Happy Atheist Forum

because we won't let them have their theocracy. . .

excerpts pulled from original: http://www.alternet.org/story/149224/wh ... f_atheists (http://www.alternet.org/story/149224/why_religious_people_are_scared_of_atheists)

QuoteAnd if these op-ed pieces and whatnot were all you knew about the atheist movement and the critiques of it, you might think that atheists were simply being asked to be reasonable, civil, and polite.

But if you follow atheism in the news, you begin to see a very different story.

You begin to see that atheists are regularly criticized -- vilified, even -- simply for existing.

QuoteCase in point: In Bryan/ College Station, Texas, the Brazos Valley Vuvuzela Atheist Marching Band recently marched in the annual Christmas parade. Now, let's be very clear about this: The 18-person marching band didn't march with signs saying "Fuck Your Religion," or "You Know It's A Myth," or even "There's Probably No God -- Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life." They wished people a merry Christmas, and a happy Hanukkah, and a merry Kwanzaa. They played "Jingle Bells" on vuvuzelas. And they carried a banner saying they were atheists.

Which was enough, apparently, to send many Christians into fits. The atheist presence in the Christmas parade created a substantial controversy in the area. One resident interviewed by the local news, Tina Corgey, said, "I spent many years teaching my children to love and respect other people and to love the fact that they were children of God and I don't feel that they should be influenced in any other way especially not at a Christmas parade."

QuoteAnd she was hardly alone. Her sentiments were echoed in many comments on the local news story. Including:

    "There was one entry that should not have been in the parade. It was against Christmas."

QuoteJust a reminder before we go on: We're talking about playing "Jingle Bells" in a Christmas parade. You can't get any less controversial than this. It's like a freaking Norman Rockwell painting. How much more sweet and agreeable could you be?

QuoteUsually, the atheist bus ads and billboards say things like, "Millions are good without God." Or, "In Good We Trust." Or, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

QuoteAnd when they do, there's almost always an angry, intensely offended reaction from religious believers. There are protests, boycotts, demands that the ads be taken down, even vandalism. Sometimes the ads actually do get stopped: transit companies will sometimes stop accepting religious or controversial ads entirely, rather than let those vile atheists defile their sacred buses and trains. With our message about, you know, existing.

In other words: When all atheists do is say, "Atheists exist," it gets treated as an assault.

QuoteSee, you don't get have it both ways. You don't get to have Christmas be a secular holiday, universal to the culture, recognized by government agencies and celebrated by people of all faiths and of no faith at all... and still have it be a religious holiday of the Christian faith. Not if you respect people's basic right to worship, or not, in their own way. Pick one. If Christmas is a universal secular holiday, quit whining about it being secularized. If it's a distinct religious holiday, quit trying to ram it down everyone else's throats.

QuoteBut there's a huge difference between making a case for why your religious views are correct... and getting offended, insulted, and martyred over the mere fact that some people disagree with you. Making a case for your position is one thing. Trying to stop other people from making their case is quite another.

The former is simply the marketplace of ideas: bumpy, fractious, sometimes obnoxious, even at times grotesque, but a cornerstone of a free society. The latter is entitlement. The latter is hegemony: systems by which those in power perpetuate and expand their power. And, when it gets enshrined into government policy -- like teaching religious beliefs in public school science classes, or funding religious organizations with tax money, or opening government meetings with prayers, or displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, or promoting one religion over another in a public school -- the latter is theocracy.

And when the Christian right demands that atheists not be allowed to march in a public Christmas parade, or to advertise on public buses and trains... that's exactly what they're demanding.

I find most Atheists a breath of fresh air to speak with.  I quite enjoy that for the most part, true Atheists have an excellent education on A LOT of subjects and aren't as one-way'd as most Christians are.  I like the different viewpoints, while I may disagree on some things, I've not actually met a "demon" Atheist in the sense of a person that actually hates any and all Christians or pokes fun at every turn.

That's just me, though.

for the record, by "them" i meant the crazy right wing fundamentalist types who think everyone should be their brand of chrsitian even if they have to be made to follow it....like the churches who threw a fuss here in DFW over a bus ad that said "good without god"  We actually have some non-crazy chrsitian church leaders in the area who are supportive of the ad.

Quote from: "Whitney"for the record, by "them" i meant the crazy right wing fundamentalist types who think everyone should be their brand of chrsitian even if they have to be made to follow it....like the churches who threw a fuss here in DFW over a bus ad that said "good without god"  We actually have some non-crazy chrsitian church leaders in the area who are supportive of the ad.

Yes, I realize for the most part that when these things are mentioned, it is pointed at the fundies.  I don't like them probably just as much as the next person.    No worries.

Interesting piece, Whitney. Thanks for posting it.

Reminds me of the TED talk that I think somebody posted here, with the "drawing on the whiteboard" animation followed along with a discussion of the "us vs. them" mentality of people. Wish I could remember where that was or who posted it.

Anyway, this is good, so thanks.

QuoteMaking a case for your position is one thing. Trying to stop other people from making their case is quite another.

Worth repeating.

Quote...a teenager, 8-year-old and they were curious and they asked questions and it was hard for them to believe and understand that there are actually people out there that don't believe in God."

Reminds me of my childhood. Touching.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"for the record, by "them" i meant the crazy right wing fundamentalist types who think everyone should be their brand of chrsitian even if they have to be made to follow it....like the churches who threw a fuss here in DFW over a bus ad that said "good without god"  We actually have some non-crazy chrsitian church leaders in the area who are supportive of the ad.

Yes, I realize for the most part that when these things are mentioned, it is pointed at the fundies.  I don't like them probably just as much as the next person.    No worries.

The fundies are the most vocal and do seem to be trying the hardest to push their doctrine onto everyone else.

This is why I like PZ Myers new idea of putting "You Won't Burn In Hell" on a billboard. It would make all the fundies essentially scream "You will too burn in hell" and more people will see how vicious religion can be.

Quote from: "Sophus"This is why I like PZ Myers new idea of putting "You Won't Burn In Hell" on a billboard. It would make all the fundies essentially scream "You will too burn in hell" and more people will see how vicious religion can be.

A perfect example and exploitation of reverse psychology. It would be a great idea.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I find most Atheists a breath of fresh air to speak with.  I quite enjoy that for the most part, true Atheists have an excellent education on A LOT of subjects and aren't as one-way'd as most Christians are.  I like the different viewpoints, while I may disagree on some things, I've not actually met a "demon" Atheist in the sense of a person that actually hates any and all Christians or pokes fun at every turn.

That's just me, though.

I'm not sure atheists are generally any better educated or intelligent than people of faith. There are a lot of pretty clever 'believers' as well as a load of dumb ones! perhaps not quite so many poorly educated atheists?..not sure.

Remember Dawkins' ill fated attempt to get atheists to refer to themselves as 'brights'? A bit of a damp squib!

As to the OP I think a lot of religious people feel as sorry for us as they feel threatened. We are after all doomed to spend eternity in hell!

Quote from: "Sophus"This is why I like PZ Myers new idea of putting "You Won't Burn In Hell" on a billboard. It would make all the fundies essentially scream "You will too burn in hell" and more people will see how vicious religion can be.

Wow, that is clever.

I think that the article posted by Whitney points to one of the primary reasons that the religious fear atheism:  "Won't somebody please think of the children?"  They fear that their kids may be drawn to atheism, motivated by a variety of factors.

Many types of Christianity have it as a central doctrine that the "one unpardonable sin" is to "permanently reject Christ."  If their wee ones grow up to be atheists, they will surely go to hell.  That's a terrifying thought to them.  Atheists who refuse to hide their disbelief bring that concept to the attention of impressionable young minds.  Imagine the horror of the mother whose youngsters came to understand during that parade "that there are actually people out there that don't believe in God." She spent years carefully indoctrinating them to believe that the existence of her god was beyond question.  Now they know that there are those who not only question it, but actively display the fact that they exist.  Who knows what the result of this knowledge might be?

  I do agree though, that the defense of a secular government championed by atheists is extremely repugnant and offensive to many Christians, to the point that they actively deny that there should be such a thing as "a wall of separation between church and state." That phrase isn't in the US Constitution, after all!

QuoteI'm not sure atheists are generally any better educated or intelligent than people of faith.

In general, atheists are more intelligent. I firmly believe this. Every single time I converse with an atheist they always seem more educted and intelligent than the average Christian that I deal with. It never fails. That is, at least, my own personal experience. The average Christian that I talk to never seems interested in history or science and that says a lot in my book. I always keep in mind when I'm talking to a Christian that they believe in demons, angels, holy spirits, heaven, hell, and a godman that walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick and raised the dead, died resurrected and floated up to heaven. It really says a lot about someone who truly believes in supernatural things like these.  

QuoteI find most Atheists a breath of fresh air to speak with. I quite enjoy that for the most part, true Atheists have an excellent education on A LOT of subjects and aren't as one-way'd as most Christians are. I like the different viewpoints, while I may disagree on some things, I've not actually met a "demon" Atheist in the sense of a person that actually hates any and all Christians or pokes fun at every turn.That's just me, though.

AnimatedDirt, I wish there were more Christians like you down here in the south. Most Christians are not as open minded as you are down here.

Quote from: "Sophus"This is why I like PZ Myers new idea of putting "You Won't Burn In Hell" on a billboard. It would make all the fundies essentially scream "You will too burn in hell" and more people will see how vicious religion can be.

You're basically advocating real-life trolling.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"This is why I like PZ Myers new idea of putting "You Won't Burn In Hell" on a billboard. It would make all the fundies essentially scream "You will too burn in hell" and more people will see how vicious religion can be.

You're basically advocating real-life trolling.

Not really. There is a lovely line in one of the Discworld novels. Lady Sybil to Sam Vimes "You're making him look stupid!", Sam replies, "No I'm not, he's doing that perfectly, I'm just helping him." The fact that moderate Abrahamic theists will ignore/giggle/face-palm at the billboard is fine. It'll be the foaming at the mouth fundamentalists that will go off on one, revealing their attitude. Trolling is annoying people for one's own shits and giggles, if this billboard campaign went ahead it would be to illustrate the hypocrisy of some people, not as some campaign to piss off all Christians and Muslims.

Real life Trolling with a billboard message would be something like:

Hey Atheists, why don't you prove that god isn't real already.

or

Hey Christians, why do you hate science?

Strawman crap like the above that stereotypes a group inciting them to have to respond to correct the error.  

"Hell doesn't exist" is simply a statement of belief; it doesn't stereotype anyone to say that and a response is unnecessary except from those who disagree so much that they get upset and want to go on camera to prove that hell exists and complain about how not believing such a horrible concept is an attack on their peaceful faith.

Quote from: "Recusant"I do agree though, that the defense of a secular government championed by atheists is extremely repugnant and offensive to many Christians, to the point that they actively deny that there should be such a thing as "a wall of separation between church and state." That phrase isn't in the US Constitution, after all!

Any Christian with an understanding of History would be 100% for the separation of Church and State.  In fact, I'm not sure if I have mentioned this on this forum or another, but I would more support an open-minded Atheist as a leader/President than a open-minded Christian.  Both may be good leaders, but in my eyes, the Christian still has religious hang ups that would "cloud" his/her decisions.  (open-minded Atheist = one that doesn't have an agenda against ANY religion or its peoples, but has respect for ALL.  I mention this because while I do find many Atheists here intelligent and responsive, there is a chip on the shoulder of most.  I'm hoping its the nature of the forum and not their practice in daily life.)

Quote from: "lundberg500"In general, atheists are more intelligent. I firmly believe this. Every single time I converse with an atheist they always seem more educted and intelligent than the average Christian that I deal with. It never fails. That is, at least, my own personal experience. The average Christian that I talk to never seems interested in history or science and that says a lot in my book. I always keep in mind when I'm talking to a Christian that they believe in demons, angels, holy spirits, heaven, hell, and a godman that walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick and raised the dead, died resurrected and floated up to heaven. It really says a lot about someone who truly believes in supernatural things like these.

I find this too.  However, your last point here makes my point above.  You already have a preconceived notion about any Christian you encounter.  This then would tend to remove you from "my" list of an open-minded Atheist.  It's not only Christians, btw, that believe in the suprenatural.

Quote from: "Baggy"I'm not sure atheists are generally any better educated or intelligent than people of faith. There are a lot of pretty clever 'believers' as well as a load of dumb ones! perhaps not quite so many poorly educated atheists?..not sure.

You are right...I shouldn't generalize.

QuoteYou already have a preconceived notion about any Christian you encounter.

Maybe you are right. But how can I help it? It never fails. Christians that I know and ones that meet are never as intelligent as the atheists I converse with in person or online. Maybe it's just a Texas thing. I try to be open minded about Christians being as intelligent as atheists but then I remind myself that Christians believe in angels, devils, spirits, supernatural miracles, etc. I already know how logical atheists are..... so...  

Quote from: "lundberg500"Maybe it's just a Texas thing.

It's just a some parts of texas thing...I don't notice a difference between how atheists and Christians act in my daily interactions.  I think it's because I only interact with Christians who have college degrees (typically professional degrees or better) or at least constantly exposed to people with college degrees.  Now, I do see the really stupid chrsitians too but only on tv when they are bitching about our billboards or whatever recent activity the local atheist/freethought groups have done.  I've also met my fair share of dumb atheists.

Quote from: "lundberg500"Maybe you are right. But how can I help it? It never fails. Christians that I know and ones that meet are never as intelligent as the atheists I converse with in person or online. Maybe it's just a Texas thing. I try to be open minded about Christians being as intelligent as atheists but then I remind myself that Christians believe in angels, devils, spirits, supernatural miracles, etc. I already know how logical atheists are..... so...  

This is called bias...and exactly why I believe even a good Christian leader would have a very difficult time being unbiased.

Belief in the suprenatural is not, as I mentioned, exclusive to Christians.

This is the age of the internet.  Anyone can go online and learn anything they want for free.  Information has never been this free.  Knowledge has never been this free.  And in such a perfect exchange of free-thought, what the people believe is no longer a competition of what view of the world you impose on them, but how well their beliefs match reality.  And that is not a competition that the churches can win.

They have gotten this far through indoctrination and fear mongering.  Disguising their lust for power as an act of love for God.  Now it is suddenly important that what you expect a person to believe actually matches the real world...

The churches are about to lose their followers.  All that is necessary to turn a loyal subject of religious dogma into an atheist is to convince them to question their beliefs.  It's so simple.  Atheist forums and bus ads are like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains.

It has already begun. The number of defectors is on the rise.  Before long, believers of superstitions will be the minority.  Reason will be used to make all the world's decisions.  And religious dogma will become a mere nuisance with no power in the world.  Reality will shine into the minds of the people, and they will realize that they needn't be slaves to outdated beliefs.  They will see the value of liberating their own minds.  And the world will move forward into a brighter new future.

All this will happen, because knowledge is free.

[youtube:2fp68q67]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug[/youtube:2fp68q67]

That.  Is why religious people fear the growing inertia of the atheist movement.  They see the possibility that before long, their beliefs could die out.  And that would leave them with the ultimatum of either clinging to the bronze age as it circles down the drain.  Or open their eyes, and see the blinding light of reality after shutting themselves in the dark all their lives.

When really, all you want to do is live your day to day life, content in the comforting lies of your ancestors, and not bother with people who say that that comfort is predicated on a lie.  It's scary to them.  But their beliefs will be scrutinized anyway.  It's inevitable, that's how free thought works.  And scrutiny will kill almost any superstition.

I sat an IQ test once. It had several questions related to the bible e.g. how many books make up the bible?
Going by that test I'm sure the Christians would have scored with a higher IQ than non Christians.

Quote from: "KebertX"This is the age of the internet.  Anyone can go online and learn anything they want for free.  Information has never been this free.  Knowledge has never been this free.  And in such a perfect exchange of free-thought, what the people believe is no longer a competition of what view of the world you impose on them, but how well their beliefs match reality.  And that is not a competition that the churches can win.

Information has always been free, I think what you're trying to say is information has never been so readily accessible to the masses...but at the same time that's what you may mean by 'free'.  The Church, incidently, isn't in a battle to win over free thinkers.  While the 'free thinker' may view things from a different perspective (and rightly so, logically and/or scientifically), the Great Commission from Christ is that some don't know of this crazy, illogical, deluded, unscientific, unprovable, option known more specifically as the Gospel.  Those that might choose it, wouldn't otherwise unless someone told them.  No "Christian" group is going to win anyone over that doesn't want to be won over.

Quote from: "KebertX"They have gotten this far through indoctrination and fear mongering.  Disguising their lust for power as an act of love for God.  Now it is suddenly important that what you expect a person to believe actually matches the real world...

Very true, for the most part, of most religion.  Most religion is bad.  Even in my own denomination there are aspects of it which I see as destructive, however this does not therefore make the basis, Christ, destructive.  It is the human influence and greed that makes it so.

Quote from: "KebertX"The churches are about to lose their followers.

Absolutely true.  The Bible predicts this in many forms.

Quote from: "KebertX"All that is necessary to turn a loyal subject of religious dogma into an atheist is to convince them to question their beliefs.  It's so simple.  Atheist forums and bus ads are like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains.

Quite correct again.  It only took a seed of, "Did God really...?" in the beginning.

Quote from: "KebertX"It has already begun. The number of defectors is on the rise.  Before long, believers of superstitions will be the minority.  Reason will be used to make all the world's decisions.  And religious dogma will become a mere nuisance with no power in the world.  Reality will shine into the minds of the people, and they will realize that they needn't be slaves to outdated beliefs.  They will see the value of liberating their own minds.  And the world will move forward into a brighter new future.

And then will they rise up against the minority and persecute them for their unreasoned beliefs and decisions.  This is nothing new, but something the shallow-rooted Christian fears, the well-rooted Christian looks forward to this because it means the darkest part of the night has arrived which directly preceeds the sunrise.

Quote from: "KebertX"That.  Is why religious people fear the growing inertia of the atheist movement.  They see the possibility that before long, their beliefs could die out.  And that would leave them with the ultimatum of either clinging to the bronze age as it circles down the drain.  Or open their eyes, and see the blinding light of reality after shutting themselves in the dark all their lives.

I would reword your thought here to:  "They see the possibility that before long, their [own] beliefs could die out."  meaning again that their beliefs are shallow and when a hint of strife comes, they cannot stand firm.

Quote from: "KebertX"When really, all you want to do is live your day to day life, content in the comforting lies of your ancestors, and not bother with people who say that that comfort is predicated on a lie.  It's scary to them.

It cannot be a lie if it cannot be disproven.  When it becomes a lie, is in the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife.  Only then, if it exists, will it be seen that it wasn't a "lie", but fantastically true.  Until then, it is assumed a lie by skeptics...hence skeptic.

Quote from: "KebertX"But their beliefs will be scrutinized anyway.  It's inevitable, that's how free thought works.  And scrutiny will kill almost any superstition.

You're right...many will die on account of their faith.  It's amazing you acknowledge this, whether you meant it literally or figuratively.  I believe it to be correct either way.

**I didn't watch that video you posted...my connection speed isn't the best right now.  It'll have to wait for later.**

QuoteThis is the age of the internet. Anyone can go online and learn anything they want for free. Information has never been this free. Knowledge has never been this free. And in such a perfect exchange of free-thought, what the people believe is no longer a competition of what view of the world you impose on them, but how well their beliefs match reality. And that is not a competition that the churches can win. They have gotten this far through indoctrination and fear mongering. Disguising their lust for power as an act of love for God. Now it is suddenly important that what you expect a person to believe actually matches the real world...

The churches are about to lose their followers. All that is necessary to turn a loyal subject of religious dogma into an atheist is to convince them to question their beliefs. It's so simple. Atheist forums and bus ads are like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains. It has already begun. The number of defectors is on the rise. Before long, believers of superstitions will be the minority. Reason will be used to make all the world's decisions. And religious dogma will become a mere nuisance with no power in the world. Reality will shine into the minds of the people, and they will realize that they needn't be slaves to outdated beliefs. They will see the value of liberating their own minds. And the world will move forward into a brighter new future. All this will happen, because knowledge is free.

That. Is why religious people fear the growing inertia of the atheist movement. They see the possibility that before long, their beliefs could die out. And that would leave them with the ultimatum of either clinging to the bronze age as it circles down the drain. Or open their eyes, and see the blinding light of reality after shutting themselves in the dark all their lives. When really, all you want to do is live your day to day life, content in the comforting lies of your ancestors, and not bother with people who say that that comfort is predicated on a lie. It's scary to them. But their beliefs will be scrutinized anyway. It's inevitable, that's how free thought works. And scrutiny will kill almost any superstition.

KebertX, well put. Very well put. This is favorite posting of the day.   Or for that matter, the whole week, or month. No, this may be my favorite posting of the whole year. Well said..

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "KebertX"And religious dogma will become a mere nuisance with no power in the world.  Reality will shine into the minds of the people, and they will realize that they needn't be slaves to outdated beliefs.  They will see the value of liberating their own minds.  And the world will move forward into a brighter new future.

And then will they rise up against the minority and persecute them for their unreasoned beliefs and decisions.  This is nothing new, but something the shallow-rooted Christian fears, the well-rooted Christian looks forward to this because it means the darkest part of the night has arrived which directly preceeds the sunrise.

You actually expect atheistic persecutions of believers.  And look forward to it because it heralds the Second Coming.  Wow.  You joining us on this message board is like the lamb fraternizing with the wolf, then.  Wow again.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "KebertX"And religious dogma will become a mere nuisance with no power in the world.  Reality will shine into the minds of the people, and they will realize that they needn't be slaves to outdated beliefs.  They will see the value of liberating their own minds.  And the world will move forward into a brighter new future.

And then will they rise up against the minority and persecute them for their unreasoned beliefs and decisions.  This is nothing new, but something the shallow-rooted Christian fears, the well-rooted Christian looks forward to this because it means the darkest part of the night has arrived which directly preceeds the sunrise.

You actually expect atheistic persecutions of believers.  And look forward to it because it heralds the Second Coming.  Wow.  You joining us on this message board is like the lamb fraternizing with the wolf, then.  Wow again.

Not quite....  It's not the Atheist to be worried about.  It'll probably be more of a repeat of history where it is from within that the persecution begins and from where it is fueled.  Not too unlike the Dark Ages.  IMHO.  We are warned through the endtime prophecies that "brother will turn against brother...".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You actually expect atheistic persecutions of believers.  And look forward to it because it heralds the Second Coming.  Wow.  You joining us on this message board is like the lamb fraternizing with the wolf, then.  Wow again.

Not quite....  It's not the Atheist to be worried about.  It'll probably be more of a repeat of history where it is from within that the persecution begins and from where it is fueled.  Not too unlike the Dark Ages.  IMHO.  We are warned through the endtime prophecies that "brother will turn against brother...".

So you expect Christians to persecute Christians.  That's even worse.  Doesn't the fact that Christianity fosters persecution give you pause?  Mustn't there be something intrinsic to Christianity that manifests as persecution - and whatever that is, mustn't it be undesirable?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You actually expect atheistic persecutions of believers.  And look forward to it because it heralds the Second Coming.  Wow.  You joining us on this message board is like the lamb fraternizing with the wolf, then.  Wow again.

Not quite....  It's not the Atheist to be worried about.  It'll probably be more of a repeat of history where it is from within that the persecution begins and from where it is fueled.  Not too unlike the Dark Ages.  IMHO.  We are warned through the endtime prophecies that "brother will turn against brother...".

So you expect Christians to persecute Christians.  That's even worse.  Doesn't the fact that Christianity fosters persecution give you pause?  Mustn't there be something intrinsic to Christianity that manifests as persecution - and whatever that is, mustn't it be undesirable?

Yes, it's called selfishness, greed, the need to be/feel better than the other, to be one up on the other, survival at all costs.  It's also called human nature.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"So you expect Christians to persecute Christians.  That's even worse.  Doesn't the fact that Christianity fosters persecution give you pause?  Mustn't there be something intrinsic to Christianity that manifests as persecution - and whatever that is, mustn't it be undesirable?

Yes, it's called selfishness, greed, the need to be/feel better than the other, to be one up on the other, survival at all costs.  It's also called human nature.

Yet you don't fear persecution from atheists.  Why not?  If atheists ever became the majority would you fear persecution from them then?

QuoteWe are warned through the endtime prophecies that "brother will turn against brother...".

Hee hee. Prophecies...   . People who believe in prophecies crack me up, especially prophecies out of that awful book.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"So you expect Christians to persecute Christians.  That's even worse.  Doesn't the fact that Christianity fosters persecution give you pause?  Mustn't there be something intrinsic to Christianity that manifests as persecution - and whatever that is, mustn't it be undesirable?

Yes, it's called selfishness, greed, the need to be/feel better than the other, to be one up on the other, survival at all costs.  It's also called human nature.

Yet you don't fear persecution from atheists.  Why not?  If atheists ever became the majority would you fear persecution from them then?

It may come also, but the largest push for persecution of Christians (as the Bible alludes to) will be from their brother.  Not only that, but what do Christians have to worry about if an enemy persecutes?  Nothing.  It's what an enemy does.  The matter to get straight, then, is what persecution will be about.  It is worship of a counterfeit.  (Revelation 14:9-12) Why would Atheists persecute Christians for worshipping a Giant Spaghetti Monster or their own god?  To what purpose?  Rather, families will be divided (Luke 12:53).  Will the Atheist participate?  I don't know, I suppose they might, but then again, the Atheist may simply sit back and giggle at the spectacle...yes?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The matter to get straight, then, is what persecution will be about.  It is worship of a counterfeit.  (Revelation 14:9-12)

It is exactly for this reason that theist fight amongst themselves. Their faiths are intolerant, arrogant and lead to martydom for their god/s. Their scriptures glorify war and lead them to believe that if they fight on their (true) god's side they will be rewarded.

Only tolerance leads to peace. Faiths are destined for persecution, war and destruction. If you take the attitude that others worship a counterfeit then you are part of the problem.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The matter to get straight, then, is what persecution will be about.  It is worship of a counterfeit.  (Revelation 14:9-12)

It is exactly for this reason that theist fight amongst themselves. Their faiths are intolerant, arrogant and lead to martydom for their god/s. Their scriptures glorify war and lead them to believe that if they fight on their (true) god's side they will be rewarded.

So because in the natural world the law of death is evident means that anyone that lives or acknowledges this glorifies death?  Because you know you will die, teach this knowledge to your offspring, that they too will someday die, means you glorify death? Hardly at all, it's a reality.  Just because the bible speaks of war and wars to come as a result of division doesn't mean it glorifies it, but rather, acknowledges the reality of it.

Quote from: "Stevil"Only tolerance leads to peace. Faiths are destined for persecution, war and destruction.

Are you willing to be tolerant of all religion and their practices?  Faiths are destined for persecution, war and destruction, you say?  Then you and the bible agree except that this biblical idea predates yours by a few years.

Quote from: "Stevil"If you take the attitude that others worship a counterfeit then you are part of the problem.

Attitude is as attitude does.  I am 100% for the freedom of every person to worship or not out of their own conscience.  You wont find me trying to dictate my worship to anyone.  I will, however, share this Good News, but will never force anyone by any means or ever vote for any such law that does so.  When you see religious laws in secular society, THAT is when you will see the beginnings of religious persecution dealing with worship.  It's the I know better than you attitude that will bring it about.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Are you willing to be tolerant of all religion and their practices?

I am tolerant as long as it does not affect me or my loved ones. I feel sad when I see it affect followers in a negative way, but I do not get involved as I respect the followers choice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I am 100% for the freedom of every person to worship or not out of their own conscience.

Yet you produce the quote "It is worship of a counterfeit". How would it feel to you to have non Christians say that about worship of your god?
My personal statement is that I do not have a belief in your god. I would not be so arrogant and combative to say that your god is a counterfeit as if it is a fact!

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Are you willing to be tolerant of all religion and their practices?

Yes - so long as they don't encroach upon me.  If all theists did was write books that only they were reading, and go into specially designated buildings they owned to talk and sing amongst themselves, they would be nothing more than a curiosity to me, perhaps even a charming one.  But that isn't all they do.  They want to rule the world and they are engaged in attempting to do so, each denomination and each individual to a greater or lesser degree, but in the aggregate, they seek global hegemony.

This thread is developing a parallel text, the reverse of its title.  I am speaking of, "Why Atheists are Scared of Religious People."

QuoteWhen you see religious laws in secular society, THAT is when you will see the beginnings of religious persecution dealing with worship.  It's the I know better than you attitude that will bring it about.

I strongly agree.  And among those persecuted will most certainly be the atheists.  This is why religious law must be fought tooth and nail, and that fight is the reason some atheists want to attack the root, which is scriptural theism as an institution.

You are also right that the sincere and honest atheist will never be the Antichrist, nor the disciple of the Antichrist.  Atheism disavows the Antichrist just as adamantly as it disavows the Christ.  Let Christ or Antichrist attempt to set up religious law, and the sincere and honest atheist will passionately resist.

No law but justice, and no justice but what common sense compels.  Twelve words that could one day become a rallying cry.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So because in the natural world the law of death is evident means that anyone that lives or acknowledges this glorifies death?  Because you know you will die, teach this knowledge to your offspring, that they too will someday die, means you glorify death? Hardly at all, it's a reality.  Just because the bible speaks of war and wars to come as a result of division doesn't mean it glorifies it, but rather, acknowledges the reality of it.

Stevil didn't say that. But theists do. Life is not glorified anymore. There is no wonder, only suffering; what is man's lot in life. Death is glorified because they say there will be a new life through the grace of some sacrifice that wasn't.

QuoteAre you willing to be tolerant of all religion and their practices?  Faiths are destined for persecution, war and destruction, you say?  Then you and the bible agree except that this biblical idea predates yours by a few years.

Self fulfilling prophecy. Only problem is that faiths had been warring many more years before the bible was written. Nothing to see  here.....move along.

Quote from: "Stevil"If you take the attitude that others worship a counterfeit then you are part of the problem.

QuoteAttitude is as attitude does. etc

Somewhat contradictory, I think.

Before I get ripped apart for using an ad hominem attack, I want you all to know that this is not meant to be taken as a logical argument: AnimatedDirt is an idiot.

Not even necessarily true, it's just a feeling I wanted to express.

You know when someone continually says things that are incredibly flawed, you don't even know where to start correcting them?  And you sort of get overloaded and you can't think of anything to say off the top of your head other than, "You are an idiot!"?  That's what's going on here.

I have no time for a real post, sorry  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Attitude is as attitude does.  I am 100% for the freedom of every person to worship or not out of their own conscience.

Yet your God isn't.  If your God is real, then I am going to burn in hell for all eternity, simply because I refused to believe in and worship something that logical empiricism demands I reject.  

QuoteYou wont find me trying to dictate my worship to anyone.

Yet your God does.  And you worship him.  Do you agree with your God's attitude?

QuoteI will, however, share this Good News, but will never force anyone by any means or ever vote for any such law that does so.  When you see religious laws in secular society, THAT is when you will see the beginnings of religious persecution dealing with worship.  It's the I know better than you attitude that will bring it about.

Yet you clearly are of the opinion that you in fact know better than I as to what awaits us after death, as well as what has happened in the past regarding a Jewish carpenter's son, what has happened in the past with regard to the Jews as a group, and what will happen in the future globally with respect to an Antichrist.  You assume superior knowledge.  You may say that you don't claim it, perhaps, but all you would mean by that is, you don't publicly profess your superior knowledge, perhaps out of politeness, or perhaps as a strategic position.  You are in fact of the opinion that you know better than me.

Your comments above are the sort that make some of us atheists on this message board shake our heads and wonder which is the case - are you sincere and self-deceitful, or insincere?  Reaction to the first option gets expressed like so:

Quote from: "KebertX"AnimatedDirt is an idiot.

Not even necessarily true, it's just a feeling I wanted to express.

I understand KebertX's reaction.  I have it constantly reading posts from you, from Achronos, from Voter, and in previous weeks from bandit4god.  Some of the things you four have said and which three of you continue to say, just make my head explode.  I continually struggle with whether you're sincere and self-deceitful, or, rather, insincere.

To the extent any of you are insincere, you're trolls.  There have been times when I've concluded you were a troll, AnimatedDirt.  I'm convinced Voter is a troll.  

But see, if you're not a troll, AnimatedDirt, then some of your positions are so screamingly illogical that I don't know how you can hold onto them.  I don't mean unempirical.  I've accepted the fact that Christians don't care about empiricism.  In fact, I've accepted the fact that Christians place faith over even logic.  I just don't understand how you then continue to function in the world, since logic is such a requirement for survival and success.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I just don't understand how you then continue to function in the world, since logic is such a requirement for survival and success.

Don't they just compartmentalise it?
Certain things are possible in the Star Trek universe, others in Star Wars, and different ones again apply in the Bible.
I can enjoy Star Trek but I don't  rely on an emergency beam up in real life.
I think Christians know that they have to respect the law of gravity to make it through the day.
Holding contradictory ideas seems inefficient, but theists prove it is possible.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Don't they just compartmentalise it?
Certain things are possible in the Star Trek universe, others in Star Wars, and different ones again apply in the Bible.

But even within the biblical compartment the Christian will be illogical.  Consider this:

----------------
Premise: I deem it wrong to condemn someone for positions held in good conscience.
Premise: My God condemns people for positions held in good conscience.
Premise: I worship my God.
Conclusion: I am a hypocrite.
---------------

The above conclusion is obvious to you and me, but the Christian declines to draw it.  Simply declines.

Wait.  Wait, I see what you're saying.

The Christian doesn't merely set logic aside in order to enter the biblical compartment.  The Christian also sets logic aside while within the biblical compartment.  Both in entering and in navigating the biblical compartment, logic is set aside.

OK.  Makes sense.  

Another reason why Christianity is dangerous, then.  Nothing is more dangerous than setting logic aside.

Quote from: "KebertX"Before I get ripped apart for using an ad hominem attack, I want you all to know that this is not meant to be taken as a logical argument: AnimatedDirt is an idiot.

Not even necessarily true, it's just a feeling I wanted to express.

You know when someone continually says things that are incredibly flawed, you don't even know where to start correcting them?  And you sort of get overloaded and you can't think of anything to say off the top of your head other than, "You are an idiot!"?  That's what's going on here.

I have no time for a real post, sorry  

I know precisely how you feel. Some people's posts are so...wrong....so much wrong....one doesn't know where to start. Deconstructing/refuting so much junk is time consuming, head-bangingly, excruciatingly tedious. If only they could stay on topic (or two).

Sometimes debating theists is like trying to play three dimensional chess on their one half of a one dimensional board.

Quote from: "Stevil"Yet you produce the quote "It is worship of a counterfeit". How would it feel to you to have non Christians say that about worship of your god?

If you only knew...

Quote from: "Stevil"My personal statement is that I do not have a belief in your god. I would not be so arrogant and combative to say that your god is a counterfeit as if it is a fact!

I'm not trying to change your mind...obviously on this forum it would be next to impossible.  I'm encouraged to hear you wouldn't, however it seems you may be in the minority here considering some remarks.  But really, to get personally hurt by being called an idiot, for example, is not logical considering I came here.  It's expected.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Yes - so long as they don't encroach upon me. If all theists did was write books that only they were reading, and go into specially designated buildings they owned to talk and sing amongst themselves, they would be nothing more than a curiosity to me, perhaps even a charming one.

Encroachment in your space is not something one can control unless you're willing to remove yourself from the area of influence.  This is why I support separation of Church and State.  I don't want anyone's religious ideas placed above my own conscience as a law or even as a promoted idea.  This is why I mentioned I would rather have an Atheistic leader of this nation with no agenda other than equality for all.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But that isn't all they do. They want to rule the world and they are engaged in attempting to do so, each denomination and each individual to a greater or lesser degree, but in the aggregate, they seek global hegemony.

I'm in agreement with you here.  It is what the vast majority want to do...even (to a lesser degree) within the heirarchy of my own denomination.  The human nature is much stronger than we wish to admit...that being a selfish nature.  We don't like to be wrong and so given an inch, will take much more.  We are comissioned to spread the Good News, but it's not to be spread by force.

Quote from: "Gawen"Stevil didn't say that. But theists do. Life is not glorified anymore. There is no wonder, only suffering; what is man's lot in life. Death is glorified because they say there will be a new life through the grace of some sacrifice that wasn't.

Therein lies a problem.  To the Christian that believes (wrongly, IMHO) one goes immediately, upon physical death to paradise, death is welcome and a thing of glory.  Death is not necessarily glorified in scripture in that we are to hope for it, but it is said we Christians (those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus) will be persecuted and put to death.  Death is not hoped for, but death is inevitable, more so if you're on Christ's side which goes against the grain.

Quote from: "Gawen"Self fulfilling prophecy. Only problem is that faiths had been warring many more years before the bible was written. Nothing to see here.....move along.

You're right.  It's difficult to record history unless it is in the past.

Quote from: "KebertX"Before I get ripped apart for using an ad hominem attack, I want you all to know that this is not meant to be taken as a logical argument: AnimatedDirt is an idiot.

Not even necessarily true, it's just a feeling I wanted to express.

You know when someone continually says things that are incredibly flawed, you don't even know where to start correcting them? And you sort of get overloaded and you can't think of anything to say off the top of your head other than, "You are an idiot!"? That's what's going on here.

I have no time for a real post, sorry

So then what we are left with is basically that which you claim it isn't.  Is this a tactic all are welcomed to employ?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"[...]You are in fact of the opinion that you know better than me.

Not at all.  I am of the opinion that if what I believe is true (and I believe it) then it's better for ALL.  I don't know "better" than you, I just have some news to share.  We are both equal.  We have the same opportunities.  We both have choice, you choose your scientific methodology and I apparently choose my "empirical" methodology.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Your comments above are the sort that make some of us atheists on this message board shake our heads and wonder which is the case - are you sincere and self-deceitful, or insincere?

Is it self-deceitful to see that the struggle will begin from within?  Is it self-deceitful to realize that "I am my own worst enemy", because I know myself and my inner struggles?  Where is an enemy most dangerous?  Is it when he is openly hunting you down or when he has become your friend?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But see, if you're not a troll, AnimatedDirt, then some of your positions are so screamingly illogical that I don't know how you can hold onto them. I don't mean unempirical. I've accepted the fact that Christians don't care about empiricism. In fact, I've accepted the fact that Christians place faith over even logic. I just don't understand how you then continue to function in the world, since logic is such a requirement for survival and success.

I hope I'm not a troll.  I came to this forum for something different.  I enjoy reading, especially on sciences and religion.  I knew I'd be in the minority with my view and figured I'd get a few names thrown at me.  It's expected.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do hope for something better.  If it's illogical, then I'll take my shots like anyone else.  I'd like to believe that I too can be a good person as you describe and aspire to be, but my mind has found something more that I'm willing to accept without absolute scientific proof.  Is there anything in your life that you accept without absolute scientific proof?  I would imagine so.  You're the Doubting Thomas' type.  That's ok.  The problem is that not every person like you will have the opportunity to inspect, touch, feel, and see for themselves.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Yet your God does. And you worship him. Do you agree with your God's attitude?

If He is God as He suggests in the bible, then it matters not whether I agree or disagree.  It is how it is.  He affords all a choice.  One leads to life and the other to death (not perpetual agony).  The choice made is everlasting and forever.  The consequence is death, complete separation.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Yet your God isn't. If your God is real, then I am going to burn in hell for all eternity, simply because I refused to believe in and worship something that logical empiricism demands I reject.

Who's logic?  Logic from a species that has evolved from nothing?  A fallacy in and of itself.  A species that is the only species (you may claim "so far") that has evolved reason, self-awarness, thoughts of God, what am I, who am I, where am I, where did I come from?  This species (as the scientific mind sees it) has come from (1) Nothing, (2) has evolved through trial and error, (3) says to itself that its own design is flawed (this from its own mind...yet it exists happily) at BEST our evolution is in the trial stage, more realistically we are in the error.  So playing the odds, our "logic" is more than likely flawed.  If we are honest with ourselves, we can't even be sure of our own logic if we truly are an evolved species.  Our logic is only relevant to our knowledge and only of today's knowledge.  If God is true, who's logic is skewed?  Animated dirt has more knowledge and logic that that which animated it?

QuoteWho's logic? Logic from a species that has evolved from nothing? A fallacy in and of itself. A species that is the only species (you may claim "so far") that has evolved reason, self-awarness, thoughts of God, what am I, who am I, where am I, where did I come from? This species (as the scientific mind sees it) has come from (1) Nothing, (2) has evolved through trial and error, (3) says to itself that its own design is flawed (this from its own mind...yet it exists happily) at BEST our evolution is in the trial stage, more realistically we are in the error. So playing the odds, our "logic" is more than likely flawed. If we are honest with ourselves, we can't even be sure of our own logic if we truly are an evolved species. Our logic is only relevant to our knowledge and only of today's knowledge. If God is true, who's logic is skewed? Animated dirt has more knowledge and logic that that which animated it?

Nothing doesn't exist and never could exist literally as a person, place or thing. Nobody ever said anything evolved from the literal definition of nothing vs what most people perceive to be nothing. And you are in no position to state that the Human species is the only species in existence to have evolved reason, self-awareness, or even "thoughts". And the funny part of your argument is that you are trying to suggest that these things had to be "created" without actually realizing the funny little quagmire in that logical fallacy. Hence, how exactly do you "create" into existence consciousness, self-awareness, information, knowledge, reality, existence, that state of existence or even a place of existence when that very thing you call and assume to be a god is equally slave to require for it's very own existence. It seems like you have a very shallow level of critical thinking skills when it comes to evaluating your own arguments, ideas, concepts, or ideological beliefs.

Another flaw in your argument is that the human species is not the only species to be "self-aware". Apes, dolphins, and whales such as the Killer Whale (Orca) have shown to be self-aware. In fact many species have been found to recognize themselves, interact in social groups, or even apply reason. Killer whales can coordinate collectively in figuring out to find better ways to kill and capture prey. They can also develop specific social groups and even new tactics. Their communication levels are considered complex enough to be an actual language. But even if none of this were true, existence is very vast to the point where your suggestion that the human species is somehow the only species to exist with intelligence is unfounded, and largely based on assumption to support your ideological construct even if there were no other sentient species within existence.

However, before you say people say things come from nothing as an argument, I strongly suggest you read up on concepts of complexity, ground state, zero point energy, infinite regress, and universal set of all sets.. There will always be a ground state at the lowest level of complexity in regards to existence to where complexity can regress no further. And sadly for you, consciousness and self-awareness are far more complex than unconsciousness, and the absence of awareness to where consciousness and awareness require far more cause to exist than the latter.

So I will simply say that Existence, or state of existence exists because the opposite is literally impossible. No creator required, and that is especially true when we know that consciousness is not required for existence to exist since non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing. Objects, places, or things do not require conscious entities to exist. Hence, creationists have it all backwards

QuoteIf He is God as He suggests in the bible, then it matters not whether I agree or disagree. It is how it is. He affords all a choice. One leads to life and the other to death (not perpetual agony). The choice made is everlasting and forever. The consequence is death, complete separation.

Before you can even make this kind of argument you have to specifically define said deity and it's qualities. The bible for example doesn't do that and even contradicts itself. For example:

The bible states that your supposed GOD doesn't know everything, and does know everything. The rest of your argument is pure assumption without actually clarifying any of it from the actual supposed horses mouth. It's just like spreading rumors about someones character, will, or likeness while suggesting it's all facts without actually having to prove any of it. Hence, take the leap of faith that Joey down the street is a child rapist who's will is to enforce is ideological constructs of rape upon all your children without the requirement to prove it. Thus you expect people to actually just assume magical book called the bible or what you have to say as some sort of divine truth that ought not to be questioned.

If you ever read books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming you would actually understand the written structure of the bible, how many religious organizations advertise, or how much of the indoctrination processes found in religion operate and function. And it all starts with seeding conceptual ideas into beliefs through emotional manipulation and attachment that eventually generate social structure, ideological constructs, and psychological dogmas. The fear and salvation programming tools are most commonly used, but other methods are more discrete in their approach.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWho's logic? Logic from a species that has evolved from nothing? A fallacy in and of itself. A species that is the only species (you may claim "so far") that has evolved reason, self-awarness, thoughts of God, what am I, who am I, where am I, where did I come from? This species (as the scientific mind sees it) has come from (1) Nothing, (2) has evolved through trial and error, (3) says to itself that its own design is flawed (this from its own mind...yet it exists happily) at BEST our evolution is in the trial stage, more realistically we are in the error. So playing the odds, our "logic" is more than likely flawed. If we are honest with ourselves, we can't even be sure of our own logic if we truly are an evolved species. Our logic is only relevant to our knowledge and only of today's knowledge. If God is true, who's logic is skewed? Animated dirt has more knowledge and logic that that which animated it?

Nothing doesn't exist and never could exist literally as a person, place or thing. Nobody ever said anything evolved from the literal definition of nothing vs what most people perceive to be nothing. And you are in no position to state that the Human species is the only species in existence to have evolved reason, self-awareness, or even "thoughts". And the funny part of your argument is that you are trying to suggest that these things had to be "created" without actually realizing the funny little quagmire in that logical fallacy. Hence, how exactly do you "create" into existence consciousness, self-awareness, information, knowledge, reality, existence, that state of existence or even a place of existence when that very thing you call and assume to be a god is equally slave to require for it's very own existence. It seems like you have a very shallow level of critical thinking skills when it comes to evaluating your own arguments, ideas, concepts, or ideological beliefs.

Another flaw in your argument is that the human species is not the only species to be "self-aware". Apes, dolphins, and whales such as the Killer Whale (Orca) have shown to be self-aware. In fact many species have been found to recognize themselves, interact in social groups, or even apply reason. Killer whales can coordinate collectively in figuring out to find better ways to kill and capture prey. They can also develop specific social groups and even new tactics. Their communication levels are considered complex enough to be an actual language. But even if none of this were true, existence is very vast to the point where your suggestion that the human species is somehow the only species to exist with intelligence is unfounded, and largely based on assumption to support your ideological construct even if there were no other sentient species within existence.

However, before you say people say things come from nothing as an argument, I strongly suggest you read up on concepts of complexity, ground state, zero point energy, infinite regress, and universal set of all sets.. There will always be a ground state at the lowest level of complexity in regards to existence to where complexity can regress no further. And sadly for you, consciousness and self-awareness are far more complex than unconsciousness, and the absence of awareness to where consciousness and awareness require far more cause to exist than the latter.

So I will simply say that Existence, or state of existence exists because the opposite is literally impossible. No creator required, and that is especially true when we know that consciousness is not required for existence to exist since non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing. Objects, places, or things do not require conscious entities to exist. Hence, creationists have it all backwards

I didn't realize self-existence meant seeing oneself in the mirror (which many scientist dismiss) and you ironically dismiss the part about the who, what, where, when and why, not to mention the ability to scientifically test, ponder and reason, but if whales, dolphins and apes and a mirror is your argument to laugh at mine..., how many steps or years of evolution would you place between whales, dolphins, apes and humans in respect to JUST their cognitive differences?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIf He is God as He suggests in the bible, then it matters not whether I agree or disagree. It is how it is. He affords all a choice. One leads to life and the other to death (not perpetual agony). The choice made is everlasting and forever. The consequence is death, complete separation.

Before you can even make this kind of argument you have to specifically define said deity and it's qualities. The bible for example doesn't do that and even contradicts itself. For example:

The bible states that your supposed GOD doesn't know everything, and does know everything. The rest of your argument is pure assumption without actually clarifying any of it from the actual supposed horses mouth. It's just like spreading rumors about someones character, will, or likeness while suggesting it's all facts without actually having to prove any of it. Hence, take the leap of faith that Joey down the street is a child rapist who's will is to enforce is ideological constructs of rape upon all your children without the requirement to prove it. Thus you expect people to actually just assume magical book called the bible or what you have to say as some sort of divine truth that ought not to be questioned.

If you ever read books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming you would actually understand the written structure of the bible, how many religious organizations advertise, or how much of the indoctrination processes found in religion operate and function. And it all starts with seeding conceptual ideas into beliefs through emotional manipulation and attachment that eventually generate social structure, ideological constructs, and psychological dogmas. The fear and salvation programming tools are most commonly used, but other methods are more discrete in their approach.

I must define said deity?  Since you seem to be an expert on the Bible, I'm sure you would know that this God is defined within the words of the collection of books.  By all means, question it.  Question God!  Nothing wrong in questioning.  Nothing "wrong" in choosing to say God is not or God's ways are not mine.  You have both sides.  Both have evidence (you dismiss evidence for not being scientifically provable, so be it)  You have a choice.

Love is emotional...it's not scientific.  Love drives social structures.  Fear and salvation is not the same as pure animal survival instinct?  To "fear" God is simply to give Him His due respect.  If you don't "fear" a lion and approach without any sense of danger, chances are you'll be killed or seriously maimed.  Fear is healthy in that sense.  Fear the lion and you live.

QuoteI didn't realize self-existence meant seeing oneself in the mirror (which many scientist dismiss) and you ironically dismiss the part about the who, what, where, when and why, not to mention the ability to scientifically test, ponder and reason, but if whales, dolphins and apes and a mirror is your argument to laugh at mine..., how many steps or years of evolution would you place between whales, dolphins, apes and humans in respect to JUST their cognitive differences?

Firstly you stated "Self-awareness".. Please define "Self-existence" since anything that exists technically has "self-existence". And the concept of who, what, and why or ponder is still applicable to other species even if they are not as complex, or on the same level as the human species. Also, who what and why had nothing to do with just "mirrors". This here is a clear display of your ignorance in the fields that study of said species. Being self-aware isn't just a matter of recognizing one's self in a mirror even though it's a very clear indication of it.. It seems you need to do some reading on that subject before you continue. And cognitive differences is rather irrelevant between the species, especially when such differences are also restricted to a variety of other things to which include physical abilities ectra. Your argument is unreasonable because you make wild assumptions in regards to a subject you do not comprehend. For example, what is consciousness and awareness without information to give it meaning, observability, structure, and process-ability. It's funny that you have to "Know" of your own existence in order to even know you exist isn't it. Minds don't create information, reality, existence, or anything for that matter. Minds can only observer, process, and manipulate what already exists. And that is because minds require and are slave to these things just like everything else is. It would be irrelevant if I could draw a picture, construct a house, or even build and make an entire universe. At best, all entities or things can only be material physical manipulators. And what you call GOD is matter of opinion. What is power, or the title of "GOD" without something to give it the title, and worship it? It's powerless and title less!

There is a funny fact about divinity and power.. The highest levels are actually the most reliant on cause. And this is because they can not exist or be of process without the lowest levels that make their existence, power, and divinity even possible. Hence, welcome to the complexity argument and the ultimate quagmire in the God argument.

Existence requires no entity to exist simply because existence exists, and simply because non-existence is literally impossible to be a person, place, object, or thing. There is no such thing as a "Creator". It's a logical fallacy at best. So if someone wanted to worship some advanced alien that lands on Earth because it's more advanced and powerful than Mankind, that is there problem. And it doesn't make such things into "GODS".

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI didn't realize self-existence meant seeing oneself in the mirror (which many scientist dismiss) and you ironically dismiss the part about the who, what, where, when and why, not to mention the ability to scientifically test, ponder and reason, but if whales, dolphins and apes and a mirror is your argument to laugh at mine..., how many steps or years of evolution would you place between whales, dolphins, apes and humans in respect to JUST their cognitive differences?

Firstly you stated "Self-awareness".. Please define "Self-existence" since anything that exists technically has "self-existence".  And the concept of who, what, and why or ponder is still applicable to other species even if they are not as complex, or on the same level as the human species. Also, who what and why had nothing to do with just "mirrors". This here is a clear display of your ignorance in the fields that study of said species. Being self-aware isn't just a matter of recognizing one's self in a mirror even though it's a very clear indication of it.. It seems you need to do some reading on that subject before you continue. And cognitive differences is rather irrelevant between the species, especially when such differences are also restricted to a variety of other things to which include physical abilities ectra. Your argument is unreasonable because you make wild assumptions in regards to a subject you do not comprehend. For example, what is consciousness and awareness without information to give it meaning, observability, structure, and process-ability. It's funny that you have to "Know" of your own existence in order to even know you exist isn't it. Minds don't create information, reality, existence, or anything for that matter. Minds can only observer, process, and manipulate what already exists. And that is because the require and are slave to these things just like everything else is. It would be irrelevant if I could draw a picture, construct a house, or even build and make an entire universe. At best, all entities or things can only be material physical manipulators. And what you call GOD is matter of opinion. What is power, or the title of "GOD" without something to give it the title, and worship it? It's powerless and title less!

There is a funny fact about divinity and power.. The highest levels are actually the most reliant on cause. And this is because they can not exist or be of process without the lowest levels that make their existence, power, and divinity even possible. Hence, welcome to the complexity argument and the ultimate quagmire in the God argument.

Existence requires no entity to exist simply because existence exists, and simply because non-existence is literally impossible to be a person, place, object, or thing. There is no such thing as a "Creator". It's a logical fallacy at best. So if someone wanted to worship some advanced alien that lands on Earth because it's more advanced and powerful than Mankind, that is there problem. And it doesn't make such things into "GODS".

I wrote self-existence meaning self-awareness.  My mistake.

Quote from: "thefreedicionary.com"Self`-ex`ist´ence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; - an attribute peculiar to God.

So in this respect you're wrong that anything that exists "technically" does not possess self-existence.  You cannot exist without your parents having existed before you and theirs before them... something had to be for something else to be.

QuoteI must define said deity?  Since you seem to be an expert on the Bible, I'm sure you would know that this God is defined within the words of the collection of books.  By all means, question it.  Question God!  Nothing wrong in questioning.  Nothing "wrong" in choosing to say God is not or God's ways are not mine.  You have both sides.  Both have evidence (you dismiss evidence for not being scientifically provable, so be it)  You have a choice.

Yes you must define what it is that you are claiming to actually exist. Professing the will, and knowledge of something without definition and evidence is dishonest. At best it's a false position to begin with. It's also irrelevant whether or not we think there is something wrong on either side of this coin. I never professed it was wrong or immoral to believe in X-deity. In fact I don't even make the argument against the possibility of our universe being constructed by some entity. This is strictly about the existence of a GOD.  And I have not dismissed any evidence you have provided. The problem is, your evidence is heavily reliant on opinion, assumption, unknown plausibility, and even sometimes assertions in regards to things that are impossible (such as lets say omnipotence). I've been a christian for most of my life. So there is no need to preach the bible at me when I know what's in it. And nobody is an "expert" on the bible since much of it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretation.

QuoteLove is emotional...it's not scientific.  Love drives social structures.  Fear and salvation is not the same as pure animal survival instinct?  To "fear" God is simply to give Him His due respect.  If you don't "fear" a lion and approach without any sense of danger, chances are you'll be killed or seriously maimed.  Fear is healthy in that sense.  Fear the lion and you live.

Emotions are not separate from science. Social structures are developed by simple attributes of natural selection that also sum up the very base of everything to which includes the very energy and matter we are all made of. And emotions are not made of nothing either, and that again is because nothing can not be a literal existing person, place, or thing. Emotions are material physical patterns that you have to actually physically observe, feel, and process into actual physical meanings, or structural meanings within a structure of developed language. Such meanings as love, anger, hate, festive, hungry ect. However this fact doesn't mean that Love, life, or our existence is somehow worthless or meaningless. It simply means things are not as fabricated as you think they are, and I find that more beautiful than me having been some doll on a construction line. To be truly unique is to emerge without fabrication.  So here are the these 3 things I am speaking of, and they are very simple:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These 3 things sum up everything from natural selection, evolution, matter, energy, and even consciousness with emotions. And that is because there can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral action, reaction, state of being, emotion, selection, choice, decision, position, process, ability, thought, pattern, or piece of information to which can all be subjectively vague (such as morality). All things are bound to these very simple rules regardless of the level of complexity or emergence of complexity that may arise from them. This is a system of chaos to where emergence of complexity, order, or anything above is the sheer result of positive, negative and neutral feedback. We may never fully grasp such a deeply complex system because it's probably and literally impossible to do. It's like trying to trace the ground state or beginning to every thought right down to it's very emergence. And for this theists like to assume something had to design and create it all without actually realizing the impossibility of that very conceptual idea.

So here is a fun exercise:

Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

Quote from: "thefreedicionary.com"Self`-ex`ist´ence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; - an attribute peculiar to God.
So in this respect you're wrong that anything that exists "technically" does not possess self-existence.  You cannot exist without your parents having existed before you and theirs before them... something had to be for something else to be.

Kind of like capacity/empty space since a negative or non-existing capacity is impossible to exist? However, a god can not arguably fit that bill since it can be stated unable to represent a universal set of all sets, solve infinite regress, or  be argued the impossibility of it's non-existence unlike spacial capacity, or even a container to it's own existence to which it must rely on in order to exist. A god can not possibly be "self-existent" because it would rely on other things in order to exist. That includes being made of something, having a complex structure under the rules of complexity, a place to exist (to which it also could not create), or even information it is slave to in order to know itself actually exists (just like it is in regards to our own existence). It is not independent of cause or being, and saying so is a logical fallacy. Existence for example can be said to be independent of cause or being simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist.  Consciousness for example requires far more cause to exist than unconsciousness.

Quotesomething had to be for something else to be.

This is very reliant on what you are talking about.. And btw, this rule applies to said diety. This is especially true when you talk about consciousness and self-awareness. This concept however doesn't apply to things where the opposites are literally impossible. Things such as existence itself, spatial capacity, or material physicality. What you really ought to be looking for is the ground state to everything, or the point to where complexity can not possibly regress any further. This is the state from which all things emerge from, and are made from. A conscious entity can not solve this since it's applicable to complexities higher than zero (ground state). hence the fabric of space isn't conscious, and neither is a rock.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Yes you must define what it is that you are claiming to actually exist. Professing the will, and knowledge of something without definition and evidence is dishonest. At best it's a false position to begin with.

Do you have a spouse, a child, a sibling, a parent? (of course you have a parent...)  Because you know them, if asked to define your mother or father, would you be able to fully define them?  All you know about them is what they've presented to you.  You'd probably even get their exact stature, weight, and waist size wrong, but you may be in the ballpark.  I gather you don't know their inner secrets and the answers to why or why not they do one thing and not the other.  Yet you've lived (presumably) a good portion of your life with them and (again, presumably) keep in touch with them.  However, I'm sure if you were given the task of defining them, you could not fully.  You'd, at best, give a good round description, but when defining their personality you wouldn't be quite accurate.  Your parent would say yes to somethings, no to others, and yes, at this but with this explanation...

Is that kind of definition acceptable to you?

Quote from: "TheJackel"It's also irrelevant whether or not we think there is something wrong on either side of this coin. I never professed it was wrong or immoral to believe in X-deity. In fact I don't even make the argument against the possibility of our universe being constructed by some entity. This is strictly about the existence of a GOD.  And I have not dismissed any evidence you have provided.

I've not really given any.  I'm not in the practice of proving God so my effort in doing so would be less than exciting.  I am not a person that has the knowledge of doing so both from the religious stand point nor the scientific...if there be one.

Quote from: "TheJackel"The problem is, your evidence is heavily reliant on opinion, assumption, unknown plausibility, and even sometimes assertions...

Are you suggesting opinions are always wrong, that something assumed is always wrong or that leaning to one side of a plausible unknown (if it's plausible, wouldn't an unknown plausibility be a type of oxymoron?) is going to be always wrong?  When one says they have an intuition based on [insert basis], it's always wrong?  If this be so then Las Vegas would cease to be the Las Vegas we know.  Gambling would be, in all respects, stupid, since guessing at chance, assuming and plausibility would always be wrong.

Quote from: "TheJackal"in regards to things that are impossible (such as lets say omnipotence).  I've been a christian for most of my life. So there is no need to preach the bible at me when I know what's in it. And nobody is an "expert" on the bible since much of it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretation.

An expert on the bible knows what the bible says, that is different from an expert on a certain interpretation of it...which would assume some expertise on what it says.  If you have been a Christian, then you must know what omnipotence is...it is not being able to make a square sphere or the like.  That is just silly drabble to throw in the mix and say, "See!  He's not omnipotent...therefore God does not exist.  There's proof..."

Quote from: "TheJackal"Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

This from the mind as a result of trial and error?  These are finite thoughts, true of a finite being of which we both acknowledge we are.  God IS something.  What that something is, is simply unexplainable this side of life and only explainable if there is another side.  Because we cannot explain, define or see something does not make that something non-existent.  Can you see dark matter or dark energy?

QuoteDo you have a spouse, a child, a sibling, a parent? (of course you have a parent...:)

QuoteThis from the mind as a result of trial and error?  These are finite thoughts, true of a finite being of which we both acknowledge we are.  God IS something.  What that something is, is simply unexplainable this side of life and only explainable if there is another side.  Because we cannot explain, define or see something does not make that something non-existent.  Can you see dark matter or dark energy?

I see you have failed to grasp the very concept of the argument you made this reply to, and  then resort to clinging to circular arguments in order not to actually address the argument. Saying something is simply unexplainable is nothing more than a cop-out as a means to just assume. Again, Carl Segan arguments are not arguments, they are logical fallacies that prove on has no base to argue with. It's the assuming of literal impossibilities as magically possible... This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy, nor does it have to do with if we can see it or not since I don't claim it's existence until it is proven to exist. My argument above was very specific, and you are doing a pretty good job ad trying to avoid it.

BTW, the separation of all conscious entities as individuals makes all entities finite. There is no such thing as an infinite being even if you tried to claim solipsism. So you again run into the argument that either everything is GOD or nothing is GOD. You can't have your cake and eat it too here.

QuoteWho's logic? Logic from a species that has evolved from nothing? A fallacy in and of itself. A species that is the only species (you may claim "so far") that has evolved reason, self-awarness, thoughts of God, what am I, who am I, where am I, where did I come from? This species (as the scientific mind sees it) has come from (1) Nothing, (2) has evolved through trial and error, (3) says to itself that its own design is flawed (this from its own mind...yet it exists happily) at BEST our evolution is in the trial stage, more realistically we are in the error. So playing the odds, our "logic" is more than likely flawed. If we are honest with ourselves, we can't even be sure of our own logic if we truly are an evolved species. Our logic is only relevant to our knowledge and only of today's knowledge. If God is true, who's logic is skewed? Animated dirt has more knowledge and logic that that which animated it?

"Who's logic?" Nonsense question. Contrary to popular belief, logic is black and white.  It's a very specific school of thought.  And there aren't multiple versions of logic.  It's not my logic vs. your logic.  Our species doesn't have it's own logic.  There is only logic.  We didn't make it up, we discovered what rules an argument should follow in order for it to make sense.

Saying logic is a fallacy is like saying "A circle is a square in and of itself."

"a species that evolved from nothing?" You don't understand evolution, do you?  Not that the origin of our species has anything to do with how valid the concept of logic is.  I'll come back to this in a minute...

"only species so far to evolve self awareness." Not true.  'm getting sidetracked, but Neanderthals believed that the outcome of their hunts were determined by a god, and that there was an afterlife waiting for them.  Now they are extinct.  What does that say about the significance of our supernatural beliefs?  Furthermore, elephants and chimpanzees have seemingly religious rituals for the bodies of their dead.  Marine mammals and octopades are also exceedingly intelligent.  I'm not sure we're the only species on earth who thinks about that stuff.

"This species has come from nothing..." Okay, no we didn't.  Creationists are the ones who say we came from nothing.  First, learn the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. Second, educate yourself on both.
[youtube:2oe6xju4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2oe6xju4]

"... Evolved through trial and error." More misunderstandings of evolution.  It's not like Darwin's finches were born with small beaks, realized they weren't working, and went back to fix it.  It's not trial and error.  It's a matter of what traits are more likely to lead to reproduction in a population.  Statistically, if your environment only has big seeds, you are less likely to survive and reproduce if you have a big beak.  Over the course of generations, Big Beaks become more prevalent.  And it's these small changes in populations over billions of years, across every environment on earth, that brought about the species on the planet.  Individuals don't adapt to their environment (in a genetic way), populations do.  Evolution is not trial and error.

"says it's own design is flawed, even though it lives happily" First, the word design is completely wrong.  There is no conscious force designing us.  It's natural selection.  Second, our design is flawed.  The fact that we can breath and eat through the same hole guarantees that some people will choke and die every year.  The fact that we are only hard-wired to care for our own small hunter gatherer groups (People in our own small community) ensures that we don't treat every person on the planet equally, and millions of people die preventable deaths every week.  Our so-called 'design' is flawed.  Yes, some of us are happy, some of us are not. But some of us being happy sometimes doesn't prove that we were designed perfectly. Some of us are miserable.  Some of us are dying, or diseased, or heartbroken.  The human is flawed. Get over it.

"God is real. God is illogical. Therefore our logic is flawed." That may be the worst syllogism ever.  Once again, there is only one 'Logic,' and it is concrete and black and white.  We don't need to change the rules of reason to make god fit.  It's not our fault that an omnipotent Benevolent Creator of an imperfect universe doesn't make sense.  It contradicts itself!  And you are so deluded that you think it should be okay to ignore these contradictions, in the hope that God has some other logic that trumps our own.  2 + 2 will never equal 5.  It will not make sense for an all loving god to allow 38 million people to die preventable deaths this week.  It will not make sense that an all loving being created evil.  And it will not make sense that a perfect being designed something that is imperfect.  And because these things make no sense, you seriously think that sense is the idea that should be done away with.

You. Are. WRONG.  You can't escape logic.  If God doesn't make sense, it's indicative of God not existing, not sense being tainted.  Look at reality.  And deal with it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I can bring my mother over to your house and specifically define her, present her, and have her speak for herself.

Without proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Quote from: "TheJackal"Her existence is not in question as it is easily demonstrable. You are seemingly trying to build a Carl Segan argument as if that has any relevance. Basically you are also making excuses to your inability to define your believed to be deity.

Not at all, you said I need to define God first.  To that, I say, His definition exists in a collection of books.

Quote from: "TheJackal"To be more specific, I didn't read about my mothers possible existence and then assume of her existence and will. Her life is not confined to txt, assumption, opinion, or assertion. Playing a Carl Segans Dragon card is not evidence of proof there of the existence of said deity.

So from what you're saying here is that there is less evidence for your mother's existence than that of the God in a collection of books around (some) for thousands of years.

Quote from: "TheJackal"But the biggest crux in your argument is opinion under the assumption such an entity exists. Labeling something a GOD is like telling a color blind person that a red truck is red when they clearly see it as green.

Did you say a color-blind person?  So is the truck red or is it green?  Technically it isn't a certain color, it reflects a portion of the spectrum of light.  For a person that sees "normal"...unless you're going to argue that normal vision is flawed vision...the truck is red.  Who is right and who is wrong?  Well, the one with normal vision is more right than the color-blind person.

Quote from: "TheJackal"Hence, it's only a GOD if you consider it one out of opinion. It's entirely a title of opinion and that is why you could never define a "GOD"since that goal post can be infinitely moved in any direction that would include considering myself or anything a GOD.

Yet a definition exists in the harmonizing of a collection of books

Quote from: "TheJackal"Thus you have not shown any sort of defined GOD that can be consider as such unarguably. And that is because you can't possibly do so. And much of the religious organization knows this, and that is why it's so wildly subjective and manipulative, and why there are thousands of GOD's currently being worshiped.

I have made no attempt as of yet to define God.

QuoteIs that kind of definition acceptable to you?

Quote from: "TheJackal"Vague subjective pleading arguments? No.

It's all I have to go on.  Much like your definition of a family member would be just as subjective and pleading even with the person standing in front of you as you make your definition known.

Quote from: "TheJackal"All opinions are subjectively vague since an opinion is merely one's own interpretation of something. That has nothing to do with facts or truths because neither of those will always rely on opinion since opinions can be provably wrong.  And that heavily weighs on what the opinion is, and what it's referring to. So, are red trucks really red? Popular opinion would say yes but a blind person or a color blind person would say you are incorrect. You cannot subject things of pure opinion as facts without something support it with. So the fact is, red trucks are red while possibly being green or visually color less. So does that mean red trucks magically are no longer red trucks in regards to your argument on Las Vegas? Funny how that works doesn't it.

It is funny especially since the color can be known.  It is not subjective.  A color-blind person is seeing it as green, but when the scientific value is thrown in, the truck is red (or reflects red) is now objective and true.  Who then is wrong and were they only wrong after science concluded it was red?  So then the validity of the Las Vegas example remains stupid if ALL opinion is always wrong.

Quote from: "TheJackal"Chaotic systems do not necessarily conform to your expectations, opinions, or views because not everything has concrete value. Some positives and negatives can be neutrals to others for example.  It's called the gray area, and things like morality represent that very example. But here your argument is irrelevant to the discussion because you are attempting to drag this into a Carl Segan's Dragon argument as evidence. Unknowable's don't magically get a pass from having to abide by the rules of existence. That is desperate clinging to concepts that are obviously logical fallacies.

I never said God is unknowable, unseen, unrecognizable, invisible...I've not made any claims to you yet other than to say that God has made Himself known through what the Bible says He is.  If He is God and the Bible is inspired by Him, then He has given enough of His characteristics to know and believe.  If He didn't, Christianity wouldn't be so big of an idea.

Quote from: "TheJackal"Incorrect. An expert would know what it says and know exactly the contextual meaning behind every word as exactly as it was intended. There are no experts on the bible sir, and that is why you have so many divisions, opinions, and assertions.

Would that, then, also be true of the world of science?

Quote from: "TheJackal"You are not fooling me here if that is your intent, I can literally list and even quote all kinds of different interpretations. For example that there is more than one interpretation of Genesis. And I don't think you want to go down that road with me, you won't like it. That is not an argument you are going to win here

I didn't realize I was trying to fool you into thinking there is only one interpretation to the Bible.  Who's arguing that point?  

Quote from: "TheJackal"I see you have failed to grasp the very concept and resort of clinging to fantasy and circular arguments in order not to actually address the argument. Saying something is simply unexplainable is nothing more than a cop-out as a means to just assume. Again, Carl Segan arguments are not arguments, they are logical fallacies that prove on has no base to argue with. It's the assuming of literal impossibilities as magically possible... This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy, nor does it have to do with if we can see it or not since I don't claim it's existence until it is proven to exist. My argument above was very specific, and you are doing a pretty good job ad trying to avoid it.

I haven't avoided anything.  I asked if a definition of God is as acceptable as your best definition of a family member.  You said, no.
Ok then, moving on.  

Quote from: "TheJackal"BTW, the separation of all conscious entities as individuals makes all entities finite. There is no such thing as an infinite being even if you tried to claim solipsism. So you again run into the argument that either everything is GOD or nothing is GOD. You can't have your cake and eat it too here.

A definition of God, again to you, is unacceptable so why would I try and answer this.  As a past Christian, I suspect you already know the answer, but choose to invalidate it because it can't be proven.  Again, nor can black matter or black energy, yet science THINKS it's plausible and has even given them names.

Quote from: "KebertX""Who's logic?" Nonsense question. Contrary to popular belief, logic is black and white.  It's a very specific school of thought.  And there aren't multiple versions of logic.  It's not my logic vs. your logic.  Our species doesn't have it's own logic.  There is only logic.  We didn't make it up, we discovered what rules an argument should follow in order for it to make sense.

You. Are. WRONG.  You can't escape logic.  If God doesn't make sense, it's indicative of God not existing, not sense being tainted.  Look at reality.  And deal with it.

Ok.  I'm wrong.  Thanks KebertX.

QuoteWithout proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Pleading argument number 1.. And if this is your argument, you have already lost this discussion. You do not comprehend that you are dealing with someone who understands how circular manipulative arguments are used.  If you can't grasp the fact you can not define GOD because it's sheer opinion regardless of existence of said entity then you really can't grasp why you failed here today in every respect. I'll take this argument of yours as a yes, you can not define your supposed GOD to be even within 0% certainty or what exactly would make it a "GOD" since the definition of what defines a GOD is not defined what-so-ever. You may as well call me GOD at this juncture in this discussion.

QuoteTo that, I say, His definition exists in a collection of books.

Along with magical unicorns, pixie fairies, and thousand of other supposed fairytale constructs written in txt. And the bible does not specifically define "GOD". In fact I can get more information on Unicorns than you could ever on your supposed contextualized deity. And all of that is irrelevant because this of course is a game of avoidance after all.

QuoteSo from what you're saying here is that there is less evidence for your mother's existence than that of the God in a collection of books around (some) for thousands of years.

Incorrect. And again you are pleading for ignorance with circular arguments as if uncertainty value in regards to uncertainty principle would magically give you weight in your argument as if it were evidence and proof of a magical sky fairy to which you seem unable to define, validate, or even demonstrate at the most basic levels. If you can't address arguments without circular psychological manipulative tactics, you clearly can't handle this argument.

QuoteDid you say a color-blind person?  So is the truck red or is it green?  Technically it isn't a certain color, it reflects a portion of the spectrum of light.  For a person that sees "normal"...unless you're going to argue that normal vision is flawed vision...the truck is red.

Really please try grasping a concept before you go into technical details of light refraction.. Some animals can not even see color, and this does not make them flawed in vision. Here again you fail at your own certainty argument. Normal vision is only based on statistical value, and common/current physiological structure of the average eyesight of the human species. The human eye is actually in nature standards is very poor in comparison to other animals like Bald Eagles, cats, or Owls ect.. Also, many factors can change the color of the truck to which includes atmospheric conditions, and light propagation through different mediums. However the argument had nothing to do specifically in regards to electromagnetic wavelengths or frequencies of light, it had to do with the subjective matter of opinion based on individual perception and interpretation! Either stick to the subject matter or really cease to argue in circular nonsensical arguments that deflect away from what is being discussed.

QuoteWho is right and who is wrong?  Well, the one with normal vision is more right than the color-blind person.

Incorrect, colors of objects are dependent on light propagation. Hence under different kind of star and atmosphere, a red truck on Earth may no longer reflect the red wavelength and frequency.. It's like how much does a Rock weigh? On Earth it weighs this much on the equator, but weighs 3% more at the poles while being weightless in the vacuum of space. I don't think you really grasp the problems with your illogical arguments, and I say this constructively and not as an intended insult in hopes you will engage in more honest discourse..

QuoteYet a definition exists in the harmonizing of a collection of books

Yep, just like in so many books that also don't include your definition of GOD.. GJ, you have just proven your argument irrelevant. You have yet to define GOD in any real tangible sense that would even remotely make it factual. Again you don't grasp why such titles are nothing more than opinion and are thus moot to the point of irrelevance.

QuoteI have made no attempt as of yet to define God.

Then you can make no such attempt to suggest one can or would exist. You may as well be arguing for magical tooth fairies. Maybe the bible popup books will give this supposed GOD more dimension?  

QuoteIt's all I have to go on.

That's exactly the point. The vagueness of the concept of a god allows by virtue for anything to be GOD. That includes me, the dirt I walk on, you, ants, birds, bees, or the sum total of existence itself. It's color is green, red, blue, yellow..It's definition is so subject to opinion that either all things are GODS or there are no GODS.

QuoteMuch like your definition of a family member would be just as subjective and pleading even with the person standing in front of you as you make your definition known.

Incorrect

QuoteIt is funny especially since the color can be known.  It is not subjective.  A color-blind person is seeing it as green, but when the scientific value is thrown in, the truck is red (or reflects red) is now objective and true.  Who then is wrong and were they only wrong after science concluded it was red?

Incorrect.

QuoteI never said God is unknowable, unseen, unrecognizable, invisible...I've not made any claims to you yet other than to say that God has made Himself known through what the Bible says He is.  If He is God and the Bible is inspired by Him, then He has given enough of His characteristics to know and believe.  If He didn't, Christianity wouldn't be so big of an idea.

I suggest you go back and read your arguments. They completely suggested from a Carl Segan position. The concept is not whether or not something is visible, or even perceivable. It's whether or not it's actually real, plausible, or even possible as a fact without opinion that nullifies it. Since no possible clear definition can be given, there is nothing plausible about the conceptual notions of a GOD. Especially true when theists start babbling about creationism or impossible powers of ability like omnipotence, infinity, boundless, non-material, outside of existence ect.

QuoteWould that, then, also be true of the world of science?

Most scientists understand their work and the context of their work. That is an expert in the field of study, and they don't ever proclaim 100% certainties accept for in the cases of the obvious (some of which I have already gone over with you). The world of science actually seeks to prove itself wrong, and that intellectually makes it more honest. It's not faith based without question because it demands as much proof it can acquire to make things more certain than they already are. So 2+2=4 is a scientific basis of argument where context is clear without being vague to the point of sheer opinion and individual interpretation of the facts within honest discourse.

QuoteI haven't avoided anything.  I asked if a definition of God is as acceptable as your best definition of a family member.  You said, no.
Ok then, moving on.

Actually you did, and still are.. So let's recap what this reply was to:

QuoteSo here is a fun exercise:

Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

Please try again.
 

QuoteA definition of God, again to you, is unacceptable so why would I try and answer this.  As a past Christian, I suspect you already know the answer, but choose to invalidate it because it can't be proven.  Again, nor can black matter or black energy, yet science THINKS it's plausible and has even given them names.

Eh? The plausibility of higher entities than the human race was never the argument.. Gods are what I am expecting you to prove, especially when it's so vaguely undefinable and open to opinions. It's a moving goal post, and I don't think you understand that. My arguments show creationism to be false, and GODs to be subject of pure opinion and nothing more. Minds can't create reality, and any mind that has the power to manipulate reality is nothing more than another entity. Hence, ants, birds, people can all manipulate reality. And there is no entity that is not bound to the rules of existence. Entities can not create the rules, they can only use and manipulate them in a strict and limited fashion because they are equally bound to them. Technically there is no difference between a man building cities and cultivations of man made life forms than some entity in another universe building a star system (as an example). Power and ability is subjective and irrelevant. All powers, entities, objects, or things higher than point zero (ground state)are irrelevant to existence as a whole because they are merely products of existence and reliant on complexities greater than ground state. Thus the goal post can be moved via opinion, expectations, and requirements to any level one could desire when it comes to calling something a "GOD"..  Gods are thus logical fallacies.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWithout proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Pleading argument number 1.. And if this is your argument, you have already lost this discussion.

So which is it, an argument or a discussion?  Did you want a definition or an absolute?  If the latter, then I lost.

Is the truck red or what color is it.  Are you asking (I assumed) what color it is in plain light, sunlight or were you always ready to throw the, "well, it's not red in the dark, or under ultraviolet light...to a bald eagle...to a mouse...in space, on Mars..." argument?  Talk about circular.

QuoteIf the latter, then I lost.

You are indeed completely lost and clueless.. I would say this plane flew well over your head son. In fact the best argument you have even managed to make is the common circular argument, and I think you don't even comprehend this. When you can comprehend the arguments, or engage without circular arguments, avoidance, and deflection, you may just make yourself relevant and worth having this discussion/argument with. There is nothing worse than intentional stupidity, or ignorance as a position within an argument or discussion (which btw this is little of both).  :shake:

Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

I'm growing suspicious of your flattery.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

I'm growing suspicious of your flattery.

Don't be suspicious.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

I'm growing suspicious of your flattery.

Don't be suspicious.

I'm suspicious of your statement telling Sophus not to be suspicious.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

Actually, circular chit-chat just makes you out to be an ass, and you should think about that when you engage people in discussions or arguments. It's a very poor form of discourse, especially when it's done by intention. These types of things are typically used as deflections, avoidance tools, change of subject, or a very poor attempt to flip the argument around as if it were relevant when it clearly isn't. And that is why you failed completely here. I know how that game is played, and I used to use those kinds of tactics and arguments all the time as a Christian. This kind of crap had been engraved and taught to me since I was a child. Well up till the point where I read a few books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming to where I took a few steps back to actually observe my life and religion. I did that with not only my religion, but just about everything from general advertisements, to News Media, propaganda, and politics. If you read my post on "Religious Brainwashing: How it's done", you will quickly learn where I stand, and why.

Now when it comes to winning debates with logic, reason, rationality, or if applicable science, that is how real honest debates are won. That is how you engage people. If you can't do that, you become worthless intellectually within a debate, argument, or discussion. Sadly many theists simply don't care about that since it is all about defense their religious ideological constructs at all costs. This is even if it means being intellectually dishonest. So if you don't want to get into arguments where you feel you are in a defensive position in regards to your beliefs or faith, don't come to forums such as this one and engage in discussions that will obviously result in doing so. It's like the first thing that goes out the window when engaging some theists is honest discourse.

Jackel, perhaps I am wrong, but I thought AD was joking with us about the circular comment.

Quote from: "Whitney"Jackel, perhaps I am wrong, but I thought AD was joking with us about the circular comment.

I would have thought so or taken it as such if he hadn't actually used such arguments. :shake:

Quote from: "Baggy"I'm not sure atheists are generally any better educated or intelligent than people of faith. There are a lot of pretty clever 'believers' as well as a load of dumb ones! perhaps not quite so many poorly educated atheists?..not sure.

I wonder if in the process of trying to figure out whether there is a God many atheists tend to self-educate.  Many Christians who hold those more extreme views, on the other hand, being convinced of their views simply don't take the time to educate themselves.  Just a thought.  If so then there might be a growing number of atheists, born to atheist parents, who take 'no God' for granted and don't bother to educate themselves in the matter.  Anyone noticed this?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"... I've not actually met a "demon" Atheist in the sense of a person that actually hates any and all Christians or pokes fun at every turn.

I think I have encountered them, but they are few in number.  My approach is typically one of reasoned and friendly discussion though twice I've been compared to Satan in my use of beguiling words.  One woman thought my words reminded her of those spoken by the serpent in Genesis.  Others warned that I seemed under the influence of Satan or other demons.

Quote from: "Cycel"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"... I've not actually met a "demon" Atheist in the sense of a person that actually hates any and all Christians or pokes fun at every turn.

I think I have encountered them, but they are few in number.  My approach is typically one of reasoned and friendly discussion though twice I've been compared to Satan in my use of beguiling words.  One woman thought my words reminded her of those spoken by the serpent in Genesis.  Others warned that I seemed under the influence of Satan or other demons.

I would like to add that just because he meets some jerk that pokes fun or teases his beliefs system does not mean that it should be some kind of generalization of a group. Not all Christians or Atheists are jerks or people looking to play those social dogmatic games. Such games as equivocating people to Demons, evil, nuts, or fanatics.. And I do believe Cycel that you are talking about a taught system called "Christian Realism", as to where anything non-Christian is  demonic, evil, satanic, blasphemous, a child rapist, murderer ect. Not all Churches or religious people go around teaching this, but many theists learn this from more extreme groups online. It's those kinds of elements that make religion inherently open to extremism to where they become intent on theocracy, and become dangerous. There is a very good reason why I tell people that they need read books on the mechanics of brainwashing, and subliminal programming.

Quote from: "TheJackel"There is a very good reason why I tell people that they need read books on the mechanics of brainwashing, and subliminal programming.

Sounds like an interesting subject. Any recommendations?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "TheJackel"There is a very good reason why I tell people that they need read books on the mechanics of brainwashing, and subliminal programming.

Sounds like an interesting subject. Any recommendations?

Yes I do

http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashing-Scie ... 0192804960 (http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashing-Science-Thought-Kathleen-Taylor/dp/0192804960)

http://www.amazon.com/Combatting-Cult-M ... pd_sim_b_5 (http://www.amazon.com/Combatting-Cult-Mind-Control-Best-selling/dp/0892813113/ref=pd_sim_b_5)

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Programming- ... pd_sim_b_2 (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Programming-Persuasion-Brainwashing-Metaphysics/dp/1401923321/ref=pd_sim_b_2)

And do realize that these kinds of books not only help you recognize and evaluate such things in religion, but they help you really understand things used in advertising, propaganda, politics, and even in general. The books above are amongst my favorites and they do a pretty good job of explaining many aspects of brainwashing and subliminal programming.

And I am about to read this:
http://www.shrink4men.com/2010/11/02/pa ... inwashing/ (http://www.shrink4men.com/2010/11/02/parental-alienation-programming-and-brainwashing/)

And here is my own little article on the subject:

http://www.atheistforums.com/religious- ... 21322.html (http://www.atheistforums.com/religious-brainwashing-how-it-s-done-t21322.html)