This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
So the guy created every plant and animal on earth, and all its cells and each cell's atoms, and all the planets in our solar system and all the solar systems in our galaxy and all the galaxies in the universe and the universe itself...he's omnipotent and omnipresent, he actually exists in our thoughts and in everybody's thoughts at the same time...and yet he can't spare 2 minutes to pop in and say hi?
Seems pretty fishy to me.
I think the message is really "Thou shalt not question authority".
In an alpha-male dominated society, that is how it goes.
If you were to invent a religion, these are some of the bare essentials that you would include
God is all powerful (do not bother resisting)
God is love (trust your god, he wants the best for you)
God is omnipresent (God knows everything, you can't hide, not even your thoughts)
Mankind has fallen from grace (You are not worthy, you must repent, you must prove yourself)
You must have faith (don't look for any proof, you wont find it. Faith is proof that you are worthy of god, If you look for proof you are failing)
Non believers go to hell for eternal torment (you must join the exclusive club, otherwise face unimaginable pain for all eternity)
God loves you and wants to be reunited with you (Guilt trip, it is your fault, it is you that must take action, your loving god awaits)
+ a whole bunch of stories that are just filler material in order to make the book seem substantial, otherwise people might laugh at a one paragraph religion. (maybe grab stories from other religions if you are running out of ideas)
Basically it sets up an exclusive group where you must comply, it gives fear of non compliance, it degrades and abuses the mind of the audience until they desire a dependent relationship with the religion in order to build them up again, but with god injected into their new self worth.
Next, sell this idea to the governing bodies, tell them that they can put some morals into the book and control people with less force.
Next start burning everyone who doesn't believe. Make up a name for it, maybe Heretic and then create a mantra "burn the heretic!"
Why Asmos have a natural immunity:
Quote from: Stevil on January 25, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
God is all powerful (do not bother resisting)
Infinity is infinite, but one can increase it or decrease it. First, get even more infinite powers, then kick god's ass.
QuoteGod is love (trust your god, he wants the best for you)
...And The Asmo is the resulting divorse rates.
QuoteGod is omnipresent (God knows everything, you can't hide, not even your thoughts)
Because of 1, The Asmo doesn't care
QuoteMankind has fallen from grace (You are not worthy, you must repent, you must prove yourself)
The Asmo is content with not being worthy in nearly every eye save for The Asmo's.
QuoteYou must have faith (don't look for any proof, you wont find it. Faith is proof that you are worthy of god, If you look for proof you are failing)
The Asmo regards failure as an integral part of progress.
QuoteNon believers go to hell for eternal torment (you must join the exclusive club, otherwise face unimaginable pain for all eternity)
The Asmo will be the torturer.
QuoteGod loves you and wants to be reunited with you (Guilt trip, it is your fault, it is you that must take action, your loving god awaits)
The Asmo doesn't love it and does not want to be reunited with it. Third party feelings towards The Asmo are meaningless unless The Asmo gives a shit about that third party.
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AMSeems pretty fishy to me.
Ye but everybody else is buying it. It must be OK.
The very simple thing that God should realize, if He really thought about it, is how much we don't like to be tested in certain ways. There are some tests that are useful and qualifying, but there are others that are degrading. I suppose God would complain that trying to test him would be degrading to his dignity or something.
I just wish he would remember that, when it comes to the prospect of him testing us. If he doesn't like it, why would he think that we would? As if he doesn't think we've got enough to put up with here on Earth, then he wants to play games. Great sense of perspective, God. ::)
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
Which always made me wonder about the story of Doubting Thomas. I know the moral is supposed to that doubting is wrong but look at what happens -- he doubts, as any reasonable person would, and he's given proof! A very sensible solution to a reasonable problem. If one person can be excused from having faith, from believing without proof, then what's the big deal for the rest of us?
Quote from: Tristan Jay on January 25, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
The very simple thing that God should realize, if He really thought about it, is how much we don't like to be tested in certain ways.
God doesn't like the golden rule, it is no fun.
Absolute power corrupts and the god is supposedly all powerful.
"Thou shalt not test the Lord"? Oh, yes thou shalt!
in the ancient text "pisteve kai min erevna" meaning "believe and do not investigate"
is as ambiguous as it needs be.
about the lord, it's not only fishy, it's stinking and a reason to investigate. What did apostle thomas do? I want to poke the holes myself, see the rotting corpse rise before my eyes. Hearsay is for donkeybrains.
about the utility of believing, however, it is not that bad. Given that in situations were reason can have an effect, believing is redundant, and in the few occasions when believing is a painkiller, investigative reasoning easily cancels unsubstantiated blind faith. So in order to savour the benefits of self-hypnosis one should not wake up.
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AMThis has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
One of the things that bothered me, was that two lessons from the bible are contradictory: "Believe without question" and "thou shalt have no other gods before me."
It seems that if you follow one, you can't make sure you're following the other. In order to make sure one is not worshiping the wrong god, one would need to run a few tests. And if one just believes without questioning or testing, then one is only saved if the first god they believed in without testing was the correct one.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 25, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
Which always made me wonder about the story of Doubting Thomas. I know the moral is supposed to that doubting is wrong but look at what happens -- he doubts, as any reasonable person would, and he's given proof! A very sensible solution to a reasonable problem. If one person can be excused from having faith, from believing without proof, then what's the big deal for the rest of us?
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
Sure!
Have done.
By now he will have to leave a message.
If he dares show up, many will want to shove the ball up his holy ___ss
Quote from: Stevil on January 25, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
If you were to invent a religion, these are some of the bare essentials that you would include...
Actually, if I were to create a religion it'd be pretty optional. "Hey, y'all, find your own path, ok? Be kind to one another, use your brain, and have some fun. Remember the 'be kind' part, but other than that, walk as you will.... Oh, and if you have any questions, I'll be over here smelling the roses, but remember to take it with a grain of salt ok? See 'find your own path' above."
... But then I'm not a power-hungry, power-over-others, patriarchal type.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubThomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
I did that back in '75. Still waiting on him. Far as I'm concerned, the test failed.
Quote from: Gawen on January 30, 2012, 08:15:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubThomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
I did that back in '75. Still waiting on him. Far as I'm concerned, the test failed.
As long as a person has an open heart and mind, and the inquiry is sincere, that's about all that can be expected, I would think.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 08:38:02 PM
Quote from: Gawen on January 30, 2012, 08:15:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubThomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
I did that back in '75. Still waiting on him. Far as I'm concerned, the test failed.
As long as a person has an open heart and mind, and the inquiry is sincere, that's about all that can be expected, I would think.
Well, at that time (1975), you cannot today disparage my sincerity or impugn my honour. Of course, I'm not saying you are, but you not being there and now relying on my testimonial of previous events, it's all you have to go on. There are a few conclusions to this:
God exists but did not hear me.
God exists, heard me, refused to answer.
God exists, heard me to let me remain an atheist.
God does not exist.
I prefer the last for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Gawen on January 30, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
God exists, heard me to let me remain an atheist.
I kind of like this one too. It seems to me
if a god exists,
and it's a personal god and not just a force of nature or the collected physical laws of the universe,
and it's intelligent and has cosmic plans,
and is in charge of everything, then it seems doubt must be part of its plan and doubters are doing its work. Like that quote I see so often: god made me an atheist, how dare you question his will?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 07:04:23 PM
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
But that's just the point -- if that sort of thing actually happened wouldn't it pretty much eliminate ex-Xtian atheists? I wouldn't be surprised if most or all of us in that group (and it's probably the majority of atheists) took that step as it is the most obvious one and found it was not a matter of "ask and ye shall receive". Doubting Thomas remains a unique case, at least outside of insane asylums, and most likely a myth.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 08:38:02 PM
As long as a person has an open heart and mind, and the inquiry is sincere, that's about all that can be expected, I would think.
That's a cheap out, tho, isn't it Bruce? "Do this, it works", "I did, it didn't", "Then you didn't do it right or enough or while standing on one foot." Ignoring the possibility of "it doesn't work" is a little too easy.
Me, I can't remember ever having asked god, Jesus or even FSM for anything, except when mocking religion... Aside from the obvious, because there's nothing I really need that I can not get myself.
Quote from: Gawen on January 30, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 08:38:02 PM
Quote from: Gawen on January 30, 2012, 08:15:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubThomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
I did that back in '75. Still waiting on him. Far as I'm concerned, the test failed.
As long as a person has an open heart and mind, and the inquiry is sincere, that's about all that can be expected, I would think.
Well, at that time (1975), you cannot today disparage my sincerity or impugn my honour. Of course, I'm not saying you are, but you not being there and now relying on my testimonial of previous events, it's all you have to go on. There are a few conclusions to this:
God exists but did not hear me.
God exists, heard me, refused to answer.
God exists, heard me to let me remain an atheist.
God does not exist.
I prefer the last for obvious reasons.
For purposes of consistency, I do not reject anyone's personal testimony of what happened to him/her, unless there are weighty factors that demand rejection. I find none of those in your case, so I accept your personal testimony of your experience. Your experience is that God did not respond to you, and your conclusion is that he does not exist. My experience is that he did respond to me, and that he does exist. It all comes down to personal, subjective experience. Of course, we are both still alive, so the final chapter has not been written. Who knows - maybe you will become a theist or I will become an atheist. If God did respond to you now, I would suspect that you would be so overwhelmed that you would become a believer. But that's just my speculation.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 31, 2012, 02:32:34 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 08:38:02 PM
As long as a person has an open heart and mind, and the inquiry is sincere, that's about all that can be expected, I would think.
That's a cheap out, tho, isn't it Bruce? "Do this, it works", "I did, it didn't", "Then you didn't do it right or enough or while standing on one foot." Ignoring the possibility of "it doesn't work" is a little too easy.
I accept the possibility that it doesn't work. I only have my personal experience to go on. My point is that if someone like Gawen has opened up to the possibility, and nothing happened, there's really nothing else that can be expected. The ball is in God's court. If that was his experience, I can't discount it.
I asked, and didn't get anything.
I mentioned this in a rather teasing way to Egor, but one of my very dear friends is a UU minister. She told me once that atheists are "God's thinking children" and defended me once to a rather crusading Christian who wanted to condemn me to hell. According to her, we (non-believers) are precious to god as well. I don't believe in god, but I do admit that what she said gives me some small comfort when I consider "What if?" I guess if there is a god, I hope that it is the god that my friend worships that loves all of its/his/her children for their strengths.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 30, 2012, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 25, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
Which always made me wonder about the story of Doubting Thomas. I know the moral is supposed to that doubting is wrong but look at what happens -- he doubts, as any reasonable person would, and he's given proof! A very sensible solution to a reasonable problem. If one person can be excused from having faith, from believing without proof, then what's the big deal for the rest of us?
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court.
I've done this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILdBDOPoEDQ
I know this video has probably made the rounds before, but I'll post it again. Showing how "God" is really just a part of yourself, I think answers why so many people think that God speaks to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
So the guy created every plant and animal on earth, and all its cells and each cell's atoms, and all the planets in our solar system and all the solar systems in our galaxy and all the galaxies in the universe and the universe itself...he's omnipotent and omnipresent, he actually exists in our thoughts and in everybody's thoughts at the same time...and yet he can't spare 2 minutes to pop in and say hi?
Seems pretty fishy to me.
I could answer that, ... but I have to refer to the Bible, which I was warned time and again not to do by the moderators and others here.
Must be nice to ask God questions, make fun of Him and not let Him speak with that gentle voice from the Bible. And your a happy atheist with that?
Why? Because you guys KNOW the Bible has an answer to every question you throw at Him. Try me.. or lock me out of this forum...
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 03:15:40 AM
Must be nice to ask God questions, make fun of Him and not let Him speak with that gentle voice from the Bible. And your a happy atheist with that?
I personally am not an atheist, but I would have a lot more peace of mind if he didn't exist, or we were able to rid ourselves of him literally or metaphorically. However, neither myself or atheists don't think it's a big deal because we either don't believe he exists, or we think he can take it. If it's troubling to look at, why torture yourself; why seek out something that's going to cause you to suffer needlessly? Keep in mind, if God really is the way Christians describe him, He's a tough old boy and can take it. Also keep in mind that insults and mocking questions thrown at him are not things we expect yourself or Christians to answer; God needs to take responsibility for answering better, more conclusively, more effectively. It seems like it's an awful burden to take the weigh that He should be taking Himself.
And I have to answer now directly to the real reason I'm responding to your post: "The gentle voice of God." I have to contend this, because the Bible sure don't show Him to be gentle. Still, assuming He is smart and all knowing, then He would have known what credibility He might have jeopardized for some people when he ordered quite a respectable number of genocides, so He would have known every person in future generations who would have been disgusted by the notion that He has a gentle voice. He couldn't have shown some self-restraint (or just done it Himself and not said a thing about it)? The voice who played a dare and double-dare game with the Devil to prove some guy's loyalty to Him, by letting the Devil have his way with Job? Knowing that voice might do the same to me...I would not consider that a gentle voice.
The thought of Him loftily boasting of gentle and loving in a ways better than what humans are capable of causes me to feel nearly uncontrollable impulses of rage. Him, the concept of Him, is like an insult to humanity that makes me want to scream.
Maybe He should have shown a better example. Maybe there's opportunity still for Him to get his act together, and show us a truly gentle and loving voice that doesn't have violence and the threat of violence behind all He says. Many people on this planet who are just living out their lives well are making Him look bad without effort. He's only embarrassing Himself. Rejection and mockery of Him is not rejection and mockery of
you; don't take it personally.
And now, I'm off to read works derived from teachings of the gentle voice of Buddha. It helps me cope. :)
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 02, 2012, 04:59:53 AM
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 03:15:40 AM
Must be nice to ask God questions, make fun of Him and not let Him speak with that gentle voice from the Bible. And your a happy atheist with that?
I personally am not an atheist, but I would have a lot more peace of mind if he didn't exist, or we were able to rid ourselves of him literally or metaphorically. However, neither myself or atheists don't think it's a big deal because we either don't believe he exists, or we think he can take it. If it's troubling to look at, why torture yourself; why seek out something that's going to cause you to suffer needlessly? Keep in mind, if God really is the way Christians describe him, He's a tough old boy and can take it. Also keep in mind that insults and mocking questions thrown at him are not things we expect yourself or Christians to answer; God needs to take responsibility for answering better, more conclusively, more effectively. It seems like it's an awful burden to take the weigh that He should be taking Himself.
And I have to answer now directly to the real reason I'm responding to your post: "The gentle voice of God." I have to contend this, because the Bible sure don't show Him to be gentle. Still, assuming He is smart and all knowing, then He would have known what credibility He might have jeopardized for some people when he ordered quite a respectable number of genocides, so He would have known every person in future generations who would have been disgusted by the notion that He has a gentle voice. He couldn't have shown some self-restraint (or just done it Himself and not said a thing about it)? The voice who played a dare and double-dare game with the Devil to prove some guy's loyalty to Him, by letting the Devil have his way with Job? Knowing that voice might do the same to me...I would not consider that a gentle voice.
The thought of Him loftily boasting of gentle and loving in a ways better than what humans are capable of causes me to feel nearly uncontrollable impulses of rage. Him, the concept of Him, is like an insult to humanity that makes me want to scream.
Maybe He should have shown a better example. Maybe there's opportunity still for Him to get his act together, and show us a truly gentle and loving voice that doesn't have violence and the threat of violence behind all He says. Many people on this planet who are just living out their lives well are making Him look bad without effort. He's only embarrassing Himself. Rejection and mockery of Him is not rejection and mockery of you; don't take it personally.
And now, I'm off to read works derived from teachings of the gentle voice of Buddha. It helps me cope. :)
Hello Tristan Jay, a pleasure to meet you.
Everything you said makes sense, and as I see how you understand our Creator through the theistic religions and their gods, I don't blame you at all. I have gone through the mire myself, so many questions seemed to be unanswered.
But think about this for a second, what if you bought something at Sears, and it turned out to be everything you didn't want or expected, and then you went to a Circle K and started to bitch out the poor Indian owner behing the counter, you'd let all your frustrations out on him, throw the merchandise on the floor and leave?
This is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off.
I have the answer to your frustrations, .. that is if you are truly willing to hear me out?
And yes, there are a lot of feel-good things in Budhaism too, if you like that druggy feeling... LOL. Todays Christianity offers that same drug, an artificial feel-good ministry with a smile as fake as Jan Crouches hair on TBN.
If you're willing to listen, I will start tomorrow, and remember I give you no handycap, you may use any source from science to the rat infested temples of India, to YouTube videos depicting how God is torturing those starving children in Africa.
I will be happy to answer your present post tomorrow, .. fare enough?
Thank you for the opportunity, and take care my friend.
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 03:15:40 AM
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
So the guy created every plant and animal on earth, and all its cells and each cell's atoms, and all the planets in our solar system and all the solar systems in our galaxy and all the galaxies in the universe and the universe itself...he's omnipotent and omnipresent, he actually exists in our thoughts and in everybody's thoughts at the same time...and yet he can't spare 2 minutes to pop in and say hi?
Seems pretty fishy to me.
I could answer that, ... but I have to refer to the Bible, which I was warned time and again not to do by the moderators and others here.
Must be nice to ask God questions, make fun of Him and not let Him speak with that gentle voice from the Bible. And your a happy atheist with that?
Why? Because you guys KNOW the Bible has an answer to every question you throw at Him. Try me.. or lock me out of this forum...
I got one for you...
Why?
Your Sears/Circle K example (whatever a Circle K is...) is basically a rehashing of the Jesus /= Religion video that was popular last week, in that many people seem to think you can separate religion from God. But everything religion says, it does so because God said so. If you ask a person who opposes gay marriage, for instance, why they opposite, many (not all, but many) will say because The Bible says it's an abomination. Their theology is based off the word of God. You cannot separate theology from God. Theology IS God. The "Pagan Christian religion" base EVERYTHING off of what they believe God told them.
Your example would be valid if I took out my frustration with the Christians at a mosque.
To reuse your example, what you say is that the corporate office is great, but the franchise stores are the problem. But guess what, the franchise stores' policies are based on what their corporate office dictates of them.
Quote from: arianBut think about this for a second, what if you bought something at Sears, and it turned out to be everything you didn't want or expected, and then you went to a Circle K and started to bitch out the poor Indian owner behing the counter, you'd let all your frustrations out on him, throw the merchandise on the floor and leave?
I would find that rather rude, although I would understand the person's frustration.
QuoteThis is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off.
Nice of you to show us your arrogance and condescension. Have you no honor, that you could be so presumptive to speak for all atheists? To throw in the face those who do not believe in such foolishness as a creator or divine creation or Satan?
QuoteI have the answer to your frustrations, .. that is if you are truly willing to hear me out?
Nah, if you can say the things about people as you do in this post...
QuoteAnd yes, there are a lot of feel-good things in Budhaism too, if you like that druggy feeling... LOL.
Ah, so now you paint with a very large brush to attack Buddhist as well.
QuoteIf you're willing to listen...
I'm not. I would rather listen to Hitler talk to the farting preacher on the phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHvfNr25fQ&feature=related
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 05:54:37 AM
This is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off.
Do you really not see the logical fallacy of this statement? Atheists blaming their Creator?
Atheists don't believe in a creator. That is one of the core definitions of what it means to be an atheist. Why would we blame a creature we don't believe exists in the first place? ::)
(And no, we don't believe is Satan either.)
Quote from: Tristan Jay
works derived from teachings of the gentle voice of Buddha.
pupil Question: what must I do if I meet a Buddha?
master Answer: Kill him
Q: But why?
A: If you judge others you lose your way to become enlightened
Q:So i have to kill him
A: No you fucking idiot, the idea of him in your head
Quote from: arian
This is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off...
And yes, there are a lot of feel-good things in Budhaism too, if you like that druggy feeling... LOL. Todays Christianity offers that same drug, an artificial feel-good ministry with a smile as fake as Jan Crouches hair on TBN.
If you're willing to listen, I will start tomorrow, and remember I give you no handycap, you may use any source from science to the rat infested temples of India, to YouTube videos depicting how God is torturing those starving children in Africa.
take a megalomaniac, moderate-grown, toss some racism, mix.
Slice thinly a smattering judge, who concludes instintively from labels and covers, stir fry for 5 min.
Serve over freshly boiled paranoid delusion to an aromatic finish.
That's a recipe for dung, flower-growing and river-polluting.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court. For purposes of consistency, I do not reject anyone's personal testimony of what happened to him/her, unless there are weighty factors that demand rejection. I find none of those in your case...
Dear, you miss one little detail with the thomas story
They_Saw_Thomas_Putting his hand IN.
direct experience is a little more substantial than either personal experience/revelation/dream or, indeed, carefully manipulated and added upon hearsay.
Humans Work With Corroboration And Correspondance. Not only I want to put my finger in, but with
I N D E P E N D E N T WITNESSES' AFFIRMATORY PRESENCE and coverage.
If something like that happened all would believe it, and those believing in a previous "mental version" example would run into trouble.
So, pack the balls and scrap the court, a bluff is just a bluff and the stakes are high in the world domination poker.
Quote from: pytheas on February 02, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court. For purposes of consistency, I do not reject anyone's personal testimony of what happened to him/her, unless there are weighty factors that demand rejection. I find none of those in your case...
Dear, you miss one little detail with the thomas story
They_Saw_Thomas_Putting his hand IN.
The text just says that Jesus offered Thomas the chance to insert his finger/hand. It doesn't actually say that he did it. Still, even with direct sensory perception, some faith was required that he was not hallucinating or dreaming. Granted, the leap of faith that Thomas and the other apostles had to take was much shorter than the one a modern believer has to take, given that they saw the resurrected Christ. But to believe something that extrordinary takes some faith even when you see it with your own eyes. The modern believer, having the testimony of the apostles and his/her own personal revelatory experiences, has to feel comfortable with the size of the chasm before taking the leap. The stronger the experience, the narrower the chasm seems.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Quote from: pytheas on February 02, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
They_Saw_Thomas_Putting his hand IN.
The text just says that Jesus offered Thomas the chance to insert his finger/hand. It doesn't actually say that he did it.
Sorry to disagree but i remeber things i don't actually want to, from my primary school catehism.
I remember asking and receiving the answer that yes the apostles witnessed thomas putting his hand in the hole and touching the chest wound, and that's why apiste thoma! was exclaimed, not because he asked but because he did it and fell to the ground with disgrace afterwards.
I long for such an exuberant exhilarating "disgrace" i find humbleness in that type of yielding. the objective overpowering one, like the one with a telescope at night, or ayahuasca injestion in a safe refuge
Quote from: pytheas on February 02, 2012, 05:18:10 PM
pupil Question: what must I do if I meet a Buddha?
master Answer: Kill him
Q: But why?
A: If you judge others you lose your way to become enlightened
Q:So i have to kill him
A: No you fucking idiot, the idea of him in your head
I can't deny that I'm not entirely rational, I'm sure I've had my moments where I am less than coherent here. :) This went just a little bit over my head, I confess... :feeling dense:
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 02, 2012, 09:54:31 PMI can't deny that I'm not entirely rational, I'm sure I've had my moments where I am less than coherent here. :)
I can't think of a single person this is not true for.
Quote from: TristanThis went just a little bit over my head, I confess... :feeling dense:
Mine too, if that makes you feel any better. It makes even less sense to me as a repy to what you said. Buddha seems to be the only link.
Quote from: Davin on February 02, 2012, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: TristanThis went just a little bit over my head, I confess... :feeling dense:
Mine too, if that makes you feel any better.
It does, thank you. :)
Hopefully not too off topic here: But my dad really hates catholics , which I find hilarious. He says he doesnt understand people who need a physical statues to pray to. People of real.faith pray to the unseen.
I had to bite my tongue, hard. This was a phone convo today. I really hate him calling. I tell him to text instead.
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 05:54:37 AM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 02, 2012, 04:59:53 AM
Quote from: arian on February 02, 2012, 03:15:40 AM
Must be nice to ask God questions, make fun of Him and not let Him speak with that gentle voice from the Bible. And your a happy atheist with that?
I personally am not an atheist, but I would have a lot more peace of mind if he didn't exist, or we were able to rid ourselves of him literally or metaphorically. However, neither myself or atheists don't think it's a big deal because we either don't believe he exists, or we think he can take it. If it's troubling to look at, why torture yourself; why seek out something that's going to cause you to suffer needlessly? Keep in mind, if God really is the way Christians describe him, He's a tough old boy and can take it. Also keep in mind that insults and mocking questions thrown at him are not things we expect yourself or Christians to answer; God needs to take responsibility for answering better, more conclusively, more effectively. It seems like it's an awful burden to take the weigh that He should be taking Himself.
And I have to answer now directly to the real reason I'm responding to your post: "The gentle voice of God." I have to contend this, because the Bible sure don't show Him to be gentle. Still, assuming He is smart and all knowing, then He would have known what credibility He might have jeopardized for some people when he ordered quite a respectable number of genocides, so He would have known every person in future generations who would have been disgusted by the notion that He has a gentle voice. He couldn't have shown some self-restraint (or just done it Himself and not said a thing about it)? The voice who played a dare and double-dare game with the Devil to prove some guy's loyalty to Him, by letting the Devil have his way with Job? Knowing that voice might do the same to me...I would not consider that a gentle voice.
The thought of Him loftily boasting of gentle and loving in a ways better than what humans are capable of causes me to feel nearly uncontrollable impulses of rage. Him, the concept of Him, is like an insult to humanity that makes me want to scream.
Maybe He should have shown a better example. Maybe there's opportunity still for Him to get his act together, and show us a truly gentle and loving voice that doesn't have violence and the threat of violence behind all He says. Many people on this planet who are just living out their lives well are making Him look bad without effort. He's only embarrassing Himself. Rejection and mockery of Him is not rejection and mockery of you; don't take it personally.
And now, I'm off to read works derived from teachings of the gentle voice of Buddha. It helps me cope. :)
Hello Tristan Jay, a pleasure to meet you.
Everything you said makes sense, and as I see how you understand our Creator through the theistic religions and their gods, I don't blame you at all. I have gone through the mire myself, so many questions seemed to be unanswered.
But think about this for a second, what if you bought something at Sears, and it turned out to be everything you didn't want or expected, and then you went to a Circle K and started to bitch out the poor Indian owner behing the counter, you'd let all your frustrations out on him, throw the merchandise on the floor and leave?
This is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off.
I have the answer to your frustrations, .. that is if you are truly willing to hear me out?
And yes, there are a lot of feel-good things in Budhaism too, if you like that druggy feeling... LOL. Todays Christianity offers that same drug, an artificial feel-good ministry with a smile as fake as Jan Crouches hair on TBN.
If you're willing to listen, I will start tomorrow, and remember I give you no handycap, you may use any source from science to the rat infested temples of India, to YouTube videos depicting how God is torturing those starving children in Africa.
I will be happy to answer your present post tomorrow, .. fare enough?
Thank you for the opportunity, and take care my friend.
Just to follow up, I wasn't sure if this was a busy day that prevented a more in depth exploration of the ideas I've mentioned in the post re-capped above. I'm always interested to hear what people have concluded about topics along the lines of the sort of things that I've brought up. Rather than delve any further, I'll let the subjects I've broached stand as a starting point, otherwise I risk losing myself in tangents, and I also risk getting myself worked up into a pointless frenzy of outrage.
If it's alright everyone else here then, please, share...
...unless people weigh in to say "no thank you" at which point just PM me what your perspective is on what I've tossed out. :)
Quote from: Gawen on February 02, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
Quote from: arianBut think about this for a second, what if you bought something at Sears, and it turned out to be everything you didn't want or expected, and then you went to a Circle K and started to bitch out the poor Indian owner behing the counter, you'd let all your frustrations out on him, throw the merchandise on the floor and leave?
I would find that rather rude, although I would understand the person's frustration.
QuoteThis is what's happening with the Atheists, they are blaming their Creator for something the Pagan Christian religions with their theistic gods have caused. Satan is laughing his but off.
Nice of you to show us your arrogance and condescension. Have you no honor, that you could be so presumptive to speak for all atheists? To throw in the face those who do not believe in such foolishness as a creator or divine creation or Satan?
QuoteI have the answer to your frustrations, .. that is if you are truly willing to hear me out?
Nah, if you can say the things about people as you do in this post...
QuoteAnd yes, there are a lot of feel-good things in Budhaism too, if you like that druggy feeling... LOL.
Ah, so now you paint with a very large brush to attack Buddhist as well.
QuoteIf you're willing to listen...
I'm not. I would rather listen to Hitler talk to the farting preacher on the phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHvfNr25fQ&feature=related
I get this strange feeling you guys don't like me? Naw... It's just probably me.
Attack, ... attack, ... Look who is attacking you hypocrite, since I have come on this forum I had nothing BUT attacks and threats, false accusations and my posts made fun of. I try to blend in, but only to be shunned or posts telling others to shun me.
I have and had atheist friends all my life, especially the dear departed one who helped me realize the hypocrisy in my Christian upbringing, and so I wanted to see if I could share this with other atheists, but not a chance. Like vultures stalking me, making mean and disrespectful and distorted comments to my posts, threats to use false accusations against me like Trolling as a means to force me off the Forum.
This is NOT atheism, atheists don't believe in god or gods, but it is very obvious that you guys know and understand who you hate, you make it very clear with your threats of me using Bible quotations. It is your God your Creator and it makes you feel uncomfortable to even see Scripture verses, not alone someone revealing the truth in religion.
You all should take a long look at your religious forums and see the venom, the mockery flow unobstructed page after page, each one adding to the vendetta being played out.
Happy atheists, ... not likely, actually far from it. More like a den of warlocks and witches patting each other in the back, a dark cult. I seen how you chase people who are searching (as myself) off the forum, this proves you are very religious, and you get offended easy. You don't want your guilt to be seen, so you chase anyone with an honest intent, off the forum.
Read the description of an 'atheist', and then take a good look at your debates, especially the one regarding 'religion'. You KNOW who you hate, and no one can 'hate' someone who they 'don't know'.
No real 'atheist' would ever stay on this forum, you guys are way too religious, as I said, a cult.
I'll answer if I find any respectful responses to any of my posts, and after that I'm out of your hair (I know, .. yay!). I will leave you in the pit of darkness you have created for yourselves here. "Freethought", ... what a joke. I always wondered why Jesus pitied the wicked: "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do!"
Now I understand.
Acts 22:22-23
And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!" 23 Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air,
NKJV
*removed by author because it was off topic.
Jet-cooling time, folks. I believe any topic can be discussed respectfully even when perspectives are diametrically opposed. I hope you maintain my faith in that belief, if you'll pardon the pun.
And, yes, preaching is specifically forbidden on the Happy Atheist Forum, as the atheists and agnostics here have expressed no interest in attempted conversions. This is a place for community and discussion, not a group of atheists just waiting for the right Bible/Qur'an/Torah verse.
Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Did arian think I was being disingenuous? At the very least I had hope for a PM about the topics I was ranting about; for a moment I was wondering what arian's perspective was, I got the impression that there was acknowledgment that I had made some legitimate points/complaints about God, so I wondered what arian's perspective was (skeptically, yet still curious). ???
I feel very disappointed. That post seems very counterproductive. I would ask: does this often happen with atheists, the argument circles around to an important point that you wonder, "Is anyone ever going to offer a compelling answer," only to see another person teasing with the possibility of compelling thoughts whip around, rage and storm about being oppressed, demonize you, and totally disregard the important point? However, I've seen evidence that suggests a recurring pattern.
I noticed this with another poster on here who is too easy to spot out when they dance away from a key point in a discourse and cries out "Wolf!" instead. Frustrating conversations to watch unfold. :(
I thought my criticisms were not too rash.
Why is it that the trolls provoke arguments, then immediately play the victim card whenever someone responds to them with logic that contradicts them?
It seems that a lot of Christians (or I guess all religious people) don't seem to understand the difference between debate and hostility. Unless you agree with them 100% and immediately convert, then you're attacking them. So annoying...
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 04, 2012, 06:35:42 AM
Did arian think I was being disingenuous? At the very least I had hope for a PM about the topics I was ranting about; for a moment I was wondering what arian's perspective was, I got the impression that there was acknowledgment that I had made some legitimate points/complaints about God, so I wondered what arian's perspective was (skeptically, yet still curious). ???
I feel very disappointed. That post seems very counterproductive. I would ask: does this often happen with atheists, the argument circles around to an important point that you wonder, "Is anyone ever going to offer a compelling answer," only to see another person teasing with the possibility of compelling thoughts whip around, rage and storm about being oppressed, demonize you, and totally disregard the important point? However, I've seen evidence that suggests a recurring pattern.
I noticed this with another poster on here who is too easy to spot out when they dance away from a key point in a discourse and cries out "Wolf!" instead. Frustrating conversations to watch unfold. :(
There are a couple of poster here for whom this is standard operating procedure. My theory is that they are, due to the community they have been indoctrinated (cough, cough)...sorry, raised in (very sheltered) they are not used to the thought of someone who REALLY holds a different opinion. When they do encounter someone who throws everything they hold sacred under the bus, they panic in their heads and "fight-or-flight" kicks in. Obviously if we don't believe the same thing as them and say that, we MUST be attacking them personally.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 02, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 02, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Thomas was given sufficient proof for him - it was a personal revelation of and from Jesus. If you sincerely want a personal revelation from Jesus, ask him for it, just like Thomas did. Put the ball in his court. For purposes of consistency, I do not reject anyone's personal testimony of what happened to him/her, unless there are weighty factors that demand rejection. I find none of those in your case...
Dear, you miss one little detail with the thomas story
They_Saw_Thomas_Putting his hand IN.
The text just says that Jesus offered Thomas the chance to insert his finger/hand. It doesn't actually say that he did it. Still, even with direct sensory perception, some faith was required that he was not hallucinating or dreaming.
Do you really think faith was required here, with a bunch of people all seeing the exact same thing? That's not just a shorter chasm to be jumped, the faith required (if it is) is so vanishingly small as to be non-existant. The story of Doubting Thomas seems nothing more than a rather clumsy "believe because you're told to" morality tale.
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
So the guy created every plant and animal on earth, and all its cells and each cell's atoms, and all the planets in our solar system and all the solar systems in our galaxy and all the galaxies in the universe and the universe itself...he's omnipotent and omnipresent, he actually exists in our thoughts and in everybody's thoughts at the same time...and yet he can't spare 2 minutes to pop in and say hi?
Seems pretty fishy to me.
Yeah, it's really screwed up on the surface, but when you think about it it's brilliant. This is a fundamental principle that has probably kept religion, all religions alive. Serious consideration and scrutiny of one's religions beliefs would obviously leave tremendous doubt and undermine that religion. The concept that one's faith in god cannot be questioned turns the tables on any doubt. Instead of questioning what religion teachers, doubts are transferred to the individual. One may begin thinking, 'how can this be?' and end up thinking, 'what's wrong with me?'
Most religious people have doubts at one time or another and for the majority who remain faithful, the simple, "Who am I to question god?" answer seems to be enough to satisfy them.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 04, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 04, 2012, 06:35:42 AM
Did arian think I was being disingenuous? At the very least I had hope for a PM about the topics I was ranting about; for a moment I was wondering what arian's perspective was, I got the impression that there was acknowledgment that I had made some legitimate points/complaints about God, so I wondered what arian's perspective was (skeptically, yet still curious). ???
I feel very disappointed. That post seems very counterproductive. I would ask: does this often happen with atheists, the argument circles around to an important point that you wonder, "Is anyone ever going to offer a compelling answer," only to see another person teasing with the possibility of compelling thoughts whip around, rage and storm about being oppressed, demonize you, and totally disregard the important point? However, I've seen evidence that suggests a recurring pattern.
I noticed this with another poster on here who is too easy to spot out when they dance away from a key point in a discourse and cries out "Wolf!" instead. Frustrating conversations to watch unfold. :(
There are a couple of poster here for whom this is standard operating procedure. My theory is that they are, due to the community they have been indoctrinated (cough, cough)...sorry, raised in (very sheltered) they are not used to the thought of someone who REALLY holds a different opinion. When they do encounter someone who throws everything they hold sacred under the bus, they panic in their heads and "fight-or-flight" kicks in. Obviously if we don't believe the same thing as them and say that, we MUST be attacking them personally.
I don't 'flight' my friend, I was kicked off because of fear of what I have to say. I have never been on a forum that is as big of a cowards as I have seen here. "Look, he runs from the debate!" (now quickly, let's lock him out so we can gloat, and then we'll pat each other on the back, ... he, he, he..)
INDOCTRINATE
cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
If that doesn't fit the moderators on this forum, then I don't know what does?
Go ahead and kick me off again, or do you wan't me to quote a verse from the Bible first?
John 1:10-12
10 The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him. 11
He came to his own country, but his own people did not receive him. TEV
Nope, it's not that what you have to say is scary, it's because what you say doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: arian on February 23, 2012, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 04, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on February 04, 2012, 06:35:42 AM
Did arian think I was being disingenuous? At the very least I had hope for a PM about the topics I was ranting about; for a moment I was wondering what arian's perspective was, I got the impression that there was acknowledgment that I had made some legitimate points/complaints about God, so I wondered what arian's perspective was (skeptically, yet still curious). ???
I feel very disappointed. That post seems very counterproductive. I would ask: does this often happen with atheists, the argument circles around to an important point that you wonder, "Is anyone ever going to offer a compelling answer," only to see another person teasing with the possibility of compelling thoughts whip around, rage and storm about being oppressed, demonize you, and totally disregard the important point? However, I've seen evidence that suggests a recurring pattern.
I noticed this with another poster on here who is too easy to spot out when they dance away from a key point in a discourse and cries out "Wolf!" instead. Frustrating conversations to watch unfold. :(
There are a couple of poster here for whom this is standard operating procedure. My theory is that they are, due to the community they have been indoctrinated (cough, cough)...sorry, raised in (very sheltered) they are not used to the thought of someone who REALLY holds a different opinion. When they do encounter someone who throws everything they hold sacred under the bus, they panic in their heads and "fight-or-flight" kicks in. Obviously if we don't believe the same thing as them and say that, we MUST be attacking them personally.
I don't 'flight' my friend, I was kicked off because of fear of what I have to say. I have never been on a forum that is as big of a cowards as I have seen here. "Look, he runs from the debate!" (now quickly, let's lock him out so we can gloat, and then we'll pat each other on the back, ... he, he, he..)
INDOCTRINATE
cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
If that doesn't fit the moderators on this forum, then I don't know what does?
Go ahead and kick me off again, or do you wan't me to quote a verse from the Bible first?
John 1:10-12
10 The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to his own country, but his own people did not receive him.
TEV
Oh, lordy.
I just read through this whole thing. You claim the folks here aren't open-minded, so I'll try to avoid that by offering you two versions of this post, and you can choose whatever makes you feel better.
Version 1.0:
Arian, before you were suspended you said that you were leaving the forum anyway. But that was just a mistake, right? You weren't actually 'fleeing' the debate. You were leaving because the people here are afraid of what you have to say, right? Actually, you flee the debate every time you start preaching instead of rationally discussing. Oh, and complaining about being "made fun of" is possibly the most irritating version of playing the victim card to date. Whining will not get you pity, much less sympathy. Word to the (un)wise.
Version 2.0:
Wow, great points arian!
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2012, 09:01:45 PM
Nope, it's not that what you have to say is scary, it's because what you say doesn't make any sense.
A point well made. And might I add, Arian, that your continued chest thumping and victim playing is very offputting, and a detriment to the continuation of debate.
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2012, 09:01:45 PM
Nope, it's not that what you have to say is scary, it's because what you say doesn't make any sense.
I couldn't agree more. And as Arian likes quoting the Bible so much, Proverbs 26.11 sprung to my mind...
Oh wow, are we back to this again? That's good, I was just thinking about the marked lack of crazy on the internets lately.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 23, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
Nope, it's not that what you have to say is scary, it's because what you say doesn't make any sense.
I would simply say, being on the same side of belief and out of bias I suppose, that not everything that is brought forth as truth is always seen as such initially...nor may it ever. It may be that *you think this all without sense even if this God were to present Himself to *you. Lots of things make no sense. However HAF seems to think that it makes sense to have a "Religion" section where these nonsense things are discussed...or is it in place simply for the amusement of those that need nonsense amusement?
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2012, 09:01:45 PM
A point well made. And might I add, Arian, that your continued chest thumping and victim playing is very offputting, and a detriment to the continuation of debate.
What you see as chest-thumping is simply a person that is confident in his/her position. I can certainly agree that this be minimized (on both sides) The victim playing however is quite par for this course. It may be offputting, but it's not without substance.
I actually look forward to
Arian's attempt to answer the Atheist positions. I can't imagine he/she understands the amount of work it would be considering with it comes the hoards of individuals waiting to add their input and queries for proof of this and that before this or that...when all that cannot be processed by one individual in a timely manner, as was said, the chants of victory start. No one seems to think that at times the 'task' can be overwhelming. C'est la vie.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 09:46:42 PM
Oh wow, are we back to this again? That's good, I was just thinking about the marked lack of crazy on the internets lately.
Apparently it's down to 99%.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 23, 2012, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 23, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
Nope, it's not that what you have to say is scary, it's because what you say doesn't make any sense.
I would simply say, being on the same side of belief and out of bias I suppose, that not everything that is brought forth as truth is always seen as such initially...nor may it ever. It may be that *you think this all without sense even if this God were to present Himself to *you. Lots of things make no sense. However HAF seems to think that it makes sense to have a "Religion" section where these nonsense things are discussed...or is it in place simply for the amusement of those that need nonsense amusement?
So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: Davin on February 23, 2012, 09:01:45 PM
A point well made. And might I add, Arian, that your continued chest thumping and victim playing is very offputting, and a detriment to the continuation of debate.
What you see as chest-thumping is simply a person that is confident in his/her position. I can certainly agree that this be minimized (on both sides) The victim playing however is quite par for this course. It may be offputting, but it's not without substance.
I actually look forward to Arian's attempt to answer the Atheist positions. I can't imagine he/she understands the amount of work it would be considering with it comes the hoards of individuals waiting to add their input and queries for proof of this and that before this or that...when all that cannot be processed by one individual in a timely manner, as was said, the chants of victory start. No one seems to think that at times the 'task' can be overwhelming. C'est la vie.
You messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 02:43:00 PM
So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?
What I meant is that the majority of HAF probably thinks religion, probably more specific, Christianity, is nonsense yet not enough nonsense that it won't be discussed here. I don't recall
Arian stating he's an Atheist that believes in God or god. If he did, then I haven't read it or I didn't put much weight on the claim. My simply point is that belief in God makes no sense to *you, yet we're discussing it a lot. I'm not defending anything at this point here in this thread, however I'm interested in that
Arian seems to suggest he's willing to take all points *you have and discuss them. I'm interested in reading his responses. I'm unsure if he will survive because at every turn he's being attacked and not simply asked, "ok...here's one point I'd like for you to explain..." and let him do it. Maybe *you're not interested, but it seems one was and I'm also interested on his POV.
Quote from: DavinYou messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.
Here again is the argument that "the words mean exactly this and you can't change them!". Seems to me a person was banned for asking for clarification on exact words and their meanings...of course I'm sure the counter argument is "That's different". A person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more. Only certain people have the ability to decide when and where there is a difference in meaning or context and here it's the Atheist that decides this...or so it seems.
If he's speaking a different language, maybe we can learn what his language is, otherwise maybe *you don't want "in" on this conversation/discussion.
The only thing I'm "defending" here is I want to read
Arian's explanations.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 02:43:00 PM
So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?
What I meant is that the majority of HAF probably thinks religion, probably more specific, Christianity, is nonsense yet not enough nonsense that it won't be discussed here.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so why did you say this in response to my statement?
Quote from: AnimatedDirtI don't recall Arian stating he's an Atheist that believes in God or god. If he did, then I haven't read it or I didn't put much weight on the claim.
Here you go, arian's first post, My Lord, I'm an Atheist (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9222.msg149233#msg149233)
Quote from: AnimatedDirtMy simply point is that belief in God makes no sense to *you, yet we're discussing it a lot.
Why make such a random unrelated point?
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinYou messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.
Here again is the argument that "the words mean exactly this and you can't change them!".
No, I'm not making that argument at all, in the slightest, ever have or ever will.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtSeems to me a person was banned for asking for clarification on exact words and their meanings...of course I'm sure the counter argument is "That's different".
Then relook at the reason for the ban, it wasn't for that at all.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtA person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more.
Either cite where I've said anything like this, or retract your error.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtOnly certain people have the ability to decide when and where there is a difference in meaning or context and here it's the Atheist that decides this...or so it seems.
Who has proposed anything like this?
Quote from: AnimatedDirtIf he's speaking a different language, maybe we can learn what his language is[...]
We tried and we were just met with more and more confusion. Hence the real reason for the ban.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 02:43:00 PM
So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?
What I meant is that the majority of HAF probably thinks religion, probably more specific, Christianity, is nonsense yet not enough nonsense that it won't be discussed here. I don't recall Arian stating he's an Atheist that believes in God or god. If he did, then I haven't read it or I didn't put much weight on the claim. My simply point is that belief in God makes no sense to *you, yet we're discussing it a lot. I'm not defending anything at this point here in this thread, however I'm interested in that Arian seems to suggest he's willing to take all points *you have and discuss them. I'm interested in reading his responses. I'm unsure if he will survive because at every turn he's being attacked and not simply asked, "ok...here's one point I'd like for you to explain..." and let him do it. Maybe *you're not interested, but it seems one was and I'm also interested on his POV.
Quote from: DavinYou messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.
Here again is the argument that "the words mean exactly this and you can't change them!". Seems to me a person was banned for asking for clarification on exact words and their meanings...of course I'm sure the counter argument is "That's different". A person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more. Only certain people have the ability to decide when and where there is a difference in meaning or context and here it's the Atheist that decides this...or so it seems.
If he's speaking a different language, maybe we can learn what his language is, otherwise maybe *you don't want "in" on this conversation/discussion.
The only thing I'm "defending" here is I want to read Arian's explanations.
*shakes head* No. Words mean something. He was claiming to be an atheist who believes in god. We asked him to explain it multiple times (see this thread specifically, but on other threads as well) http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9225.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9225.0) and the only thing that we got from him was that his god is the Bible God not a Theist God (no idea what the difference is) and then lots of preaching and then ranting. I think many of us tried to be patient with him at first and get a better idea of what he was trying to say, but at the end of the day it really does just seem that he was using the word incorrectly and refusing to listen to anyone else about what it actually means.
It's like if I went to a Christian website and said "I'm a Christian! Totally! I don't believe in god, or the bible, or that Jesus ever existed or that the teachings of Jesus have any value in anyone's life, but I'm a Christian, and ps, I know better than the rest of you so-called Christians what it means to be a Christian." Yeah, I'm sure people would have infinite patience with that.
Quote from: Ali on February 24, 2012, 07:49:24 PM
It's like if I went to a Christian website and said "I'm a Christian! Totally! I don't believe in god, or the bible, or that Jesus ever existed or that the teachings of Jesus have any value in anyone's life, but I'm a Christian, and ps, I know better than the rest of you so-called Christians what it means to be a Christian." Yeah, I'm sure people would have infinite patience with that.
Actually a very good explenation of the incident. Wish I had thought of it.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 07:53:57 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 24, 2012, 07:49:24 PM
It's like if I went to a Christian website and said "I'm a Christian! Totally! I don't believe in god, or the bible, or that Jesus ever existed or that the teachings of Jesus have any value in anyone's life, but I'm a Christian, and ps, I know better than the rest of you so-called Christians what it means to be a Christian." Yeah, I'm sure people would have infinite patience with that.
Actually a very good explenation of the incident. Wish I had thought of it.
Yep. That's pretty much what happened.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 07:46:55 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirtA person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more.
Either cite where I've said anything like this, or retract your error.
I never said YOU, Davin. I'm not about to search out this forum for all the times that the Atheist says, "That's what the bible says...don't try and change the meaning of words..." and quote it here for you.
I don't really care what claims
Arian has made in the past that are contradictions. I'm interested in his apparent willingness to explain all *you want about the bible. It seems quite a chore to do so.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 07:46:55 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirtA person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more.
Either cite where I've said anything like this, or retract your error.
I never said YOU, Davin. I'm not about to search out this forum for all the times that the Atheist says, "That's what the bible says...don't try and change the meaning of words..." and quote it here for you.
I don't really care what claims Arian has made in the past that are contradictions. I'm interested in his apparent willingness to explain all *you want about the bible. It seems quite a chore to do so.
If one's statements lead to numerous obvious questions regarding what seem to be inconsistencies and obvious fallacies, then perhaps that says more about the initial statements than it does about those who ask the questions.
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 08:12:25 PM
If one's statements lead to numerous obvious questions regarding what seem to be inconsistencies and obvious fallacies, then perhaps that says more about the initial statements than it does about those who ask the questions.
If this is true, then everyone that is not an Atheist (according to the Atheist thinking) makes statements of inconsistencies and obvious fallacies. Now what? I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of my life. Furthermore, I believe and state that God is the Creator of the universe. Is that not a statement of inconsistency and a fallacy according to the disbelief of Atheism? Basically according to Atheism, I believe in a fairytale as Truth.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 07:46:55 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirtA person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more.
Either cite where I've said anything like this, or retract your error.
I never said YOU, Davin. I'm not about to search out this forum for all the times that the Atheist says, "That's what the bible says...don't try and change the meaning of words..." and quote it here for you.
I don't really care what claims Arian has made in the past that are contradictions. I'm interested in his apparent willingness to explain all *you want about the bible. It seems quite a chore to do so.
You did say, "you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more." Whether you meant the you as a singular "you" or in the "you people" kind of way, I'm still on the other end of it. Especially so, because you were responding to me.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:17:07 PMBasically according to Atheism, I believe in a fairytale as Truth.
According to atheism: "". Because atheism makes no claims, nor does it have any position on your beliefs.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:17:43 PM
You did say, "you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more." Whether you meant the you as a singular "you" or in the "you people" kind of way, I'm still on the other end of it. Especially so, because you were responding to me.
Wow...so now I need to be careful not to implicate you specifically when speaking of a whole. Ok. I'll make note of this new expectation of me.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:17:07 PMBasically according to Atheism, I believe in a fairytale as Truth.
According to atheism: "". Because atheism makes no claims, nor does it have any position on your beliefs.
No position other than disbelief or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
That Arian is an excellent troll; he can stir up shite even when he's long gone again.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:20:53 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:17:43 PM
You did say, "you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more." Whether you meant the you as a singular "you" or in the "you people" kind of way, I'm still on the other end of it. Especially so, because you were responding to me.
Wow...so now I need to be careful not to implicate you specifically when speaking of a whole. Ok. I'll make note of this new expectation of me.
Nah, you just need to not implicate me then act like my response is unwarranted when I dispute it.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:17:07 PMBasically according to Atheism, I believe in a fairytale as Truth.
According to atheism: "". Because atheism makes no claims, nor does it have any position on your beliefs.
No position other than disbelief[...]
Correct.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt[...]or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Incorrect.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt[...]or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Incorrect.
I'll try and remember to quote this the next time I see an Atheist spout off that Christians are "so stupid and deluded" (to that effect) in thinking x or y...or that they hate that people cannot think when presented with "logic"...have no patience for...
Quote from: Ali on February 24, 2012, 08:23:50 PM
That Arian is an excellent troll; he can stir up shite even when he's long gone again.
Seriously.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt[...]or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Incorrect.
I'll try and remember to quote this the next time I see an Atheist spout off that Christians are "so stupid and deluded" (to that effect) in thinking x or y...or that they hate that people cannot think when presented with "logic"...have no patience for...
Please do, then you'll understand that it's not about atheism, but what that specific atheist spouts.
Imagine taking responsibility for all theists. WBC, Islam, Judaism... and every other one. I keep in mind that not every theist speaks for all theists when a theist says, "Die you fucking piece of shit and burn in fucking hell for not believing in god. I hope god himself punishes you personally to the most extreme amount of suffering possible."
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt[...]or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Incorrect.
I'll try and remember to quote this the next time I see an Atheist spout off that Christians are "so stupid and deluded" (to that effect) in thinking x or y...or that they hate that people cannot think when presented with "logic"...have no patience for...
Please do, then you'll understand that it's not about atheism, but what that specific atheist spouts.
Imagine taking resposibility for all theists. WBC, Islam, Judaism... and every other one. I keep in mind that not every theist speaks for all theists when a theist says, "Die you fucking piece of shit and burn in fucking hell for not believing in god. I hope god himself punishes you personally to the most extreme amount of suffering possible."
I'm glad you do. So when I'm not speaking of YOU specifically but others, I may use *you. Don't be offended.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:42:32 PMI'm glad you do. So when I'm not speaking of YOU specifically but others, I may use *you. Don't be offended.
How am I going to be able to tell the difference between whether I'm included or not? I suggest you separate it out to a completely different post instead of making it look like you're responding to me.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt[...]or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Incorrect.
I'll try and remember to quote this the next time I see an Atheist spout off that Christians are "so stupid and deluded" (to that effect) in thinking x or y...or that they hate that people cannot think when presented with "logic"...have no patience for...
Please do, then you'll understand that it's not about atheism, but what that specific atheist spouts.
Imagine taking resposibility for all theists. WBC, Islam, Judaism... and every other one. I keep in mind that not every theist speaks for all theists when a theist says, "Die you fucking piece of shit and burn in fucking hell for not believing in god. I hope god himself punishes you personally to the most extreme amount of suffering possible."
I'm glad you do. So when I'm not speaking of YOU specifically but others, I may use *you. Don't be offended.
Asking for clarification on a point is generally not the same as taking offence, AD.
Wait, what does " *you" mean?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:17:07 PM
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 08:12:25 PM
If one's statements lead to numerous obvious questions regarding what seem to be inconsistencies and obvious fallacies, then perhaps that says more about the initial statements than it does about those who ask the questions.
If this is true, then everyone that is not an Atheist (according to the Atheist thinking) makes statements of inconsistencies and obvious fallacies.
"Atheist thinking" covers a wide range of takes on that subject. Yes, many atheists do believe that we are, as theists, deluded. Others simply take no position on the matter. Overgeneralizations regarding atheists coming from theists are no more useful or appropriate than overgeneralizations regarding theists coming from atheists.
QuoteNow what? I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of my life. Furthermore, I believe and state that God is the Creator of the universe. Is that not a statement of inconsistency and a fallacy according to the disbelief of Atheism? Basically according to Atheism, I believe in a fairytale as Truth.
Or there is simply no way to determine the truth or falsity of your assertions using empirical evidence.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 24, 2012, 08:46:50 PM
Wait, what does " *you" mean?
I would like some reclarification on this as well.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:42:32 PMI'm glad you do. So when I'm not speaking of YOU specifically but others, I may use *you. Don't be offended.
How am I going to be able to tell the difference between whether I'm included or not? I suggest you separate it out to a completely different post instead of making it look like you're responding to me.
Easy. Decide whether you've actually done the "*you" that I'm speaking of or if it is a general *you that I think is the general happening here at HAF or in society. I can certainly try and not use "you" so much if it really offends puts you on the defensive so much even with the *.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:42:32 PMI'm glad you do. So when I'm not speaking of YOU specifically but others, I may use *you. Don't be offended.
How am I going to be able to tell the difference between whether I'm included or not? I suggest you separate it out to a completely different post instead of making it look like you're responding to me.
Easy. Decide whether you've actually done the "*you" that I'm speaking of or if it is a general *you that I think is the general happening here at HAF or in society. I can certainly try and not use "you" so much if it really offends puts you on the defensive so much even with the *.
Well, let's try it out:
*you theists think that no one can test the lord even to ask for a special feeling. *you theists think that all gays should be kicked out of the United States. *you theists keep wanting to put atheists to death.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:21:33 PMNo position other than disbelief or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Atheism makes no claims about the beliefs of others. It's simply a declaration of skepticism toward a belief, not a judgment of any one else's belief. That's not to say some atheists don't think that believers are delusional, but that attitude is not a part of their atheism. To use a more extreme example, some people with mustaches like vanilla ice cream. That doesn't mean vanilla ice cream has anything to do with having a mustache. What I'm trying to say is I have ice cream in my mustache.
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
*you theists think that no one can test the lord even to ask for a special feeling. *you theists think that all gays should be kicked out of the United States. *you theists keep wanting to put atheists to death.
Certainly a lot do. I may not. Do you wish to ask me a specific question on the matter?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:59:54 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
*you theists think that no one can test the lord even to ask for a special feeling. *you theists think that all gays should be kicked out of the United States. *you theists keep wanting to put atheists to death.
Certainly a lot do. I may not. Do you wish to ask me a specific question on the matter?
And now perhaps you see where I was coming from regarding overgeneralizations.
Quote from: Will on February 24, 2012, 08:58:01 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:21:33 PMNo position other than disbelief or that the belief is nonsense, delusion...
Atheism makes no claims about the beliefs of others. It's simply a declaration of skepticism toward a belief, not a judgment of any one else's belief. That's not to say some atheists don't think that believers are delusional, but that attitude is not a part of their atheism. To use a more extreme example, some people with mustaches like vanilla ice cream. That doesn't mean vanilla ice cream has anything to do with having a mustache. What I'm trying to say is I have ice cream in my mustache.
Understood. Atheism makes no claim. I can say I should clarify and say that most of the outspoken Atheists on this forum seem to think and have stated (I've read many, I can't find each one now) they have no patience for Christians and their delusional thinking...or something to that effect. Or my meaning is also to the persona someone like R. Dawkins portrays about the believer.
Does that make more sense?
Edit: "most"...too much. I should say some and since no one calls them on it, I assume all agree.
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 08:59:54 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
*you theists think that no one can test the lord even to ask for a special feeling. *you theists think that all gays should be kicked out of the United States. *you theists keep wanting to put atheists to death.
Certainly a lot do. I may not. Do you wish to ask me a specific question on the matter?
And now perhaps you see where I was coming from regarding overgeneralizations.
Sure. However Davin seemed to think I needed to quote HIM or recant when clearly I wasn't speaking of HIM exactly...and further that a *you implicated him. Not necessarily.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 09:02:58 PMUnderstood. Atheism makes no claim. I can say I should clarify and say that most of the outspoken Atheists on this forum seem to think and have stated (I've read many, I can't find each one now) they have no patience for Christians and their delusional thinking...or something to that effect. Or my meaning is also to the persona someone like R. Dawkins portrays about the believer.
Does that make more sense?
I think so. I don't know that it's any more complicated than thinking someone who disagrees with you is wrong, though, which doesn't seem particularly controversial. The 'delusional' part is really just an extension of the degree to which they think other people are wrong.
Let's say I pick something you and I both agree on: parents that involve their children in child beauty pageants like those on Toddlers and Tiaras are wrong. Would you stop at just "I disagree with them"? Or would you go so far as to say they're insane for sexualizing children? I'd probably go that far. Calling someone insane, in that instance, is simply a reflection of the degree to which you disagree, colored with an expected emotional reaction. Atheism is diametrically opposed as a worldview to Christianity, so, from the atheist perspective, one could conclude that the other side is delusional. Is this constructive? Not in the least, but expressing that someone else is wrong rarely is constructive. I just don't see it as being that big of a deal. I don't really think it's a big deal when a Christian says I'm going to hell, because I don't agree with their line of thinking. On the flipside, a Christian doesn't have to take any stock in being called delusional by someone he or she fundamentally disagrees with.
Quote from: Will on February 24, 2012, 09:40:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 09:02:58 PMUnderstood. Atheism makes no claim. I can say I should clarify and say that most of the outspoken Atheists on this forum seem to think and have stated (I've read many, I can't find each one now) they have no patience for Christians and their delusional thinking...or something to that effect. Or my meaning is also to the persona someone like R. Dawkins portrays about the believer.
Does that make more sense?
I think so. I don't know that it's any more complicated than thinking someone who disagrees with you is wrong, though, which doesn't seem particularly controversial. The 'delusional' part is really just an extension of the degree to which they think other people are wrong.
Let's say I pick something you and I both agree on: parents that involve their children in child beauty pageants like those on Toddlers and Tiaras are wrong. Would you stop at just "I disagree with them"? Or would you go so far as to say they're insane for sexualizing children? I'd probably go that far. Calling someone insane, in that instance, is simply a reflection of the degree to which you disagree, colored with an expected emotional reaction. Atheism is diametrically opposed as a worldview to Christianity, so, from the atheist perspective, one could conclude that the other side is delusional. Is this constructive? Not in the least, but expressing that someone else is wrong rarely is constructive. I just don't see it as being that big of a deal. I don't really think it's a big deal when a Christian says I'm going to hell, because I don't agree with their line of thinking. On the flipside, a Christian doesn't have to take any stock in being called delusional by someone he or she fundamentally disagrees with.
Respectfully. I disagree. Being called delusional etc. speaks directly to the intelligence of a person and instead serves to disparage and/or derogate. Being told to go to or "you're going to" hell speaks nothing of a persons intelligence.
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
I see. State of mind, then? Same "difference" to me in context.
Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
There are many cases of very intelligent persons suffering delusions, wheter in the clinical or colloquial sense, and as such the term delusion cannot be correlated to low IQ. Persons of low IQ may very well be deluded, but not all deluded people have low IQ.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
There are many cases of very intelligent persons suffering delusions, wheter in the clinical or colloquial sense, and as such the term delusion cannot be correlated to low IQ. Persons of low IQ may very well be deluded, but not all deluded people have low IQ.
So then mentally ill...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
There are many cases of very intelligent persons suffering delusions, wheter in the clinical or colloquial sense, and as such the term delusion cannot be correlated to low IQ. Persons of low IQ may very well be deluded, but not all deluded people have low IQ.
So then mentally ill...
Let's make this a direct question, then, so that we can avoid all confusion. I'll use myself as the starting point so as not to get you involved without permission.
I am a theist, which is to say that I believe in God. I believe this due to personal experience, intuition, and a general sense that I find difficult to explain. My sense is that each of us is playing a part in a much grander design. I am not a deist, in that I do not see God as something removed from our lives, but rather as a presence that fills every cell of my body. I have received inspiration from transcendentalism, Taoism, and panentheism.
Am I mentally ill due to my theism?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
There is no relationship between IQ and if a person is delusional or not. A delusional person continues to assert a patently inaccurate view when provided with incontrovertible evidence the the view is inaccurate. For example asserting a mouse is a car when shown a mouse.
There are many cases of very intelligent persons suffering delusions, wheter in the clinical or colloquial sense, and as such the term delusion cannot be correlated to low IQ. Persons of low IQ may very well be deluded, but not all deluded people have low IQ.
So then mentally ill...
Not nesesarily. If you note the underlined text above I made a point of stating that in the colloquial sense of the word, "deluded" does not nessesitate the use of it in a medical context.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 10:26:24 PM
Not nesesarily. If you note the underlined text above I made a point of stating that in the colloquial sense of the word, "deluded" does not nessesitate the use of it in a medical context.
It's a nice way of saying...? Ill, but not in a sense medicine can determine or fix?
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
Let's make this a direct question, then, so that we can avoid all confusion. I'll use myself as the starting point so as not to get you involved without permission.
I am a theist, which is to say that I believe in God. I believe this due to personal experience, intuition, and a general sense that I find difficult to explain. My sense is that each of us is playing a part in a much grander design. I am not a deist, in that I do not see God as something removed from our lives, but rather as a presence that fills every cell of my body. I have received inspiration from transcendentalism, Taoism, and panentheism.
Am I mentally ill due to my theism?
You're hardly in the same "delusion" as the average deluded Christian.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 10:30:00 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 24, 2012, 10:26:24 PM
Not nesesarily. If you note the underlined text above I made a point of stating that in the colloquial sense of the word, "deluded" does not nessesitate the use of it in a medical context.
It's a nice way of saying...? Ill, but not in a sense medicine can determine or fix?
"Deluded" in this context would probably mean "Believing in something despite great evidence to the contrary". That's not dictionary perfect, but it's the sense that I'm getting from what's being said. I do think that it's a loaded term, though, so I'm not especially happy to see it applied in within an otherwise civilized discussion.
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 10:39:15 PM
"Deluded" in this context would probably mean "Believing in something despite great evidence to the contrary". That's not dictionary perfect, but it's the sense that I'm getting from what's being said. I do think that it's a loaded term, though, so I'm not especially happy to see it applied in within an otherwise civilized discussion.
Exactly. That is the non-clinical use of the word deluded. I am not saying, or laying claim to the medical background to state, that you are suffering from a medical condition, AD. I am merly responding to your use of the word delusion earlier in this thread.
It seems to me that simply praying to god is testing him, and we all know that nothing fails like prayer.
Quote from: Ivan Tudor C McHock on February 25, 2012, 02:04:47 AM
It seems to me that simply praying to god is testing him, and we all know that nothing fails like prayer.
Well, not so much to an theist. If their prayer isn't 'answered', they will simply think of it as their prayer being granted wasn't a part of God's great plan, which they claim is not something that is understandable to us.
My prayers rarely consist of much more than a "Thank you". Anything else goes against my conception of God.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
Let's make this a direct question, then, so that we can avoid all confusion. I'll use myself as the starting point so as not to get you involved without permission.
I am a theist, which is to say that I believe in God. I believe this due to personal experience, intuition, and a general sense that I find difficult to explain. My sense is that each of us is playing a part in a much grander design. I am not a deist, in that I do not see God as something removed from our lives, but rather as a presence that fills every cell of my body. I have received inspiration from transcendentalism, Taoism, and panentheism.
Am I mentally ill due to my theism?
You're hardly in the same "delusion" as the average deluded Christian.
I would say that you were deluded (in a strictly non-pathological sense)and certainly not delusional. A man who believes that his wife is faithful although in fact she is sleeping with his neighbour is deluded. A man who thinks that his wife is a flesh-eating alien is probably delusional.
Quote from: En_Route on February 25, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
Let's make this a direct question, then, so that we can avoid all confusion. I'll use myself as the starting point so as not to get you involved without permission.
I am a theist, which is to say that I believe in God. I believe this due to personal experience, intuition, and a general sense that I find difficult to explain. My sense is that each of us is playing a part in a much grander design. I am not a deist, in that I do not see God as something removed from our lives, but rather as a presence that fills every cell of my body. I have received inspiration from transcendentalism, Taoism, and panentheism.
Am I mentally ill due to my theism?
You're hardly in the same "delusion" as the average deluded Christian.
I would say that you were deluded (in a strictly non-pathological sense)and certainly not delusional. A man who believes that his wife is faithful although in fact she is sleeping with his neighbour is deluded. A man who thinks that his wife is a flesh-eating alien is probably delusional.
I guess some people feel "if I believe in ot hard enough, it must be true."
Quote from: En_Route on February 25, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
I would say that you were deluded (in a strictly non-pathological sense)and certainly not delusional.
That made me so angry that I nearly fell off of my unicorn!
Seriously, though, as accurate as it may be, "delusional" and "deluded" both strike me as loaded terms, as in casual conversation, they're generally used to denote something approaching insanity. Something along the lines of "incorrect" or "mistaken" can get the point across just as well without unnecessarily raising hackles.
Of course, if one doesn't care if hackles are raised, or is looking to do so, then that's just fine.
Quote from: statichaos on February 25, 2012, 07:01:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 25, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
I would say that you were deluded (in a strictly non-pathological sense)and certainly not delusional.
That made me so angry that I nearly fell off of my unicorn!
Seriously, though, as accurate as it may be, "delusional" and "deluded" both strike me as loaded terms, as in casual conversation, they're generally used to denote something approaching insanity. Something along the lines of "incorrect" or "mistaken" can get the point across just as well without unnecessarily raising hackles.
Of course, if one doesn't care if hackles are raised, or is looking to do so, then that's just fine.
I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.
Quote from: En_Route on February 25, 2012, 07:34:24 PM
I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.
I don't think that casting aside reason and logic is always an error, but rather must be taken on a case by case basis. There are times and experiences when only intuition has served me well. However, the point is that regardless of how one sees these things (and I admit that this goes a bit off-topic), the term "delusion" tends to be seen by those described as having such as being an insulting term. I don't see it as such, as I understand the context. However, it can lead to misunderstandings.
The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.
Quote from: Gawen on February 27, 2012, 01:25:41 AM
The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.
Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it. However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.
Quote from: statichaos on February 27, 2012, 07:23:44 PM
Quote from: Gawen on February 27, 2012, 01:25:41 AM
The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.
Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it. However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.
The definition is in most dictionary's. It isn't my problem one way or another if a definition of a word fits a person.
Quote from: Gawen on February 29, 2012, 02:00:35 AM
Quote from: statichaos on February 27, 2012, 07:23:44 PM
Quote from: Gawen on February 27, 2012, 01:25:41 AM
The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.
Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it. However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.
The definition is in most dictionary's. It isn't my problem one way or another if a definition of a word fits a person.
Except that it does. I could use the word "Negro" to accurately describe my neighbors, and yet they would likely see the term as condescending and rude. I could accurately use the term "pervert" to describe those with unusual sexual fetishes that involve consent, and the term would be considered insulting.
I'm not speaking of dictionary definitions here, but rather how the words are generally seen in society.
Quote from: statichaos on February 29, 2012, 11:44:04 PM
I'm not speaking of dictionary definitions here, but rather how the words are generally seen in society.
This reminds me of Dawkin's book
Virus of the Mind, which was using the word virus correctly in describing how something can be transmitted, but came off sounding like he was calling religious belief a disease. Which was insulting, whatever he said about not intending that.
Quote from: statichaos on February 25, 2012, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 25, 2012, 07:34:24 PM
I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.
I don't think that casting aside reason and logic is always an error, but rather must be taken on a case by case basis. There are times and experiences when only intuition has served me well. However, the point is that regardless of how one sees these things (and I admit that this goes a bit off-topic), the term "delusion" tends to be seen by those described as having such as being an insulting term. I don't see it as such, as I understand the context. However, it can lead to misunderstandings.
People who refer to all theists as "deluded" could just as easily say "wrong" or "mistaken." The choice of the word "deluded" is generally intentional, and generally non-theists get some degree of pleasure or satisfaction out of using it. It makes them feel superior, and they feel like they have diagnosed a particular psychological defect, rather than simply pointing out an error in logic or reasoning. Pretending to be a psychiatrist is more gratifying than pretending to be a teacher.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 01, 2012, 02:52:01 AM
People who refer to all theists as "deluded" could just as easily say "wrong" or "mistaken." The choice of the word "deluded" is generally intentional, and generally non-theists get some degree of pleasure or satisfaction out of using it. It makes them feel superior, and they feel like they have diagnosed a particular psychological defect, rather than simply pointing out an error in logic or reasoning. Pretending to be a psychiatrist is more gratifying than pretending to be a teacher.
I think there's a clear difference between the colloquial and clinical definitions of the words 'deluded' or 'delusion'. For me 'deluded' in the colloquial sense is a perfect way to describe the Christian belief that a 3-3,500 year old minor western Semitic deity called Yahweh created the universe, and sent his son to Earth 2000 years ago. It doesn't mean I think that people who hold those beliefs are delusional in a clinical way, and reading what Gawen, Tank, En_Route and G85 have said above, I don't think any of them are playing psychiatrist or suggesting that Christians or other theists are suffering from delusions in the clinical sense. I would say someone who believed in astrology and avidly read their horoscope and paid heed to it was deluded in a similar way, but again not clinically delusional.
'Mistaken' isn't a strong enough word IMHO, 'wrong' would also do the job too though, as would 'ridiculous' (!), but I really see no problem with 'deduded'. I think you are choosing to read the word with a clinical subtext, despite the atheists on this forum making it clear it should be read as the colloquial definition.
As a rather amusing aside, I think the first person to raise the issue and use the words delusion /deluded in reference to Christian belief on this thread was a Christian and not an atheist! (reply #71) If that post hadn't been made, maybe the issue would never have been raised.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 24, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 24, 2012, 02:43:00 PM
So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?
What I meant is that the majority of HAF probably thinks religion, probably more specific, Christianity, is nonsense yet not enough nonsense that it won't be discussed here. I don't recall Arian stating he's an Atheist that believes in God or god. If he did, then I haven't read it or I didn't put much weight on the claim. My simply point is that belief in God makes no sense to *you, yet we're discussing it a lot. I'm not defending anything at this point here in this thread, however I'm interested in that Arian seems to suggest he's willing to take all points *you have and discuss them. I'm interested in reading his responses. I'm unsure if he will survive because at every turn he's being attacked and not simply asked, "ok...here's one point I'd like for you to explain..." and let him do it. Maybe *you're not interested, but it seems one was and I'm also interested on his POV.
Well thank you AnimatedDirt, I just checked to see if I was banished yet or not, and to my surprise, ... here I is. LOL
My point was 'Theism', and I made a start as to what the word was defined as in the dictionary:
Theism:
1. belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible
2. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
then there is the word 'divine' as in divine revelation, which is an obvious abomination in the Old Testament.
The New Testament was translated with the influence of a Gentile so called Christian Church influenced by an authority like the Pope who is called 'holy father', and the Trinity Doctrine. With careful investigation and an open mind, none of this should be used to refer to our God and Creator, or Bible-God.
Theists believe and always have believed in gods or one great one from amongst those gods, like a Pharaoh who at times elevated himself above all them other gods.
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', not 'in the beginning there was God'.
What does this mean?
It means God was, who created the universe. There is no 'other god or gods' mentioned, so for us there is just One God, in which the word 'theism' has no meaning. Our God is not divine, thus not found in the word Theism.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinYou messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.
Here again is the argument that "the words mean exactly this and you can't change them!". Seems to me a person was banned for asking for clarification on exact words and their meanings...of course I'm sure the counter argument is "That's different". A person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more. Only certain people have the ability to decide when and where there is a difference in meaning or context and here it's the Atheist that decides this...or so it seems.
If he's speaking a different language, maybe we can learn what his language is, otherwise maybe *you don't want "in" on this conversation/discussion.
The only thing I'm "defending" here is I want to read Arian's explanations.
Thank you, I would be happy to.
What I have to say is not something you might have heard, for Today's Christianity is being taught in a school of Theology which is the study of god or gods. This is because soon after Christ ascended back to Heaven, the Church was infested by Gentile worshipers who were used to serving many gods, and soon perverted the message and included, or adapted their own gods back into the church. A few hundred years later, they turned the one True God with no name into three gods, which was more acceptable for them. Other gods were re-named to Apostles, including naming Mary (the mother of Jesus) to mother-of-god.
I said that I don't believe in all these 'theistic' gods, so as before Christ, those that no longer worshipped all them gods were called 'atheists', I too am an atheist.
My belief in the Bible God has nothing to do with the gods in theism, He is not divine either, nor does He reveal to us anything through divinations. The supernatural realm is where Satan resides, who responds to those who call upon him, through divinations, pretending to be an Angel of light, or God himself.
You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 04:48:27 AM
The supernatural realm is where Satan resides, who responds to those who call upon him, through divinations, pretending to be an Angel of light, or God himself.
Sounds fun, but why would a creature with that kind of power need or want to pretend to be something other than what it is.
What's wrong with "Yo! I'm Satan. Your cancer is gone, but all your soul is belong to us now", or equivalent?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 22, 2012, 10:34:34 AM
You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.
I think he needs to read the dictionary again, as well.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 22, 2012, 10:34:34 AM
You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.
Thank you Too Few Lions,
yes, .. I read the Bible, I consider all that it says.
We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed. These are worthless to pray to.
Names had meanings in the beginning, but over time it has lost its original meaning and became only names, like identifying the color red from green.
If there was only one color of crayon in the world, let's say 'red', it wouldn't make sense to ask for a 'red' Crayon, right? We have and always had only One God. To
name that One God just places him amongst the false theistic gods. Now look up the meaning of 'theism', or 'theology', and you will see that gods like Athena, Odin and so on compete with each other, that is why theology was created, so people could decide which god or gods they would prefer to worship. As I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.
The 'meaning' of that NAME should be written in our hearts, soul and minds. Just as I said, if there was only One Color of Crayon, it would not make sense to ask for a red one, but only; "can you please give me that crayon?" If I would say 'red' crayon, people would wonder; "Why, ... is there another color?" .. right?
Well that is what happened, people created all these theistic gods, and now they think that the Bible God needs a name too. Remember that the name can change, like Abram was named Abraham, Jacob was named Israel and so on...
I Am, I Will Be that I will be, Jealous, Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, Adoni, God, Father and so on, and so forth.
Ex 34:13-14
14for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
NKJV
Ezek 39:25
25 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:'Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name'
NKJV
Ex 3:13-15
13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15 Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'
NKJVThink about it in these terms, 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'
May need to think about it for a second, but I can give more Biblical examples if you wish, ... if not because it offends you, please use the Crayon example.
arian
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed.
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed.
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
Ooh! Ooh! The Asmo knows that! Yes, yes, he does!
Is... Eh... Gimmeasec...
*sounds of furious rummaging through books*
Ah! Yes! Teh bible, it SAYS so. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.createblog.com%2Fforums%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fnod.gif&hash=a1cff5505588bed87b8abfb6f4b98cfdd1b8a0ab)
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed.
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
No need, ... you are already an admitted Atheist, right?
ATHEIST
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
Microsoft® Encarta®Who made up the definition of the word 'Atheist'? Look at the definition of
Theist:
1. belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible
2. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005... where is 'Dieties' in the definition of Theist? Last I checked, Christians believe in a Diety, that is what is taught in Harvard Divinity School where you can get a degree in Theology.
This is what I'm hoping to make people aware of, that we have defined our Bible-God through 'religious indoctrination' for so long, (over at least 2000 years) that people actually go to schools like I mentioned, Harvard Divinity School, or like the Trinity College, to become Christian Ministers.
No wonder there are so many Christian Religions in the world.
Look how they vary one from another, and it doesn't even bother them? Is God seperated? Is that what Jesus taught? How many versions of God did Jesus teach?
How many is taught in a school of Theology, the study of god or gods which are not necesseraly from the Bible?
Sorry, but my God is 'very necesseraly from the Bible'!
1 Cor 8:4-7
4 So then, about eating the food offered to idols: we know that an idol stands for something that does not really exist; we know that there is only the one God. 5 Even if there are so-called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, and even though there are many of these "gods" and "lords," 6 yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.
7 But not everyone knows this truth. Some people have been so used to idols that to this day when they eat such food they still think of it as food that belongs to an idol; their conscience is weak, and they feel they are defiled by the food.
TEVYes, if two thousand years ago they were used to idols, imagine adding another 2,000 years on top of that? Christians actually believe that their God of the Bible is 'Divine'?
Look up 'devine, and divinations in the Bible, the Old Testament will warn those who turn to devine beings and who seek divinations from them.
But in the 'Gentile Trinity influenced' New Testament Bible translation, they have sneaked the word divine in there, as they did Easter, and the verse:
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
NKJVThis is NOT in the original writings, it is a lie to keep the man-made doctrine of the Trinity alive.
Here is a version that did not ADD this sentence:
1 John 5:6-8
6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
NASBSo to sum up your question, there are many gods, and whatever we serve 'religiously', like money, music-idols, mother Mary, the Pope, our church, our denomination, .. whatever, can become a god for us. Even atheism can be worshipped religiously, and so can excercise.
But for us, it is 1 Cor 8:6, as I mentioned above.
Thanks.
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 09:00:31 PM
Even atheism can be worshipped religiously, and so can excercise.
Why would some fool worship atheism? It's not unlike saying "I'm gonna worship not owning a cow" ???
Exercise..? Nah. Smokes. Smokes are good. Not worthy of worship, mind you, but good.
Sorry to repeat myself but I'm not sure that your last post answered the question.
Cor 8:6 is just words in a book of stories, right?
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 09:36:23 PM
Sorry to repeat myself but I'm not sure that your last post answered the question.
Cor 8:6 is just words in a book of stories, right?
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
Or your own "non-theistic god"? (Which seems like the self contradiction of the week, if you ask me)
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PMAs I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.
I think we've got you here arian, hoist by your own petard. You're just a plain old monotheist, not an atheist. Definition of monotheism from the Oxford English dictionary;
Quotemonotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
That defines your belief, not atheism
QuoteIf there was only one color of crayon in the world, let's say 'red', it wouldn't make sense to ask for a 'red' Crayon, right? We have and always had only One God. To name that One God just places him amongst the false theistic gods. Now look up the meaning of 'theism', or 'theology', and you will see that gods like Athena, Odin and so on compete with each other, that is why theology was created, so people could decide which god or gods they would prefer to worship. As I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.
As well as needing to read the Bible and a dictionary, you also need to learn some history. As a species we have worshipped thousands of gods and still do. Yahweh / the god of the Bible is just one of those, no different from any of the others.
QuoteThe 'meaning' of that NAME should be written in our hearts, soul and minds. Just as I said, if there was only One Color of Crayon, it would not make sense to ask for a red one, but only; "can you please give me that crayon?" If I would say 'red' crayon, people would wonder; "Why, ... is there another color?" .. right?
I think your crayon analogy is just plain stupid and actually defeats your own argument, because there isn't just one colour of crayon in the world, there are hundreds of colour crayons just like there are gods. By calling yourself an atheist, you're also holding up that red crayon claiming it isn't actually a crayon but a felt-tip pen!
Quote
Ex 34:13-14
14for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
NKJV
Ezek 39:25
25 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:'Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name'
NKJV
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15 Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'
NKJV
Think about it in these terms, 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'
May need to think about it for a second, but I can give more Biblical examples if you wish, ... if not because it offends you, please use the Crayon example.
The original Hebrew word in the Bible translated as 'LORD' and 'GOD' in the crappy NKJV translations you quote above is Yahweh, the name of your god!!! Do you really know so little about the Bible and the history of Yahweh, the god you worship?
You seem to like quoting Exodus 3.15, but I don't think you actually know what it says. It says
'Tell the Israelites, Yahweh the god of your fathers, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac and the god of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever and this is my memorial name to all generations.' I think that's pretty clear his name is Yahweh.
And like I said above your crayon analogy is self defeating. You're stood in an art shop with a thousand shades of crayons all around you, holding aloft one crayon that's a particular shade of red claiming 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'
If you actually did that in an art shop everyone would think that you were mad, as well as actually factually incorrect.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2012, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 04:48:27 AM
The supernatural realm is where Satan resides, who responds to those who call upon him, through divinations, pretending to be an Angel of light, or God himself.
Sounds fun, but why would a creature with that kind of power need or want to pretend to be something other than what it is.
Good point Asmodean, but we watch people who have been brought up with what is mutually agreed on 'good solid morals', and still can do some horrible evil all the time, right, ... why?
QuoteWhat's wrong with "Yo! I'm Satan. Your cancer is gone, but all your soul is belong to us now", or equivalent?
I like your sense of humor in your posts, and this too is a good question, only the answer, or my answer 'to you' may not make sense, since you already chose 'not to believe' in God, or Satan. Why someone who you don't believe exists does certain things would challenge even the greatest proffessors, not alone someone as 'unaducated' as I am.
I will try though, but
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Satan would never 'give life' even if he could (especially to his greatest enemies, us, created in Gods Image), but as a prowling lion waits in the shadows to 'take it' by influencing his servants to do his dirty-work.
He cannot touch our souls, we willingly give it to him by accepting his promisses of worldly riches, power, glory, revelry, religion and so on.
Even though these things are not his to give, but again, he can influence those that already serve him to help those that desire these things, receive it, ... at a cost... as you said.
He cannot 'take our souls', but will ask us to do something so terrible, that we eventually loose it.
Thanks, I pray that makes sense to you.
arian
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
I like your sense of humor in your posts, and this too is a good question, only the answer, or my answer 'to you' may not make sense, since you already chose 'not to believe' in God, or Satan. Why someone who you don't believe exists does certain things would challenge even the greatest proffessors, not alone someone as 'unaducated' as I am.
What's with the quote marks?
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2012, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed.
Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?
Ooh! Ooh! The Asmo knows that! Yes, yes, he does!
Is... Eh... Gimmeasec...
*sounds of furious rummaging through books*
Ah! Yes! Teh bible, it SAYS so. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.createblog.com%2Fforums%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fnod.gif&hash=a1cff5505588bed87b8abfb6f4b98cfdd1b8a0ab)
Try studying religions and the god and/or gods they offer, then use your smarts that I see you have and make a rational decision on which one could be true?
Then, when you realize as I have, that 'religions' can offer only made up false god and gods (as in theism), seek out a rational explanation for the universe and our existance. NOT 'just because the Bible says so', use that as just another claim, but use reasoning to decide what is true.
Don't accept 'indoctrination' from anyone, neither from the theists, nor the atheists, nor sci-fi theories. Use the facts found in science to make up your own mind.
You already have an advantage if you're an atheist, you already dismissed the belief in all the dieties, now seek out 'the source of being', not some god described in theology.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 22, 2012, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
We have only ONE (real) God
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PMAs I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.
I think we've got you here arian, hoist by your own petard. You're just a plain old monotheist, not an atheist. Definition of monotheism from the Oxford English dictionary;
Quotemonotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
That defines your belief, not atheism
It might seem so my friend, only monotheism is still -theism, as in 'one god' in theism.
Theism
Atheism
Monotheism
Tritheism
... and the list goes on and on.
Quote from: Too Few LionsQuote from: arianIf there was only one color of crayon in the world, let's say 'red', it wouldn't make sense to ask for a 'red' Crayon, right? We have and always had only One God. To name that One God just places him amongst the false theistic gods. Now look up the meaning of 'theism', or 'theology', and you will see that gods like Athena, Odin and so on compete with each other, that is why theology was created, so people could decide which god or gods they would prefer to worship. As I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.
As well as needing to read the Bible and a dictionary, you also need to learn some history. As a species we have worshipped thousands of gods and still do. Yahweh / the god of the Bible is just one of those, no different from any of the others.
'He That Is', or 'I Will Be what I Will be' is not a name, thus not described in Theism. Plese, ... please don't get offended when I say; 'you must become a real atheist', another words, don't allow the gods in theism that we have been indoctrinated with all these years hinder your search, for only then can you start to seek out the real truth.
Remember that we are searching for the 'truth', not one of them from the 'thousands of gods as in theism', I don't care how great they make him/her/it out to be. Monotheism is still 'one of them gods' usually defined in Christianity, ... as a 'Diety' who lives in the 'supernatural realm'.
Quote from: Too Few LionsQuote from: arianThe 'meaning' of that NAME should be written in our hearts, soul and minds. Just as I said, if there was only One Color of Crayon, it would not make sense to ask for a red one, but only; "can you please give me that crayon?" If I would say 'red' crayon, people would wonder; "Why, ... is there another color?" .. right?
I think your crayon analogy is just plain stupid and actually defeats your own argument, because there isn't just one colour of crayon in the world, there are hundreds of colour crayons just like there are gods. By calling yourself an atheist, you're also holding up that red crayon claiming it isn't actually a crayon but a felt-tip pen!
You missed my point, I said;
if there was only ONE COLOR of Crayon in existance, naming it 'red' would be senseless. Yes, there are 'many colors' of crayons, just as there are many 'names' of gods in the world. That was my whole point, none of the names/colors represent our Creator, for He has no name/color. I said 'One Crayon' as in 'One God', the others are made-by-man, useless and cant color/do anything.
Quote from: Too Few LionsQuote
Ex 34:13-14
14for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
NKJV
Ezek 39:25
25 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:'Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name'
NKJV
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15 Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'
NKJV
Think about it in these terms, 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'
May need to think about it for a second, but I can give more Biblical examples if you wish, ... if not because it offends you, please use the Crayon example.
The original Hebrew word in the Bible translated as 'LORD' and 'GOD' in the crappy NKJV translations you quote above is Yahweh, the name of your god!!! Do you really know so little about the Bible and the history of Yahweh, the god you worship?
You seem to like quoting Exodus 3.15, but I don't think you actually know what it says. It says 'Tell the Israelites, Yahweh the god of your fathers, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac and the god of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever and this is my memorial name to all generations.' I think that's pretty clear his name is Yahweh.
Wkipedia-
Yahweh ( /ˈjɑːweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːhweɪ/; Hebrew: יהוה) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible; it is often represented as Jehovah in English-language bibles.[1] The vocalisation Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew יהוה (YHWH). There are many theories regarding the origin and meaning of the name, and none is regarded as conclusive - the explanation given in the Hebrew bible is "I am that I am", but the most likely meaning may be "He causes to be."The name in the Bible is 'to be known by'. We are on a quest to get to know our God, and because of our insistance to continue to live in sin, we created false gods for ourselves as I point out in theism. People today are taught to look for our Creator in Theism, you will not find Him there, that is why I'm an atheist, who is against theism and what the idea represents. It wants to include 'He that Is' within its defenition.
Quote from: Too Few LionsAnd like I said above your crayon analogy is self defeating. You're stood in an art shop with a thousand shades of crayons all around you, holding aloft one crayon that's a particular shade of red claiming 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'
If you actually did that in an art shop everyone would think that you were mad, as well as actually factually incorrect.
OK, how about this (please don't take it litterally, I am trying to clear it up for you, an anology. Our CreatorGod is not a crayon)
God=Crayon
Red=Yahweh
Yahweh=All there is
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."
As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC
2 is not given such superfluous dressing.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."
As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC2 is not given such superfluous dressing.
Precisely. The more somebody has to sell their world view as opposed to simply proposing it and leaving the idea to let it stand its own feet the less credibility the idea has.
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 24, 2012, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
I like your sense of humor in your posts, and this too is a good question, only the answer, or my answer 'to you' may not make sense, since you already chose 'not to believe' in God, or Satan. Why someone who you don't believe exists does certain things would challenge even the greatest proffessors, not alone someone as 'unaducated' as I am.
What's with the quote marks?
Nothing, those are the few things that work just fine for me on this forum. It's when I type beyond the limits of the window that I have trouble with, it jumps me back to 'top' after each letter.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?
If The Asmo was Satan, he would most certainly give people cancer, then cure it in exchange for their souls. Easy money. :D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?
I'm guessing this means Satan is behind the tabacco industry.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 24, 2012, 08:39:15 PM
I'm guessing this means Satan is behind the tabacco industry.
Food production. That too. Food contains cancerogens, you know... ???
Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2012, 09:11:17 PM
Quote from: arian on March 22, 2012, 09:00:31 PM
Even atheism can be worshipped religiously, and so can excercise.
Why would some fool worship atheism? It's not unlike saying "I'm gonna worship not owning a cow" ???
Exercise..? Nah. Smokes. Smokes are good. Not worthy of worship, mind you, but good.
Why worship a-theism?
Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.
Smokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"
He now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.
Don't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?
Pollution, chemo-therapy etc...
It's that 'last dose, that last treatment' that kills them. What do you think 'Cancer Hospitals' were built for? Cancer-Hospitals, ... the name says it all.
Hospice is where they watch them that were chosen for extermination, die, and act like they are making their last days more comfortable, ... LOL
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:00:38 PM
Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.
It is no more a form of theism than darkness is a form of light or being flat ass broke is a form of having money. It is not - it's the lack thereof.
QuoteSmokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"
I wasn't talking about any one else's opinion of smokes - only my own. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what your brother thinks about smoking - I don't have any relations with him.
That said, how is any of what you've just said worship?
QuoteHe now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.
Well, boo-hoo. Rather than regret, he should be doing the best he can with what he has. If he thinks smoking was a bad idea and doesn't want his kids to smoke, maybe he should quit and lead by example? If that doesn't work, well, then he can start again but sleep more soundly at night, knowing that he did try.
oO(Although were I him, I might have spent an evening or two regretting not using condoms often enough)
QuoteDon't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?
No. Chain-smoking and refusing to quit does not in any way amount to worship.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."
As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC2 is not given such superfluous dressing.
E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?
In his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was
faster than light, right? So ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?
Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
Thanks again.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?
Yes, actually I understand why E=mc^2 pretty well.
What you seem to ignore, however, that this equation is not in units of speed, but of energy. Joules, rather than meters per second. It does make sense where E=mc would not.
QuoteIn his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was faster than light, right?
Still is.
QuoteSo ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?
Why is the Pythagoras' sentence as follows: c=sqrt(a^2+b^2)
Where is the sense in squareing something you are going to sqrt?
If you explain that one to me, I might indulge you. If you can not, I suggest learning maths and physics.
QuoteBecause he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
I don't see what you are trying to say.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.
If not, go back to high school and stop embarassing yourself.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 24, 2012, 09:18:15 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:00:38 PM
Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.
It is no more a form of theism than darkness is a form of light or being flat ass broke is a form of having money. It is not - it's the lack thereof.
Why would you need 'light' if there was NO darkness?
Why would you be 'broke' if there was no money?
Why would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?
Quote from: AsmodeanQuote from: arianSmokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"
I wasn't talking about any one else's opinion of smokes - only my own. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what your brother thinks about smoking - I don't have any relations with him.
OK, I'll try to be more careful and read between the lines before returning my opinion to you.
Quote from: AsmodeanThat said, how is any of what you've just said worship?
Worship;
2. vt love somebody deeply: to love, admire, or respect somebody
or something greatly and perhaps excessively or unquestioningly
Microsoft® Encarta®
He believed smoking was 'good', and the way I observed him smoking.
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteHe now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.
Well, boo-hoo. Rather than regret, he should be doing the best he can with what he has. If he thinks smoking was a bad idea and doesn't want his kids to smoke, maybe he should quit and lead by example? If that doesn't work, well, then he can start again but sleep more soundly at night, knowing that he did try.
I thank you for your opinion, even though you don't know him, or think a rats-ass to what he thinks. It is very kind of you.
Quote from: AsmodeanoO(Although were I him, I might have spent an evening or two regretting not using condoms often enough)
I'm sure he did that too, and continues to do so. He has his problems with the kids/grand kids cut out for him.
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteDon't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?
No. Chain-smoking and refusing to quit does not in any way amount to worship.
Thanks, I respect your opinion, even though I do not agree.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
since light has no speed, it is instant.
You seem to know more than Einstien, than all of the scientists of our time or since Einstien's time.
I always thought it took light about 10 minutes to travel from the sun to earth, about 100,000 years to travel across the diameter of our galaxy.
But now you say it is instantaneous. Wow!
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 10:32:27 PM
Why would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?
Theists always get tripped up on this one. You are misinterpreting the word "theist" as proof in and of itself that a god or gods exists when it only refers to the
belief that they exist. Those of us who disagree with their belief are therefore "a" about theism.
And before you bring it up again, you are not an atheist because you believe in a god.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 10:32:27 PM
Why would you need 'light' if there was NO darkness?
Original state
QuoteWhy would you be 'broke' if there was no money?
Original state
QuoteWhy would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?
And, to emphasize the point, original state.
Quote from: arian
OK, I'll try to be more careful and read between the lines before returning my opinion to you.
Reading between the lines will not get you far with me - my metaphors, when I choose to use such - are usually clearly metaphors. That snetence contained something along the lines of "smokes are good". Seeing how "good" is a subjective construct and "smokes are good" being the core of the sentence, the sentence itself is subjective.
Quote from: Asmodean
Worship;
2. vt love somebody deeply: to love, admire, or respect somebody or something greatly and perhaps excessively or unquestioningly
Microsoft® Encarta®
Yes. And? Connection, still see I do not.
QuoteHe believed smoking was 'good', and the way I observed him smoking.
If I like smoking because I find it pleasant, that is a conditional emotion and is therefor not worship though, no?
QuoteI thank you for your opinion, even though you don't know him, or think a rats-ass to what he thinks. It is very kind of you.
Yup. That's jolly old me - all for improving humankind one human at a time
Quote from: Asmodean
I'm sure he did that too, and continues to do so. He has his problems with the kids/grand kids cut out for him.
Problems..? I can imagine! I mean SIX of them?! He should have used condoms at least four-five times more often than he did.
Quote
Thanks, I respect your opinion, even though I do not agree.
Fair enough. Let's get back to math now.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 24, 2012, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?
Yes, actually I understand why E=mc^2 pretty well.
What you seem to ignore, however, that this equation is not in units of speed, but of energy. Joules, rather than meters per second. It does make sense where E=mc would not.
'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteIn his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was faster than light, right?
Still is.
So why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'? (also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Eccelerator and such?)
Oh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right? Just as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right? Only problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!
Oh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteSo ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?
Why is the Pythagoras' sentence as follows: c=sqrt(a^2+b^2)
Where is the sense in squareing something you are going to sqrt?
If you explain that one to me, I might indulge you. If you can not, I suggest learning maths and physics.
I'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.
My quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equasions. We could argue equasions till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equasion theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using sytematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fy is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.
QuoteQuoteBecause he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
I don't see what you are trying to say.
I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light. Another word, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.
Also, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world. We don't need sun-light or cande-light to think, or to reason. The light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.
Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."
As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC2 is not given such superfluous dressing.
Precisely. The more somebody has to sell their world view as opposed to simply proposing it and leaving the idea to let it stand its own feet the less credibility the idea has.
Hello Tank.
I'm not selling anything, I am proposing it, and my participating in here debates is proof of that.
I am here to reason, if you disagree with something I say, knock it off its feet, by all means. This is not church where we have to sit through a sermon without being able to make a comment.. or is it?
I put it out there and let it stand on its own feet, if anyone comments on it, I listen and respond. I am NOT promoting any religion, only defining them and question them.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
'He That Is', or 'I Will Be what I Will be' is not a name, thus not described in Theism. Plese, ... please don't get offended when I say; 'you must become a real atheist', another words, don't allow the gods in theism that we have been indoctrinated with all these years hinder your search, for only then can you start to seek out the real truth.
Remember that we are searching for the 'truth', not one of them from the 'thousands of gods as in theism', I don't care how great they make him/her/it out to be. Monotheism is still 'one of them gods' usually defined in Christianity, ... as a 'Diety' who lives in the 'supernatural realm'.
You can't have an non-theistic god,
theos is the Greek word for...god. Your claim that Yahweh the god of the Bible isn't a 'theistic' god when he clearly is is just plain pathetic. It's like me buying a dog and going around telling other dog-owners that my dog is semehow different from theirs because theirs are all canine dogs, but mine's not a canine dog.
In what way is Yahweh different from any other god? Or the Bible different from any other mythology? And please don't quote from the Bible to reply to that question, a 2000 year old book of myths isn't evidence of anything other than ancient peoples' superstitions.
Oh, and I am a real atheist, just like you're a monotheist. If you were a proper atheist you'd know that Yahweh the god of the Bible doesn't really exist.
Quote from: arianYou missed my point, I said; if there was only ONE COLOR of Crayon in existance, naming it 'red' would be senseless. Yes, there are 'many colors' of crayons, just as there are many 'names' of gods in the world. That was my whole point, none of the names/colors represent our Creator, for He has no name/color. I said 'One Crayon' as in 'One God', the others are made-by-man, useless and cant color/do anything.
My creator are my mother and my father, and they do have names as it happens. The god of the Bible also has a name, it's Yahweh. The reason he has a name is that he never was the only god in the world, to claim that he's the only real god is as hypothetical and as far away from reality as red being the only shade of crayon. The Bible was created by men, and ignorant superstitious ones at that, and its god Yahweh is also a man-made creation who to use your own words is 'useless and cant color/do anything'.
Quote from: arian
Wkipedia-
Yahweh ( /ˈjɑːweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːhweɪ/; Hebrew: יהוה) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible; it is often represented as Jehovah in English-language bibles.[1] The vocalisation Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew יהוה (YHWH). There are many theories regarding the origin and meaning of the name, and none is regarded as conclusive - the explanation given in the Hebrew bible is "I am that I am", but the most likely meaning may be "He causes to be."
The name in the Bible is 'to be known by'. We are on a quest to get to know our God, and because of our insistance to continue to live in sin, we created false gods for ourselves as I point out in theism. People today are taught to look for our Creator in Theism, you will not find Him there, that is why I'm an atheist, who is against theism and what the idea represents. It wants to include 'He that Is' within its defenition.
Yahweh, the god of the Bible, is one of those false theistic gods you talk about, no different from Zeus, Baal or Marduk. You're not an atheist, you're a biblical monotheist, it's getting rather boring hearing you call a cat a dog all the time.
Quote from: arianOK, how about this (please don't take it litterally, I am trying to clear it up for you, an anology. Our CreatorGod is not a crayon)
God=Crayon
Red=Yahweh
Yahweh=All there is
Unfortunately for you that just isn't the case, there's no more evidence to prove Yahweh's existence than there is Zeus, Baal, Odin or Isis' existence. You could replace the above sentence with
God=Crayon
Green=Zeus
Zeus=All there is
and it would make just as much sense
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 24, 2012, 10:05:28 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.
Data, do you mean some long proposed theory? Anselm tried his ontological argument, Luther his theses, and what has changed? Back to square one. Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.
I am not seeking for fame, I would be satisfied with a few people honestly sharing the truth with me. No reward other than that.
QuoteIf not, go back to high school and stop embarassing yourself.
And what, become indoctrinated by theories?
Besides, I would have to finish grade school first, 5th, 6th, 7th, so on. My quest is to know God, and no Nobel prize has ever got anyone closer to knowing God yet, not that I know of.
Tell me, do you think 'nothing' exists, or NOT? Can you define 'nothing'?
I can define 'nothing', and can even show you an experiment to prove the existance for 'nothing', that 'perfect, absolute void/vacuum.'
Its application, ... the proof for God, or the One who IS, that 'Everything' they claim string theory can reveal. Not them theistic gods mind you...
Quote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 02:04:33 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 24, 2012, 10:05:28 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.
If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.
Data, do you mean some long proposed theory? Anselm tried his ontological argument, Luther his theses, and what has changed? Back to square one.
How about some applied science. Or are you to good for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_speed_of_light
QuoteOle Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source, and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.
Quote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 02:04:33 AM
Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.
What? Who would persecute/exterminate you for presenting scientific evidence? What screwed up reality are you living in?
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 24, 2012, 10:05:28 PM
How about some applied science. Or are you too good for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_speed_of_light
QuoteOle Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source, and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.
[/quote]
1676-by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io
1865-James Clerk Maxwell proposed
1905, Albert Einstein
postulated -
postulate: to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argumentI sure don't see anything 'precise' back in those days to measure whether or not light had speed? Does 'postulations' make it more credible, even if it was Einstein postulating it?
After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s 330 years of 'increasingly precise measurements', ... right-o, ..OK then.
I know a little in precision measurements, I used to measure curvic runouts on aircraft engine impellers to .00005 of an inch. under strict climate conditions, but measuring with hundred year old instruments something that moves at 186,282 miles p/s outside of a vacuum, well, ... just read up on the conditions and set up they used (mirrors), if that doesn't make you wonder, just study up on the way they first slowed, then stopped light in that frozen salt solution.
Or, .. the trillion-per-second camera used to capture a laserbeam going through a plastic Coke bottle.
Indoctrination my friend, all indoctrination to keep the BB theory alive.
QuoteQuote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 02:04:33 AM
Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.
What? Who would persecute/exterminate you for presenting scientific evidence? What screwed up reality are you living in?
Screwed up is right, and it IS a reality, ... a passing reality, for the day is soon approaching and we will see everything as it really is. So will everyone, only it will be too late for most people.
Thanks again my friend.
Quote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 12:04:37 AM
'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?
Not to offend, but were you by any chance home-schooled? Ask for your money back if yes.
Where did you get the J from?
E[J] is energy. m[kg] is mass and c[m/s] is the light speed constant. One Joule is 1kgm^2/s^2
QuoteSo why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'?
Within space, the speed of light is the current known limit. The dynamics of the space itself, however, are different.
Quote(also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Eccelerator and such?)
FTL neutrinos are not verified or reproduced, so for now, it's "faulty wiring until proven otherwise"
QuoteOh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right?
Wrong. We very much like to hypothesize and theorize on what lies beyond the observable part within this universe and what lies beyond its outer "borders"
QuoteJust as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?
Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.
QuoteOnly problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!
I think you have run afoul of some popular simplifications. I can not be arsed to write a book about it, even though I'm almost suffiiently bored to do just that, so I'll give you a non-answer to this one: it's not that simple.
QuoteOh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?
No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.
QuoteI'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.
No rabbit hole. I am asking you to show me that you have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. If you do, I will gladly go in detail into the whys of square behind the c.
QuoteMy quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equasions.
You know that this can get you banned for preaching, right?
QuoteWe could argue equasions till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equasion theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using sytematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fy is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.
Wouldn't "I suck at math" be a much easier and much more honest answer? Doesn't your holy book say something about honesty being good and right?
Quote
I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light.
Of course not. 175 km/h does not define my car either.
QuoteAnother word, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.
Who said anything about turning something into light? We are talking about the corelation between matter and energy.
QuoteAlso, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.
Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.
QuoteWe don't need sun-light or cande-light to think, or to reason.
Sunlight might be nice, seeing how with the current tech, we would all die without it.
QuoteThe light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.
Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 25, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
QuoteJust as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?
Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.
No. We have no idea what this part of space looked like prior to the big bang. It may have been a large black hole or two colliding, in which case time did exist prior.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 25, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
QuoteAlso, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.
Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.
Agree with Asmo, light existed prior to the evolution of eyes.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 25, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
QuoteThe light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.
Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.
It seems that biblical assertions are inconsistent with scientific theory. Hmmm, what can we make of that?
Quote from: Stevil on March 25, 2012, 10:03:43 AM
Quote from: AsmoYes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.
No. We have no idea what this part of space looked like prior to the big bang. It may have been a large black hole or two colliding, in which case time did exist prior.
Yes. :P (Different sides of the same coin. Off the top of my head, think of a phase shifted tangent graph, where the asymptote y represents the Big Bang. Yes, I know tan sucks for this example, but I'm just not bored enough to find a better one)
Quote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 12:20:48 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."
As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC2 is not given such superfluous dressing.
Precisely. The more somebody has to sell their world view as opposed to simply proposing it and leaving the idea to let it stand its own feet the less credibility the idea has.
Hello Tank.
I'm not selling anything, I am proposing it, and my participating in here debates is proof of that.
I am here to reason, if you disagree with something I say, knock it off its feet, by all means. This is not church where we have to sit through a sermon without being able to make a comment.. or is it?
I put it out there and let it stand on its own feet, if anyone comments on it, I listen and respond. I am NOT promoting any religion, only defining them and question them.
Bullshit.
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 09:10:00 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: arian on March 24, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.
Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?
Pollution, chemo-therapy etc...
It's that 'last dose, that last treatment' that kills them. What do you think 'Cancer Hospitals' were built for? Cancer-Hospitals, ... the name says it all.
Hospice is where they watch them that were chosen for extermination, die, and act like they are making their last days more comfortable, ... LOL
I don't see anything about that that is "LOL" worthy.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 25, 2012, 06:26:17 PM
I don't see anything about that that is "LOL" worthy.
The logic..?
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
Faith in the
Lord is actually a quite reasonable proposition in which religious heterodoxy is maintained, while still allowing religious innovation. It prevents the fragmentation of society around different tribal sects that will start to kill each other, and also allows any new ideas of morality,etc, to be framed in a religious mindset that makes it easier for people of that religion to accept. As for traditionalism, that will always bog down a religion eventually, creating the need every so often for a new god to replace the old one. But the idea of not testing this god is intrinsic to all of these religions, and indeed, a vital element of the whole shabang.
In short:
It's not the truth. It's the agreement.
Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 10:36:59 PM
Quote from: Thunder Road on January 25, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.
Faith in the Lord is actually a quite reasonable proposition in which religious heterodoxy is maintained, while still allowing religious innovation. It prevents the fragmentation of society around different tribal sects that will start to kill each other, and also allows any new ideas of morality,etc, to be framed in a religious mindset that makes it easier for people of that religion to accept. As for traditionalism, that will always bog down a religion eventually, creating the need every so often for a new god to replace the old one. But the idea of not testing this god is intrinsic to all of these religions, and indeed, a vital element of the whole shabang.
In short: It's not the truth. It's the agreement.
Well, it certainly works to hold religion together. But then the question becomes:
should religion be held together?
Should people have faith?
I don't see why not, if it floats their boat.
On a side note, I am quite interested in theories of space-time. Allow me to propose a series of ideas:
Suppose that space does not actually contain a dimensional 'shape' or even exist as an entity at all? How then would we explain that the universe appears to us as three dimensional?
I answer that: Just as a single camera allowed to pivot will percieve all of space in only two dimensions, two cameras will percieve the exact same space as three dimensions. Furthermore, three cameras arranged in a triangular shape will be able to percieve objects as being capable of motion in four dimensions: That is, three relative motions wherein an object travels closer or farther away from one of the cameras while at the same time moving parallel or in the opposite direction of the other two. furthermore, a fourth motion is allowed by moving the object perpendicular to the triangular plane of cameras/eyeballs! More elaborate matrices of cameras in fixed positions appear to percieve the same space in even more dimensions, which suggests that the shape of any particular space-zone is relative to the number of fixed points of reference.
2. Suppose that time does not exist as an actual dimension. How would such observations as the speed of light be explained?
I answer that: It appears that ny measurement of time is dependent on regulated, syncopated actions, but in reality, the amount of actions that occur during any one particular action is completely relative. To give an example: If I swing my arm, a certain number of actions through the universe will have completed before my arm makes the transition from point A to point B. If I swing my arm near the speed of light, a much, much lesser amount of actions can be observed through the corresponding interval. Thus, from the perspective of my arm, the universe has slowed down, and from the perspective of an outside observer, my arm has appeared to speed up. Regarding the speed of light, all actions form a constant relation to the the distance(and therefore a measurement of action) the speed of light travels compared to the distance the same object travels in a certain time. This seems to imply a universal standard of time measurement throughout the universe, where any action may be absolutely measured temporally by comparing the distance light will travel in a vacuum during the interval of said action. Thus, all actions may be measured relative to the speed of light, but an actual temporal dimension is completely superfluous to this.
I also have a theory about gravitational waves being related somehow to the effect strings(from string theory) might have on their environment(vibrating strings generating waves and what not). Naturally, a massive concentration of mater would mean a massive concentration of vibrating strings sending vibrations into their immediate environment and whatnot. The incredibly small force of a vibrating string would, of course, account for the extreme weakness of a gravitational pull. Alas, I am still working on the theory.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 25, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
Quote from: arian on March 25, 2012, 12:04:37 AM
'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?
Not to offend, but were you by any chance home-schooled? Ask for your money back if yes.
No, not home schooled, but kept-home-from-schooled.
Quote from: AsmodeanWhere did you get the J from?
Joules.
QuoteE[J] is energy. m[kg] is mass and c[m/s] is the light speed constant. One Joule is 1kgm^2/s^2
What if light is instant?
So (M)mass the size of a grain of salt would contain enough energy to run about a 5,000 sq ft. house for a month? If that is so, I can only imagine the Power in the Mass in the entire universe? .. all from nothing, well doesn't it make you wonder?
Quote from: AsmodeanQuote from: arianSo why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'?
Within space, the speed of light is the current known limit. The dynamics of the space itself, however, are different.
So BB theorists either don't want to, or can't imagine beyond the 'observable universe', which one?
QuoteQuote(also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Accelerator and such?)
FTL neutrinos are not verified or reproduced, so for now, it's "faulty wiring until proven otherwise"
Thanks, .. but not how I read the News about scientist finding particles far exceeding the speed of light?
QuoteQuoteOh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right?
Wrong. We very much like to hypothesize and theorize on what lies beyond the observable part within this universe and what lies beyond its outer "borders"
Outer borders? You mean like when the universe was as small as a pinhead, and resided in a point in space?
What is your theory on what lay outside the pin sized universe? It expanded in 'something', .. or.. ? Well, I just don't understand how 'something' could exist in a 'point in space' when the universe is all that is? What do you think the pin-sized universe was residing in at the 'epoch' or that gravitational singularity, or that Moment of the BB expansion?
Quote from: asmodeanQuote from: arianJust as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?
Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.
Linear time? I thought time is defined as a system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events?
Was there anything happening within the pin-sized universe before its sudden expansion? If so, then there was time. Or is my question 'meaningless'?
QuoteQuoteOnly problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!
I think you have run afoul of some popular simplifications. I can not be arsed to write a book about it, even though I'm almost suffiiently bored to do just that, so I'll give you a non-answer to this one: it's not that simple.
Yes, only in the explanation of the BB theory are we allowed to write complex books to answer simple questions. I know, .. it's way too complicated for the 90 percent of humans on earth, so I better just take your word for it?
QuoteQuoteOh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?
No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.
QuoteQuoteI'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.
No rabbit hole. I am asking you to show me that you have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. If you do, I will gladly go in detail into the whys of square behind the c.
Thanks, .. I was just reading up on the 'speed of light' and found the experiments done to measure it unacceptable. I'm sure we could come up with a mathematical equation to make it seem it had speed.
QuoteQuoteMy quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equations.
You know that this can get you banned for preaching, right?
Ah, right. "You shall not test the Lord thy God" Post, .. I forgot that this is not an atheist forum, but the 'No Proving there is a God Forum', sorry.
QuoteQuoteWe could argue equations till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equation theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using systematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fi is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.
Wouldn't "I suck at math" be a much easier and much more honest answer? Doesn't your holy book say something about honesty being good and right?
I would not say "I suck at math", I was just deprived of education. I have read debates between some scientists, and they could not agree on anything when it came to these subjects. I understand the concept. I'm sure you know math much better than me. When science wonders off on some theories, I look into whether or not they have proven some fact they claim they did, and so far it is all still just hearsay.
QuoteQuote
I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light.
Of course not. 175 km/h does not define my car either.
May I ask what does 'c' stand for in the equation?
QuoteQuoteAnother words, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.
Who said anything about turning something into light? We are talking about the corelation between matter and energy.
I thought that it all started with 'energy', then it somehow turned into mass?
QuoteQuoteAlso, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.
Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.
And yet you still cannot see, nor understand what I am saying. How much 'sun light' do you think you would need to see the light?
QuoteQuoteWe don't need sun-light or candle-light to think, or to reason.
Sunlight might be nice, seeing how with the current tech, we would all die without it.
Hmm, .. almost as if it was all planned out? .. do you think it was just a Big-Bang and expanded into all this beauty? Don't you think that it is this theory that is 'ass-backwards'?
QuoteQuoteThe light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.
Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.
Cosmic background radiation, that's a good one too.
Can you explain to me why you define the Creator God as an 'idiot'? I see you guys define everyone here who mention God as idiots too, why? Doesn't science prove otherwise? I believe that the word 'idiot' is used way too much here, must be in the forum rules?
Quote from: arian on April 05, 2012, 11:16:44 PM
No, not home schooled, but kept-home-from-schooled.
Suspected as much. For someone who appears to be rather middle-aged, you also appear to be one of the least educated people I have come in contact with.
That is not a mark against you as much as it is one against your parents or legal guardians, but it does make the job of those trying to explain something to you harder.
QuoteJoules.
...Are a unit of measurement.
QuoteWhat if light is instant?
It is not.
QuoteSo (M)mass the size of a grain of salt would contain enough energy to run about a 5,000 sq ft. house for a month?
Eh? Just so I don't have to do it myself, could you convert from that silly system you are using to SI in the future?
That said, the statement is only barely coherent, but from what I can read out of it, yes, you could probably "run" a 5000ft^2 house for a month using a power source the size and/or the mass of a grain of salt given proper technology. That said, I'm not sure how much energy is required to "run" a house, so you will not get more educated calculations without providing more data.
QuoteIf that is so, I can only imagine the Power in the Mass in the entire universe? .. all from nothing, well doesn't it make you wonder?
What is that Power with capital P you are talking about? Are you refering to energy? Work? Momentum?
QuoteSo BB theorists either don't want to, or can't imagine beyond the 'observable universe', which one?
Not necessarilly their job.
That said, those who want to, can and do.
Quote
Thanks, .. but not how I read the News about scientist finding particles far exceeding the speed of light?
FTL neutrinos are not verified nor reproduced. Until and unless that happens, the assumption is that they were not FTL at all.
Quote
Outer borders? You mean like when the universe was as small as a pinhead, and resided in a point in space?
What is your theory on what lay outside the pin sized universe?
I am not a theoretical physicist, astronomer or someone otherwise in position to create my own "theories". The theories, facts and hypotheses I present were developed, tested, reviewed and verified (where applicable) by people far better educated than I in those areas.
I do not speculate on what was outside the Universe prior to inflation, as that does not interest me nearly as much as what is outside it right now. However, since you call for speculation, the best guess would likely be other universes.
QuoteIt expanded in 'something', .. or.. ?
Your question is extremely vague. It can only be answered by both yes and no, which is not an answer at all, really.
QuoteWell, I just don't understand how 'something' could exist in a 'point in space' when the universe is all that is? What do you think the pin-sized universe was residing in at the 'epoch' or that gravitational singularity, or that Moment of the BB expansion?
Again, the question is not clearly defined, but as it is, I'm not sure it has an applicable answer. It may have been the "emptiness" between the universes (Or not, if we throw multiverse out of the window), or there may have been something else... We just do not know.
Quote
Linear time? I thought time is defined as a system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events?
Yes (Sort of). And?
QuoteWas there anything happening within the pin-sized universe before its sudden expansion? If so, then there was time. Or is my question 'meaningless'?
When the Universe was the size of a pin, it already existed. The inflation is theorized to have hapened "after" the Big Bang, sort of in the same way as a shock wave follows an explosion.
Quote
Yes, only in the explanation of the BB theory are we allowed to write complex books to answer simple questions. I know, .. it's way too complicated for the 90 percent of humans on earth, so I better just take your word for it?
:o Of course you shouldn't take my word for it! I'm not even an astronomer, for pity's sake!
Go to school. Learn what you can. With the basic understanding of physics, mathematics, astronomy and the like, you can keep yourself updated on the latest in scientific breakthroughs, setbacks, standing theories and facts. What's more, doing that, you will be less likely to misunderstand simplifications, or worse, take simplifications literally.
Quote
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.
Of course there is more. And while the string theory has potential to evolve into a functioning theory of everything, today, it is not. There are still weak links and assumptions there that need to be addressed.
Quote
Thanks, .. I was just reading up on the 'speed of light' and found the experiments done to measure it unacceptable. I'm sure we could come up with a mathematical equation to make it seem it had speed.
Which experiments were those?
We can determine the speed of light using multiple sources and methods of calculation. If one displeases you, try another. The speed of light will still be the same.
Quote
Ah, right. "You shall not test the Lord thy God" Post, .. I forgot that this is not an atheist forum, but the 'No Proving there is a God Forum', sorry.
If you have good, peer-reviewed evidence for gods, do present it. If you have a hypothesis you want us to review, we can probably do that too. If what you have is a "holy book" and some anecdotes, however, that would be preaching.
Quote
I would not say "I suck at math", I was just deprived of education.
I wouldn't call a shovel a shovel, just a dirt-moving contraption.
QuoteI have read debates between some scientists, and they could not agree on anything when it came to these subjects.
But that is the beauty of science! If I go and claim that the Earth is flat, and then comes a guy and says "Bullshit! It's round, and here is my evidence" and upon examining the evidence, I am proven wrong and he right, science progresses and the standing facts are changed.
QuoteI understand the concept. I'm sure you know math much better than me. When science wonders off on some theories, I look into whether or not they have proven some fact they claim they did, and so far it is all still just hearsay.
Hearsay is not science. That is not how science works at all.
Quote
May I ask what does 'c' stand for in the equation?
The vector-independent velocity (also known as "speed") of light. It is a
parameter.
Quote
I thought that it all started with 'energy', then it somehow turned into mass?
E=mc^2 is quite reversible.
Quote
And yet you still cannot see, nor understand what I am saying. How much 'sun light' do you think you would need to see the light?
Some fractions of 1lx, I do not know how many exactly.
Quote
Hmm, .. almost as if it was all planned out? .. do you think it was just a Big-Bang and expanded into all this beauty? Don't you think that it is this theory that is 'ass-backwards'?
And again, you are approaching it ass-first. Remember, the stars were there long before life on Earth - even the Earth was there long before life on Earth. Life has built itself around what it has, not the other way around.
Quote
Can you explain to me why you define the Creator God as an 'idiot'? I see you guys define everyone here who mention God as idiots too, why? Doesn't science prove otherwise? I believe that the word 'idiot' is used way too much here, must be in the forum rules?
Oh, you can call someone an idiot as long as it is in context and as long as you are prepared to justify it.
Let's start at the beginning: God is supposed to have created light before creating the sources of light. Aside from a logical pitfall uneducated goat herders from several millenia ago happily fell into, that is quite stupid. It's like building a car before inventing a wheel.
Eh... One by one, the examples of god's idiocy would take me days to write out. There was also the garden and the tree and his near-do-well kid and the flood and... A whole load of inefficient, borderline-schizophrenic and utterly stupid crap.
Quote from: arian on April 05, 2012, 11:16:44 PM
QuoteQuoteOh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?
No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.
The article clearly states that there is no working TOE as of yet. You gave us an examlpe of how there is no current TOE to prove that there is in fact a working TOE.
QuoteString theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything."
QuoteEinstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics
.
QuoteAnd a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer.
Einstein really was ahead of his time. *nod*
I can't help but to wonder where would we be if he were born 40/50 years later? I mean, would science have progressed further?
I think of this a lot, since he has such an impact on the scientific community to this day.