. MY DEFINITION gives "christian leader" a narrow definition like "priest"

HIS DEFINITION is unusual and gives a broad definition that includes obama.

You got it backwards there. I'm the one who talked about priests. You're the one who talked about Obama.

[Woodruff]

Considering a priest to be a "Christian leader" is unusual but the idea of considering Obama as a "Christian leader" isn't? That's fucking dishonest, John. C'mon, you're not even trying here.

holy shit.

MY DEFINITION is not unusual. MY DEFINITION gives "christian leader" a narrow definition like "priest"

HIS DEFINITION is unusual and gives a broad definition that includes obama.

you really aren't even reading, are you?

I suspect that you are not. Here, let me quote natty for you:

Each sect of christianity has it's share of "holy men" whose job is to "interpret" the word of god to the believers. Priests and such. Are you saying priests are not in a position of authority to christians?

A complete strawman, that you have continued to try to build off of your initial irrational statement. You've continued to try to snip and cut away at the quotes to get rid of the statements you've made in the hopes that people will forget them. It's not working. Stop being dishonest.

i delete earlier quotes either because i want to highlight a particular sentence, or because i don't want to waste page space on repeating posts. you are paranoid. if i'm "avoiding something" then call me out on it!

I have been calling you out on it, if you haven't noticed. I'm calling you out on intentionally trying to confuse the issue. But if you'd like more...well, I've asked you several questions that you've completely ignored...I suppose you could start there.

Of course...it couldn't possibly have been because you recognized was a dumbass statement it was and you couldn't have possibly just wanted to avoid having to admit that you made a dumbass statement that was wrong.

it wasn't a dumbass statement, and i noticed that you avoided answering my new post. good one.

Your new post? I don't see anything I haven't responded to...perhaps you can point it out to me?

[Haggis_McMutton]

ITT John says: Look guys, atheists aren't perfect, therefore they are = to theists and atheism = religion. QED.

yes they are. every evolutionist has the same idea about creation by definition. plus the modern evolutionist movement has a great deal of dogma. you would notice this if you argued against evolutionists often. 95% of them use the exact same arguments, even boiling down to the same metaphors and the same quotes by the same admired evolutionists leaders. if anything this "groupthink" mentality by the modern evolutionist movement should be a clue that they function similarly to a religion and that maybe it's not as "logical" as you'd like to believe.

Hey, look, john is using the same arguments as fundies use against evolution therefore, by his own logic, he has no free thought or rationality and is a slave to "groupthink". Could it be that one can be rational and a freethinker while also employing common memes?

"Atheists" are not a homogenous group with the same opinions and ideas. See, there's no patriarch telling atheists what to think. The only thing in common to all atheists is that they do not believe in the existence of any gods.

yes they are. every atheist has the same idea about god by definition. plus the modern atheist movement has a great deal of dogma. you would notice this if you argued against atheists often. 95% of them use the exact same arguments, even boiling down to the same metaphors (pink unicorn, FSM, etc.) and the same quotes by the same admired atheist leaders. if anything this "groupthink" mentality by the modern atheist movement should be a clue that they function similarly to a religion and that maybe it's not as "logical" as you'd like to believe.

John claims atheists are a homogenuous group with the same opinions and ideas and therefore they are similar to a religion. All of this because atheists share a lack of belief in a god.
Assuming a reasonable definition of "christian", i.e. a person who believes in the important bits of the bible, approximately how many beliefs would such christians share? Only 1 or 2? Maybe a little more?
But the truth is binary, right john? One belief in common = 1 million. A true freethinker can't have any beliefs in common with any other group consisting of more than 10 individuals I assume.

Also:

Definition of DOGMA
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

I'd also love a couple examples of atheist dogma plox.

everyone in the world uses groupthink in some manner. but not all of them pretend to be "logical freethinkers" who can think rationally and individually (lol). that is a misconception spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter.

Again the truth is binary. Please tell me, who is closer to a free thinker? The guy average Christian(same belief as his parents, goes to church semi-regularly), or the average atheist( rejected parents beliefs, stoped wasting sunday afternoons)
Also, to be blunt, is there any doubt that atheists are smarter on average? Is there any doubt that the more schooling and knowledge one has the more likely he is to be an atheist?

Furthermore, there are no "atheist leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all atheists - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some atheists who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

Furthermore, there are no "Christian leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all Christians - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some Christians who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

So here you seem to be saying that natty's logic applies equally well to Christians, i.e. atheists are just as organized and have just as much paternal authority figures as Christians do. Again, do you really believe this?
On average who is more likely to go to a special place where he can have a special paternal figure explain the deepest truths of the universe to them, without any rational backing? An atheist or a christian? Really? is this even a fuckin' question?
Yes, there are exceptions like b.k. but we're talking averages here john. It's not binary.

So then you believe that all of the scientists that talk about the Theory of Relativity (for instance) are just full of the same dogma, "groupthink" and lacking in logic because they all talk about it the same way? You're not being very rational here.

"all"? why are you guys obsessed with speaking in absolutes?

besides, the theory of relativity doesn't have cultural symbols and in-jokes like the MAM does. you would never see a group of people actively spreading their belief in the theory of relativity, because that is a scientific theory based on evidence. atheists doesn't have evidence, so they resort to other methods to spread their beliefs.

Relativity no, evolution yes. Do you know why?
Because some fuckin' idiots too attached to their iron age myths are rejecting evolution and trying to drag our species back a couple hundred years by discouraging future generations from accepting rational inquiry and the scientific method.
When this happens, some people will decide they need to get involved so that we don't quite so eagerly remove evolution from schools. That doesn't make it a religion john, it makes it a social issue.
When iron age chauvinistic beliefs start holding us back as a species, some people will feel the need to intervene.
Tell me, what do you think the odds are of a self declared atheist being elected president in the USA? Do you see any problem with this? Do you think this maybe excuses some adds and propaganda to get people to understand there's some other truths out there except for what they guy in black tells them on Sundays?

"the default position that people should take"...do you even pay attention to your own words? So provide evidence WHY that "should be" the default position. I maintain that "the default position" should be that there is no God until I can be shown that there very likely is one.

that's the point of this entire conversation, in case you weren't aware. i've posted more than i'd care to admit in religion threads over the years, go back and find my thoughts about atheism and belief if you want to.

And throughout the years you've never sufficiently explained why the god question gets special treatment. Why it's safe for any other ridiculous beliefs to be disregarded till sufficient supporting evidence arises, but not the guy in the sky, he's special. At least you don't still subscribe to the absolute joke of an argument that is Pascal's wager.

John's philosophical position can be neatly summarized as:

[natty dread]

John's philosophical position can be neatly summarized as:

Haha! I've used that EXACT same image to describe the EXACT same person!

High five

[Haggis_McMutton]

John's philosophical position can be neatly summarized as:

Haha! I've used that EXACT same image to describe the EXACT same person!

High five

Wait, this means we're slaves to groupthink who have no rationality.

Oh Noes ! D:

[Symmetry]

I think I might have used it too, sorry. Maybe it's part of our religion now.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I think I might have used it too, sorry. Maybe it's part of our religion now.

Oh well, might as well call up Dawkins, make it official.

[PLAYER57832]

Christian, Protestant since I don't accept the Pope (or other tenets of the Roman Catholic faith). Beyond that my beliefs don't necessarily match any particular church exactly, though I am a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregation.

Do you believe the bible is the word of God?

oh BROTHER...
Of course I do, but written for a people without our current knowledge of science.

Jews, well before Christ, never mind Christians have NEVER had one, single idea about what those words mean. Anyone claiming to be the sole interpreter of the Bible is simply arrogant.

The Bible makes absolutely clear there is a God who created all, including humanity. But, it is not a scientific text and does not answer all scientific questions or provide what it does in a scientific way. The point of the creation story is that God is in charge, not a specific timeline or process by which God might or might not have made all.

While I understand that you don't have the ability to understand the bible perfectly can I ask how you satisfy your scientific mind concerning certain passages. How do you explain either metaphorically or otherwise passages that:

1. Advocate or give advice on slavery.

Slavery was a condition of the time. Jews had specific rules regarding it (rules not really honored later). Also, ancient slavery was often more akin to working today than to the US/ Simon legree image.
Society had to advance.

2. Say that women are to be silent in the church.

Distinguish between old Testament and new. The most commonly cited New Testament bpassage asically says that a woman should not challenge her husband in church, should ask him quietly. Paul did say some other things. It is an areas where you will find a lot of disagreement among scholars today. I think a LOT of things were distorted both by the Paternalism of the old Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church.. not to mention that most Protestants were not much better. (Martin Luther is rather notorious in some of his diatribes).
Overall, as above, God gave us a pathway to follow, did not expect us to achieve it instantly.. because we cannot, much as a parent guides a child throughout its life in various ways. The rules I gave my son as a toddler, for his own safety are not the same as I give now at age 5, nor are they the same as the rules we have for the 11 year old.

3. Advocate capital and corporal punishment, ranging from cutting peoples hands off to stoning them to death.

This takes a lot to get into, though it seems simplistic.
However, the short of it is that people had to learn better ways. The rules of ancient Judaism and early Christianity were each improvements over what was considered OK in the general societies at the time, in other groups.

4. Say that the ultimate morally correct way to deal with blasphemers such as myself is eternal punishment.

self-inflicted. Result of free choice and will.

5. Ask for God to be praised... why is he so selfish?

He created us for that purpose.

6. Talk of God taking revenge on millions of people via murder (e.g. the great flood, plagues, taking sides in wars etc.)

Take each individually. But, basically, they were lessons people needed to learn.

You also state that the Bible was written for people who had no idea about science, well now we have an idea about science and a lot of it contradicts what God has told us before. Why does he not come forth and give us all a helping hand to deal with his message?

There are no contradictions, though there is a growing movement to divide Christianity along those lines. I have are being used.

[PLAYER57832]

OH, for the for the record, I am likely not going to be posting anywhere near as much in the near future.. just keeping up with my game and maybe trying to make a short comment here or there.

On THIS topic, I have pretty much stated my position already anyhow.

[Haggis_McMutton]

5. Ask for God to be praised... why is he so selfish?

He created us for that purpose.

This has to be one of the most pessimistic, sad and bleak views on humanity.

Why are we here, what is our purpose, what can we achieve?
Nothing, we we're only made to prostate ourselves before an ultimate dictator.

[Symmetry]

OH, for the for the record, I am likely not going to be posting anywhere near as much in the near future.. just keeping up with my game and maybe trying to make a short comment here or there.

On THIS topic, I have pretty much stated my position already anyhow.

I think most reasonable people did so a long time ago. The weird notion that you've somehow come up with an idea that totally proves God doesn't exist is kind of attractive for many atheists. Or that you've found a passage (typically not from actually reading the Bible yourself, but via google) that somehow means the Bible is false is kind of tempting.

Its counterpart is in those who claim proof for Biblical truth in dodgy stories and claims in pseudo-scientific language. I'm pretty much done with my angry atheist stage, although people who claim scientific proof for this or that in the Bible annoy me still.

Posters who demand answers from Christians on obscure quotations from the Bible, or bizarre pieces of centuries old historical practices are essentially acting in the same way as the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock at my door and want to talk. Except that the JW people accept a polite no, where some of my fellow atheists seem to want an angry tirade followed by the door slammed in their face.

Both are annoying, and uncomfortably personal, but at least the JW people are polite.

[Symmetry]

5. Ask for God to be praised... why is he so selfish?

He created us for that purpose.

This has to be one of the most pessimistic, sad and bleak views on humanity.

Why are we here, what is our purpose, what can we achieve?
Nothing, we we're only made to prostate ourselves before an ultimate dictator.

Or a father. Your argument could be applied to having children. Most parents want their child to love them.

[Haggis_McMutton]

5. Ask for God to be praised... why is he so selfish?

He created us for that purpose.

This has to be one of the most pessimistic, sad and bleak views on humanity.

Why are we here, what is our purpose, what can we achieve?
Nothing, we we're only made to prostate ourselves before an ultimate dictator.

Or a father. Your argument could be applied to having children. Most parents want their child to love them.

As long as the father never stops controlling watching and influencing every aspect of his child's life.
As long as he never lets him out of his sight and constantly threatens him with literally a fate worse than death if the child offers the slightest disrespect.
Then yes, you could say he's a father.