Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[RandomGuy]

The context for Rob's beliefs are, when asked is it evil to hack babies to death, and the response is:

paraphrased, "It is moral if God is fighting his enemies".

The assumptions that go into this:
God is moral, and dictates what is moral and what is not. i.e. "if God does it, it is automatically moral"

God is moral.
God cannot be immoral.

Therefore
If God does X, X is moral. (X is, by definition, moral, BECAUSE God does it)


X can be anything in this system.

X = Ordering his follower to hack babies to death.

Substitute X into the above:

If God (orders his followers to hack babies to death), (ordering people to hack babies to death) is moral.

This is what Rob is saying, although he is neither honest enough, nor intelligent enough to summarize it this way.

I will represent this as Robs position.

If it is NOT his position, all he has to do is say "I do not believe that ordering people to hack babies to death is moral".

If it is his position, then he will try to deflect it and call me an idiot.

Simple really.



[RG you are an idiot] [repeats lame excuse: "that was God and the Jews"].

And that is pretty much the end of rational debate there.

Wonder what his take on slavery is.

Jesus said it was ok, and never said that it was immoral, as long as you don't beat them to death.

What is your excuse for that tack, Prophet Bob?

[spurraider21]

I couldn't sleep this morning, so I read through the whole thread. I know what you're saying and agree. I know he's misusing the term allegory. I just don't see that misuse to be that big of a deal. It is neither a glaring weakness nor a get-out-of-jail-free card. He's not answering a simple question, that he understands fully. No way to dig him out of that hole.
that must have sucked :lol

[Chinook]

Yes, it is more than a little hard here.

Rob tried until he got painted into a corner, then gave up, and now can't be man enough to admit he is wrong.

Personally, I have a friend who makes the same claim "well that stuff isn't meant to be literal", but that falls into the same "it was just rules for the Jews" camp.

Either way of putting it simply points out the glaring problem of interpretation. The bible didn't come with a cliff notes version. :D

That's because it's antiquated. It was made by certain people for certain people. It's strange that it has so much staying power. It would be like if those "For Dummies" books became the authorities on knowledge in 2000 years.

[RandomGuy]

Answered many many times on here already and just recently in post #1484.
Reread that and the other posts and you will have your answers and even using different words each time so you and others are not confused.
'nuff said.

Actually it isn't 'nuff, if it is ambiguous on the part of your readers.

Either you were clear, or you weren't, and simple yes or no questions could be made clear, if your intention is to be so.

Can't hurt to clearly state your beliefs, as these things get buried. Literally happened or not seems pretty straight forward.

[Chinook]

that must have sucked :lol

It did. But I just started skimming through posts eventually. No offense, but nothing new really came up for like the last 150 posts before today. It was just different people trying different ways to lift a manhole cover with a toothpick.

[xmas1997]

There are some stupid Ivy Leaguers. I met quite a few in school. Xmas is being obstinate in this thread, though, not ignorant. He knows what he's doing.

But anyways, I meant diction, because he obviously means symbolic and not allegorical, and everyone else seems to understand that, because they keep using both terms. I don't think you need help from a technicality to win this debate.

Pretty much agree with the rest. Can't even have a productive conversation with the way things are.

No one, least of all me, is attempting to claim some sort of mythical "victory" here, this is not a contest that can be won or lost IMHO, and especially so on a message board.
All along I have maintained this was merely a "discussion" for me.
And yes, of course it is "symbolism", yet it is widely well known that this literary style that was used in the bible and other religious books like this were considered "allegory" to differentiate it from other literary styles.
And to "grasp" these stories in the correct manner in which they were written, you need to understand "why" the authors used this particular style before you can delve into the story for it's intended symbolism.
And that specifically is the point I am trying to make here.
Others want to make more out of it then what it is, pigeon hole, nitpick, and use straw man tactics in order to "win" some "mythical message board contest", when it isn't even a "contest" in the first place.
It is a "discussion" and a sharing of "opinions", nothing more, and nothing less.
I grant you, some on here are "arguing", but I am not.

EDIT: What I have been trying to get across here and do, is put this in the proper context so that it can be discussed in a competent manner.
I thought this was what RG was trying to do too, except for his forays with Rob, which I have no idea what that was all about.

[Chinook]

No one, least of all me, is attempting to claim some sort of mythical "victory" here, this is not a contest that can be won or lost IMHO, and especially so on a message board.
All along I have maintained this was merely a "discussion" for me.
And yes, of course it is "symbolism", yet it is widely well known that this literary style that was used in the bible and other religious books like this were considered "allegory" to differentiate it from other literary styles.
And to "grasp" these stories in the correct manner in which they were written, you need to understand "why" the authors used this particular style before you can delve into the story for it's intended symbolism.
And that specifically is the point I am trying to make here.
Others want to make more out of it then what it is, pigeon hole, nitpick, and use straw man tactics in order to "win" some "mythical message board contest", when it isn't even a "contest" in the first place.
It is a "discussion" and a sharing of "opinions", nothing more, and nothing less.
I grant you, some on here are "arguing", but I am not.

EDIT: What I have been trying to get across here and do, is put this in the proper context so that it can be discussed in a competent manner.

This is a discourse. It might be a discussion, dialectic or debate, but it still has rules and etiquette. So while there aren't winners or losers, there are still rules folks should follow so that orderly conversation can be maintained.

If you want to just toss your opinion out there, you're welcome to. However, the moment you try to defend it, you are under the rules of discourse. If you break those, it destroys the chance of any discussion, dialectic or debate.

As far as the body of your post, don't count me as one who's keen on having this debate with you (the question of allegory is a debate and not a discussion). It's for you guys to sort out among yourselves. We'll see if this thread ever gets back on track.

[RD2191]

God is not evil.:wakeup

[spurraider21]

God is not evil.:wakeup
it's an allegory :wakeup

[RD2191]

Banana:wakeup

[Blake]

Xmas is being obstinate in this thread, though, not ignorant. He knows what he's doing.

gonna disagree with ya there.

[Blake]

Answered many many times on here already and just recently in post #1484.
Reread that and the other posts and you will have your answers and even using different words each time so you and others are not confused.
'nuff said.

you haven't answered anything. What you've done is type out 100s of phrases full of fence riding gibberish.

All we are looking for here is a "yes" or a "no".

[Clipper Nation]

It did. But I just started skimming through posts eventually. No offense, but nothing new really came up for like the last 150 posts before today. It was just different people trying different ways to lift a manhole cover with a toothpick.
Mainly because the jeebotards stopped discussing anything and started circlejerking with emoticons, memes, etc....

[Blake]

God is not evil.:wakeup

Paradox

[RD2191]

Not true. All of RGs questions have been answered. If he wants to keep being an idiot then that's on him.

[Chinook]

Mainly because the jeebotards stopped discussing anything and started circlejerking with emoticons, memes, etc....

Obviously.

[Blake]

Not true. All of RGs questions have been answered. If he wants to keep being an idiot then that's on him.

http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/sites/www.lebanondemocrat.com/files/styles/small/public/Checkers_2_.jpg?itok=FX1-09I2

Check. Mate.

[RD2191]

Obviously.

Lol

[xmas1997]

Actually it isn't 'nuff, if it is ambiguous on the part of your readers.

Either you were clear, or you weren't, and simple yes or no questions could be made clear, if your intention is to be so.

Can't hurt to clearly state your beliefs, as these things get buried. Literally happened or not seems pretty straight forward.

I have stated many times already that I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense, but that it did in a symbolic sense, which would explain why it is written in an allegorical style that was common back then IMHO.
But then people want to interpret my stated opinion into something I am not saying.
No one here can say for sure what happened back then, so how can anyone be expected to know whether any of the events happened or not?
That should be common sense.
None of us were there.
Thus none of us can know.
Why is this so confusing for others to understand?

[RD2191]

And that is pretty much the end of rational debate there.

Wonder what his take on slavery is.

Jesus said it was ok, and never said that it was immoral, as long as you don't beat them to death.

What is your excuse for that tack, Prophet Bob?
Answer is the same. Different times, different customs, different circumstances.

[Blake]

I have stated many times already that I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense, but that it did in a symbolic sense, which would explain why it is written in an allegorical style that was common back then IMHO.
But then people want to interpret my stated opinion into something I am not saying.
No one here can say for sure what happened back then, so how can anyone be expected to know whether any of the events happened or not?
That should be common sense.
None of us were there.
Thus none of us can know.
Why is this so confusing for others to understand?

Yes or no.

Why is this so confusing for you, Dartmouth?

[Blake]

Answer is the same. Different times, different customs, different circumstances.

Bible says God is unchanging.

[spurraider21]

Obviously.
btw, not to be petty or anything, but do you reckon there's a difference between an event being symbolic and an event occurring symbolically?

[xmas1997]

I believe that since IMHO it WAS written in an allegorical literary style, then it was meant to be symbolism for deeper theological truths, not history in the literal sense of historical facts.
But lets keep in mind that history, even in modern day, is interpreted and thus written in favor of the victors.

[RD2191]

Bible says God is unchanging.

I agree.

[xmas1997]

Yes or no.

Why is this so confusing for you, Dartmouth?

You are the one confused here, not I?
Why do you keep trying to turn this discussion into some mythical contest that can be won or lost?

[spurraider21]

I believe that since IMHO it WAS written in an allegorical literary style, then it was meant to be symbolism for deeper theological truths, not history in the literal sense of history facts.
But lets keep in mind that history, even in modern day, is interpreted and thus written in favor of the victors.
excellent, seems we are actually making progress. so you don't believe the story of Abraham actually happened. actually as in... in actuality. not symbolically or alegorically. actually.

again, nobody can be "sure" but this is your belief. is that correct?

[Chinook]

btw, not to be petty or anything, but do you reckon there's a difference between an event being symbolic and an event occurring symbolically?

Yeah. The first describes the actual, symbolizing event, and the second describes the symbolized concept. So the fall of the Berlin Wall was symbolic for the end of the Cold War, while the Cold War ended symbolically when the Berlin Wall fell (and literally at some other time that's open to debate).

[RD2191]

xmas what exactly are your beliefs? Tbh. You believe the bible is just a fable? Do you believe in God or a creator?

[xmas1997]

excellent, seems we are actually making progress. so you don't believe the story of Abraham actually happened. actually as in... in actuality. not symbolically or alegorically. actually.

again, nobody can be "sure" but this is your belief. is that correct?

You keep asking me the same stupid question over and over again even though I answered it already.
You are getting redundant.
I prefer my answer rather than "your interpretation" of my answer, thank you very much.
See post #1524.
We can go from there if you like.

[spurraider21]

You keep asking me the same stupid question over and over again even though I answered it already.
You are getting redundant.
I prefer my answer rather than "your interpretation" of my answer, thank you very much.
See post #1524.
We can go from there if you like.
in a thread about faith/beliefs, its not a stupid question to inquire about your beliefs

[Blake]

I agree.

Problem is that from the start of the Bible to the end, he changes.

A lot.

[Blake]

You are the one confused here, not I?
Why do you keep trying to turn this discussion into some mythical contest that can be won or lost?

It's no contest at this point.

[spurraider21]

You keep asking me the same stupid question over and over again even though I answered it already.
You are getting redundant.
I prefer my answer rather than "your interpretation" of my answer, thank you very much.
See post #1524.
We can go from there if you like.
i already quoted 1524 which is where i based my response off of. you said "it was meant to be symbolism... not history in the literal sense of history facts"

i took that to mean that you don't believe events such as the story of Abraham actually occurred. is that wrong to say?

[RD2191]

Problem is that from the start of the Bible to the end, he changes.

A lot.
I don't think God changed. Times, customs, rules/laws may have changed but I think God always tried to help out his people/followers the most he could. Of course even when God tried to be more lenient with them they still couldn't follow simple rules, so of course things changed.

[xmas1997]

xmas what exactly are your beliefs? Tbh. You believe the bible is just a fable? Do you believe in God or a creator?

I believe that God is the Creator and we were created in His image and would do these things and greater, as Christ said.
I think that the bible was man made, although it was inspired by God to impart His truths to us, His children (creations), symbolically, because only in symbolic terms would mankind have even the barest of inklings of understanding of God's reasoning and wisdom. IMHO it would be akin to an ant trying to understand the reasoning and wisdom of a human.
Yet it was also assembled by men who had their own agendas push to gain control, to influence, and to consolidate power, and thus it "could have been" easily corrupted to their own ends by leaving certain things out, and in some cases entire books (gospels, etc.), or changing a word or phrase here and there that could explain the inconsistencies.

[Blake]

I don't think God changed. Times, customs, rules/laws may have changed but I think God always tried to help out his people/followers the most he could. Of course even when God tried to be more lenient with them they still couldn't follow simple rules, so of course things changed.

God definitely changed.

He also made the rules. The rules also changed.

The evidence is crystal clear he is a changing God even though the Bible directly claims he's not.

Paradox.

[Blake]

I believe that God is the Creator and we were created in His image and would do these things and greater, as Christ said.
I think that the bible was man made, although it was inspired by God to impart His truths to us, His children (creations), symbolically, because only in symbolic terms would mankind have even the barest of inklings of understanding of God's reasoning and wisdom. IMHO it would be akin to an ant trying to understand the reasoning and wisdom of a human.
Yet it was also assembled by men who had their own agendas push to gain control, to influence, and to consolidate power, and thus it "could have been" easily corrupted to their own ends by leaving certain things out, and in some cases entire books (gospels, etc.), or changing a word or phrase here and there that could explain the inconsistencies.

So you're saying it was inspired by God to man, but man took it and used it for their own gain.

do you understand why this is a silly notion?

[xmas1997]

in a thread about faith/beliefs, its not a stupid question to inquire about your beliefs

The SAME question asked over and over again after being given an answer the first time is not warranted.


Problem is that from the start of the Bible to the end, he changes.

Who changes, God? If so, why would you presume to say this is not allowed, on your authority, do you think you know the mind of God?
Who are you to know and say what God knows?

Or me? Because if so you are most assuredly wrong again and making up your own usual false accusations and attributing them to others, which strengthens my contention that you are unable to understand even the most rudimentary of statements and opinions.



So you're saying it was inspired by God to man, but man took it and used it for their own gain.

do you understand why this is a silly notion?


I hate to ask you because I know you will just say a bunch of nonsense and gibberish as usual, but I'll bite anyway. Why do you consider this a silly notion?

[RD2191]

I believe that God is the Creator and we were created in His image and would do these things and greater, as Christ said.
I think that the bible was man made, although it was inspired by God to impart His truths to us, His children (creations), symbolically, because only in symbolic terms would mankind have even the barest of inklings of understanding of God's reasoning and wisdom. IMHO it would be akin to an ant trying to understand the reasoning and wisdom of a human.
Yet it was also assembled by men who had their own agendas push to gain control, to influence, and to consolidate power, and thus it "could have been" easily corrupted to their own ends by leaving certain things out, and in some cases entire books (gospels, etc.), or changing a word or phrase here and there that could explain the inconsistencies.
thank you. I appreciate the answer.

[Blake]

The SAME question asked over and over again after being given an answer the first time is not warranted.


Simple yes or no is what we're still looking for....

Yes or no.



Who changes, God? If so, why would you presume to say this is not allowed, on your authority, do you think you know the mind of God?
Who are you to know and say what God knows?

It's not allowed for God to change because the Bible says he doesn't.

It's either inspired/ordained by God or not. Pick a lane.



I hate to ask you because I know you will just say a bunch of nonsense and gibberish as usual, but I'll bite anyway. Why do you consider this a silly notion?

do we agree that the Bible states that God is perfect and can see the future?

If so then it's silly for him to give his truth to people that will fuck it up for all future generations.

[spurraider21]

The SAME question asked over and over again after being given an answer the first time is not warranted.
you have repeatedly refused to answer the question at hand. instead of answering if you believe the events actually occurred you start rambling about the allegorical literary style, or some other equally irrelevant point

are you ashamed of your beliefs? why do you refuse to share them?

[RD2191]

God definitely changed.

He also made the rules. The rules also changed.

The evidence is crystal clear he is a changing God even though the Bible directly claims he's not.

Paradox.
I disagree.

[xmas1997]

It's not allowed for God to change because the Bible says he doesn't.
It's either inspired/ordained by God or not. Pick a lane.

do we agree that the Bible states that God is perfect and can see the future?
If so then it's silly for him to give his truth to people that will fuck it up for all future generations.


Who are you to say and judge what is silly or not when it comes to God, do you know His purposes?
Who said it was "not allowed", you?

So you are saying that man CANNOT fuck up a work of GOD?
Then how do you explain what man has done to the earth so far?
Your contention is preposterous because the bible does say that we have free will, so in essence we are free to believe what we want, and screw up what God has created.

I can only "partially" agree to your second to last sentence, He created "time" so time is as much part of Him as it isn't, plus He always was, always is, and always will be.

You need to do some further research on the concept of "free will".

[xmas1997]

I have stated many times already that I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense, but that it did in a symbolic sense, which would explain why it is written in an allegorical style that was common back then IMHO.
But then people want to interpret my stated opinion into something I am not saying.
No one here can say for sure what happened back then, so how can anyone be expected to know whether any of the events happened or not?
That should be common sense.
None of us were there.
Thus none of us can know.
Why is this so confusing for others to understand?


you have repeatedly refused to answer the question at hand. instead of answering if you believe the events actually occurred you start rambling about the allegorical literary style, or some other equally irrelevant point

are you ashamed of your beliefs? why do you refuse to share them?

For the last and final time above is the answer in bold.

If that is not good enough for you, then kindly fuck off! :lol

Because that is all you will ever get, now and forever.
:lmao

[spurraider21]

For the last and final time above is the answer in bold.

If that is not good enough for you, then kindly fuck off! :lol

Because that is all you will ever get, now and forever.
:lmao
so if you don't believe that the story of Abraham actually occured, would you agree that it is fiction? even if written in a certain literary style, fiction is still fiction.

[silverblk mystix]

God definitely changed.


You nor anyone else on the planet or throughout history has any idea what "god" is =
the closest any human can even get - is "maybe" by trying to see what "god" is NOT. -Suddenly you want to argue over something that no one in history even knows what it is? lolololol

He also made the rules. The rules also changed.


Now you are really lost - you never figured out what "god" is - but now you want to talk about "rules" that this "?god?" made? lololololol

The evidence is crystal clear he is a changing God even though the Bible directly claims he's not.


Evidence? lololololol - This is how ridiculous your arguments are - you condescend - and arrogantly assume you are superior and you are as lost as the rest of the planet when it pertains to this topic - lolololol

Wait - you are gonna tell people you have evidence about a mystery? An unknowable mystery - but you have evidence? lolololol ...like I always said - two blind men bashing each other over the head because they disagree on what the color "green" is - and neither one of them has ever "seen" lolololol

Paradox.

[xmas1997]

so if you don't believe that the story of Abraham actually occured, would you agree that it is fiction? even if written in a certain literary style, fiction is still fiction.

I agree that "fictional stories" are fiction, but I do not agree that biblical allegory used as a literary style is by extension fiction.
Why?
Since none of us were there, then none of us can know if it was fact or fiction.
If a bear shits in the woods, because you were not there to see it, does that imply that the bear did not shit in the woods, and thus is fiction?

[spurraider21]

I agree that "fictional stories" are fiction, but I do not agree that biblical allegory used as a literary style is by extension fiction.
Why?
Since none of were there, then none of us can know if it was fact or fiction.
If a bear shits in the woods, because you were not there to see it, does that imply that the bear did not shit in the woods, and thus is fiction?
your words "I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense"


if the events didn't happen "in a literal sense" then they simply didn't happen. and if they didn't happen, that makes the stories fiction. i'm really not sure how this isn't getting through to you. "literary style" or anything else is completely irrelevant to this point, yet you keep mentioning it for some odd reason

[silverblk mystix]

your words "I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense"


if the events didn't happen "in a literal sense" then they simply didn't happen. and if they didn't happen, that makes the stories fiction. i'm really not sure how this isn't getting through to you. "literary style" or anything else is completely irrelevant to this point, yet you keep mentioning it for some odd reason


Translation: "I just want to confirm what I already concluded a long time ago and put my mind to sleep.It is just too much work to keep an open mind and discover truth - I would rather be a robot and keep my mind on cruise control."

[spurraider21]

Translation: "I just want to confirm what I already concluded a long time ago and put my mind to sleep.It is just too much work to keep an open mind and discover truth - I would rather be a robot and keep my mind on cruise control."
not really. its not like xmas' answer will alter or affect my beliefs. this whole time i've just been trying to get an understanding of his beliefs. he's been quite coy about it.

he's been claiming he doesnt believe the events literally occurred, but doesn't believe they're fictional. it doesn't add up

[xmas1997]

your words "I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense"


if the events didn't happen "in a literal sense" then they simply didn't happen. and if they didn't happen, that makes the stories fiction. i'm really not sure how this isn't getting through to you. "literary style" or anything else is completely irrelevant to this point, yet you keep mentioning it for some odd reason

I keep mentioning it and giving examples purely for your sake because it seems to be going over your heads. You just don't "get", or refuse to accept the type of writing IMHO the bible was written in.

Any high school student could grasp these literary styles while maybe not their symbolism.
You refuse to accept the possibility that something could occur symbolically and still be real unless it was tangible and material, thus you are stuck with this fixation that only those things or events that are literal, are real.
Is love real or imaginary, is hope real or imaginary?

[Chinook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPI6ZSUOKhw&app=desktop

Just let Al soothe the hurt feelings with his soulful voice.

[spurraider21]

I keep mentioning it and giving examples purely for your sake because it seems to be going over your heads. You just don't "get", or refuse to accept the type of writing IMHO the bible was written in.

Any high school student could grasp these literary styles while maybe not their symbolism.
You refuse to accept the possibility that something could occur symbolically and still be real unless it was tangible and material, thus you are stuck with this fixation that only those things or events that are literal, are real.
Is love real or imaginary, is hope real or imaginary?
we aren't talking about an abstract idea like love... i'm talking (in this case) about the actual act of a god speaking to abraham, instructing him to kill his son... this is something that either occurred or not. you said you don't believe anything in the bible happened in a literal sense. thus the actual, earthly act of god telling abraham to kill his son, according to the bolded quote, is not something you think actually occured. thus that event is fictional

[silverblk mystix]

not really. its not like xmas' answer will alter or affect my beliefs. this whole time i've just been trying to get an understanding of his beliefs. he's been quite coy about it.

he's been claiming he doesnt believe the events literally occurred, but doesn't believe they're fictional. it doesn't add up


But it doesn't make him wrong - and you are implying that - and you appear to be in cahoots with the trolls in the thread who have no interest whatsoever in learning anything, sharing anything, discovering anything.

Their sole purpose is to ridicule, confirm their own inaccurate conclusions, troll, lie, distort, condescend, etc...

Xmas has been more than open and honest and respectful - yet - this is just something that means nothing to trolls.


Why are you suddenly jumping on the troll bandwagon?


The scriptures are merely a guide, a handbook, an example, a teaching tool to grasp some of the planet's mysteries.

Some people believe certain writings and take comfort in them, study them, try to interpret them, understand them.

Some of the events are allegorical. Some are factual. Some are embellished. Some are interpreted and re-interpreted wrongly or inaccurately.

Some events happened and then a LOT was lost in translation. Some seem impossible and probably are - but yet - they had meaningful messages and meaningful teachings - even if the event itself was exaggerated or misinterpreted.


But you know and knew all this - why the dishonest game?

[xmas1997]

thank you. I appreciate the answer.

At least you can understand with an open mind and see the possibilities involved here because you know that God has no limitations when it comes to the finite or anything else for that matter.
We may not agree on everything, but what we do agree on is His Existence and His ability to be far beyond our measly abilities to understand Him.

[xmas1997]

But it doesn't make him wrong - and you are implying that - and you appear to be in cahoots with the trolls in the thread who have no interest whatsoever in learning anything, sharing anything, discovering anything.

Their sole purpose is to ridicule, confirm their own inaccurate conclusions, troll, lie, distort, condescend, etc...

Xmas has been more than open and honest and respectful - yet - this is just something that means nothing to trolls.


Why are you suddenly jumping on the troll bandwagon?


The scriptures are merely a guide, a handbook, an example, a teaching tool to grasp some of the planet's mysteries.

Some people believe certain writings and take comfort in them, study them, try to interpret them, understand them.

Some of the events are allegorical. Some are factual. Some are embellished. Some are interpreted and re-interpreted wrongly or inaccurately.

Some events happened and then a LOT was lost in translation. Some seem impossible and probably are - but yet - they had meaningful messages and meaningful teachings - even if the event itself was exaggerated or misinterpreted.


But you know and knew all this - why the dishonest game?

IMHO God is the ultimate paradox, the Mother of all paradoxes.
The real reason these contentious idiots do not understand, is because they refuse to open their minds to possibilities beyond what their five senses tell them.
They know not what they do, they are living in a dream world, and they refuse to wake up.

I know they are playing child games, they are too obvious, but I'm glad someone else besides Rob understands the games they are playing.
Yet I will continue to try to answer their questions because they cannot hurt me in the slightest, and the more they post their ridiculous preposterous claims, the more they reveal their ignorance.

But eventually this stuff sinks in and grows roots. The soil may be infertile, but nothing is impossible, so maybe not today, or tomorrow, or even next year, it won't occur to them, but they won't be able to suppress the truth forever.
So I have nothing to lose by explaining what I know.
And I sure as hell don't have all the answers, I am learning everyday how little I actually do know.
And I greatly appreciate learning what I have still yet to learn, and even a troll might shed some light when least expected.

Rob, knows lots more than what he is willing to share as well. Thankfully he keeps an open mind, and so do you.
This is why I enjoy discussing this with the two of you.

RG also knows more than what he lets on, and I suspect plays the "devils' advocate" to spark insight, not only in others, but also within himself.

But beyond all of that, you are bluntly accurate of your assessment of most of the others here.

[spurraider21]

xmas, you either believe the events occurred or they didnt. if they did occur, then the bible is "literally" accurate. if they didn't occur, they are merely allegorical and are thus fictional (in the context of our discussion)

[spurraider21]

But it doesn't make him wrong - and you are implying that - and you appear to be in cahoots with the trolls in the thread who have no interest whatsoever in learning anything, sharing anything, discovering anything.

Their sole purpose is to ridicule, confirm their own inaccurate conclusions, troll, lie, distort, condescend, etc...

Xmas has been more than open and honest and respectful - yet - this is just something that means nothing to trolls.


Why are you suddenly jumping on the troll bandwagon?


The scriptures are merely a guide, a handbook, an example, a teaching tool to grasp some of the planet's mysteries.

Some people believe certain writings and take comfort in them, study them, try to interpret them, understand them.

Some of the events are allegorical. Some are factual. Some are embellished. Some are interpreted and re-interpreted wrongly or inaccurately.

Some events happened and then a LOT was lost in translation. Some seem impossible and probably are - but yet - they had meaningful messages and meaningful teachings - even if the event itself was exaggerated or misinterpreted.


But you know and knew all this - why the dishonest game?
i can't be "right" or "wrong" i'm just trying to get a clear understanding of his beliefs. if he claims he doesn't think the events of the bible literally happened, then simply by definition, he must believe they are fictional. allegory/symbolism/"literary style" are completely irrelevant to that simple point. if they didn't actually, factually, historically occur, they are by definition fictional.

if he doesn't believe that the tales are fictional, then he must believe that they occurred literally, which contradicts what he's been saying. i'm just trying to clarify. its impossible to have a discussion about it if i don't first understand where he's coming from, but he keeps riding the fence, claiming he doesn't believe the events occurred, yet also claiming that they aren't fiction.

if you read my conversation with robdiaz earlier in the thread, you'd see i'm not trolling but i'm legitimately interested in having a civil discussion. xmas is just making it impossible to do so

[Brazil]

:lol 52

looks like a new moon fake landing thread

[Blake]

I disagree.

Neat.

[Blake]

Who are you to say and judge what is silly or not when it comes to God, do you know His purposes?
Who said it was "not allowed", you?

So you are saying that man CANNOT fuck up a work of GOD?
Then how do you explain what man has done to the earth so far?
Your contention is preposterous because the bible does say that we have free will, so in essence we are free to believe what we want, and screw up what God has created.

I can only "partially" agree to your second to last sentence, He created "time" so time is as much part of Him as it isn't, plus He always was, always is, and always will be.

You need to do some further research on the concept of "free will".

God isn't allowed to have contradictions and paradoxes because perfection requires it.

"free will" is a sidebar, but since you bring it up, it's also a holy paradox.

[xmas1997]

we aren't talking about an abstract idea like love... i'm talking (in this case) about the actual act of a god speaking to abraham, instructing him to kill his son... this is something that either occurred or not. you said you don't believe anything in the bible happened in a literal sense. thus the actual, earthly act of god telling abraham to kill his son, according to the bolded quote, is not something you think actually occured. thus that event is fictional

Ah ha, now we are getting somewhere. You agree that love and hope are "abstract" ideas.
What I have been trying all this time, and failing miserably by the way, is to get you to suspend your beliefs long enough to see that some things are abstract and unknowable in black and white terms.
You keep saying that the story of abraham was "actual", but what if it wasn't?
What if it were symbolic of something much more abstract and unknowable, until man had evolved to a point of being able to understand it?
This is why I keep saying that it is not necessarily fiction, even though I do not believe it to be literal, it just "appears to be" on the surface at first impression.
Man had no idea of atomic structure until recently in the long existence of mankind, until then, it wasn't even a conception, much less a consideration.
That is what I believe these stories to be, "symbolic concepts" rather than factual or fictional stories that on the cursory surface has a different appearance than what they truly are, and thus we as of yet do not have anything but a childlike naivety or understanding.
Although there are probably some out there who do understand.
I sincerely hope this helps.

[Blake]

IMHO God is the ultimate paradox, the Mother of all paradoxes.
The real reason these contentious idiots do not understand, is because they refuse to open their minds to possibilities beyond what their five senses tell them.

Lol

I can make up stuff too.

like what if we aren't the only earth out there? like what if Jesus dies on crosses over and over again for humans living across the universe?

[Blake]

And if God is am ultimate paradox, why waste time on him

[spurraider21]

Ah ha, now we are getting somewhere. You agree that love and hope are "abstract" ideas.
What I have been trying all this time, and failing miserably by the way, is to get you to suspend your beliefs long enough to see that some things are abstract and unknowable in black and white terms.
You keep saying that the story of abraham was "actual", but what if it wasn't?
What if it were symbolic of something much more abstract and unknowable, until man had evolved to a point of being able to understand it?
This is why I keep saying that it is not necessarily fiction, even though I do not believe it to be literal, it just "appears to be" on the surface at first impression.
Man had no idea of atomic structure until recently in the long existence of mankind, until then, it wasn't even a conception, much less a consideration.
That is what I believe these stories to be, "symbolic concepts" rather than factual or fictional stories that on the cursory surface has a different appearance than what they truly are, and thus we as of yet do not have anything but a childlike naivety or understanding.
Although there are probably some out there who do understand.
I sincerely hope this helps.
love is an emotion. it isn't tangible. it can't be recorded or measured (yet. with further advances we can be able to more accurately map emotions on the brain, perhaps measure them via chemical levels, balances, etc). the event of God speaking to Abraham does not qualify as such. it is not abstract.

you have made it clear that you don't believe the tale of Abraham factually happened. that would make it fiction

[xmas1997]

Lol

I can make up stuff too.

like what if we aren't the only earth out there? like what if Jesus dies on crosses over and over again for humans living across the universe?

What if he does?

Can you say anything for sure?

Do you know everything?

And how do you know for sure that you are making shit up, but rather some greater entity is not pulling your puppet strings?

How do you know your tiny reality, is the same as everybody's tiny reality?

Do you even realize that everything is made up of energy and "connected" to each other on that subatomic plain?

And if so, how long have you known this, since you were 7, for example?

This is more in and out there than your, or my, five senses are aware of IMHO.
But you are welcome to keep going along on your blindly accepting way if that is what makes you happy.

[Blake]

What if he does?

Can you say anything for sure?

Do you know everything?

And how do you know for sure that you are making shit up, but rather some greater entity is not pulling your puppet strings?

How do you know your tiny reality, is the same as everybody's tiny reality?

Do you even realize that everything is made up of energy and "connected" to each other on that subatomic plain?

And if so, how long have you known this, since you were 7, for example?

This is more in and out there than your, or my, five senses are aware of IMHO.
But you are welcome to keep going along on your blindly accepting way if that is what makes you happy.

Spaghetti monster reasoning

[Blake]

Do you believe in the resurrection story or not

Yes or no

[xmas1997]

Spaghetti monster reasoning

^^^Loony tunes troll logic.^^^
I guess I am supposed to answer your questions, but you don't have to answer mine.
No surprise, you're so predictable.

[xmas1997]

love is an emotion. it isn't tangible. it can't be recorded or measured (yet. with further advances we can be able to more accurately map emotions on the brain, perhaps measure them via chemical levels, balances, etc). the event of God speaking to Abraham does not qualify as such. it is not abstract.

you have made it clear that you don't believe the tale of Abraham factually happened. that would make it fiction

I ask again, how do you know for sure it isn't factual, fictional, or something beyond or in between both?
What makes you so sure that it isn't what I am proposing, purely symbolical?

[xmas1997]

Do you believe in the resurrection story or not

Yes or no

Are you 13, 14, or 15, which is it?

[xmas1997]

Spaghetti monster reasoning

^This is what you really wanted to do all along. ^
You are so predictable.
Plus it is why I rarely give you a civil answer anymore.
You're just playing a kiddie game.
This is all you ever do.

[spurraider21]

I ask again, how do you know for sure it isn't factual, fictional, or something beyond or in between both?
What makes you so sure that it isn't what I am proposing, purely symbolical?
i'm asking for YOUR BELIEF. i'm not claiming i know these things as facts. i can't have a conversation with you if i dont have a grasp of your beliefs.

do YOU BELIEVE the story of abraham actually, factually happened. from your previous comments, the answer appears to be "no." if that is the case, and you believe that the events didnt occur, then it stands to reason that you believe those events are fictional.

[silverblk mystix]

And if God is am ultimate paradox, why waste time on him



lol

referring to "god" as "him"


as if "god" were something "separate" from you, from me, from the earth, from the universe", and as if you reached this conclusion and were arrogant enough to believe you were even close...


what a blind arrogant fool you are and I gave you truth in my last post to you and you could not even respond to it because it was irrefutable.

[spurraider21]

lol

referring to "god" as "him"


as if "god" were something "separate" from you, from me, from the earth, from the universe", and as if you reached this conclusion and were arrogant enough to believe you were even close...


what a blind arrogant fool you are and I gave you truth in my last post to you and you could not even respond to it because it was irrefutable.
the bible calls god a he

[xmas1997]

i'm asking for YOUR BELIEF. i'm not claiming i know these things as facts. i can't have a conversation with you if i dont have a grasp of your beliefs.

do YOU BELIEVE the story of abraham actually, factually happened. from your previous comments, the answer appears to be "no." if that is the case, and you believe that the events didnt occur, then it stands to reason that you believe those events are fictional.

That would only be a reasonable assumption if you believed everything in life is cut and dry, black and white.
But I give you more credit than that simplistic viewpoint, life is much more gray, and the black and white conception is just an illusion that is easier for us to wrap our minds around than to consider other possibilities.
I look for the truth, rather than illusion, and I rarely take any ones' word for things anymore because nine times out of ten they will be wrong.

[TheyCallMePro]

I have no idea what this thread is about. So I'll weigh in!

The law of gravity condenses space into matter. In other words, it creates something from nothing.

Life is energy. Energy is everywhere. But it takes different forms. Life is just one of them.

There is no end to space because space is by it's own definition, nothing. And there can't be an end to nothing. However, there is an end to matter out there in space, but the idea that "all the matter in the universe that exists currently is all the matter that there ever will be" is ludicrous. What do you call reproduction if not the creation of matter?

We are destined to become Godlike. We will live forever, and we will master space and the universe. And eventually, we'll all separate from one another, as death will be the only obstacle we'll face, as only God's can kill one another. We will create our own kingdoms in the vast, endless universe.

The End.

[xmas1997]

lol

referring to "god" as "him"


as if "god" were something "separate" from you, from me, from the earth, from the universe", and as if you reached this conclusion and were arrogant enough to believe you were even close...


what a blind arrogant fool you are and I gave you truth in my last post to you and you could not even respond to it because it was irrefutable.

I don't think they are going to "get" this, since they are already having problems understanding what I am saying.
And we know he isn't interested in truth.
Like you said, trolls and truth don't go together.

[Blake]

^This is what you really wanted to do all along. ^
You are so predictable.
Plus it is why I rarely give you a civil answer anymore.
You're just playing a kiddie game.
This is all you ever do.

Why are you getting upset? You gave a spaghetti monster response. It is what it is.

Yes or no. Do you believe in the resurrection story?

[xmas1997]

I have no idea what this thread is about. So I'll weigh in!

The law of gravity condenses space into matter. In other words, it creates something from nothing.

Life is energy. Energy is everywhere. But it takes different forms. Life is just one of them.

There is no end to space because space is by it's own definition, nothing. And there can't be an end to nothing. However, there is an end to matter out there in space, but the idea that "all the matter in the universe that exists currently is all the matter that there ever will be" is ludicrous. What do you call reproduction if not the creation of matter?

We are destined to become Godlike. We will live forever, and we will master space and the universe. And eventually, we'll all separate from one another, as death will be the only obstacle we'll face, as only God's can kill one another. We will create our own kingdoms in the vast, endless universe.

The End.

I like the way you think.

[xmas1997]

Why are you getting upset? You gave a spaghetti monster response. It is what it is.

Yes or no. Do you believe in the resurrection story?

Why are you making false accusations again?
Because you have no logical response you resort to saying someone is upset, when that is the furthest thing from the truth.
Do you just love to lie, because for the most part that is all you do?
Is that the real reason you have an ex-wife?
Or is it because you are really just 13, or 14, or 15?
I think it is the latter.

[silverblk mystix]

I have no idea what this thread is about. So I'll weigh in!

The law of gravity condenses space into matter. In other words, it creates something from nothing.

Life is energy. Energy is everywhere. But it takes different forms. Life is just one of them.

There is no end to space because space is by it's own definition, nothing. And there can't be an end to nothing. However, there is an end to matter out there in space, but the idea that "all the matter in the universe that exists currently is all the matter that there ever will be" is ludicrous. What do you call reproduction if not the creation of matter?

We are destined to become Godlike. We will live forever, and we will master space and the universe. And eventually, we'll all separate from one another, as death will be the only obstacle we'll face, as only God's can kill one another. We will create our own kingdoms in the vast, endless universe.

The End.


A lot of good stuff in here ^


I would only differ in my opinion - in that - we (humans) will only do what we have done throughout history -


which is to destroy each other and most of the planet - until nature - does its thing - and exterminates us.

[Chinook]

I have no idea what this thread is about. So I'll weigh in!

The law of gravity condenses space into matter. In other words, it creates something from nothing.

Life is energy. Energy is everywhere. But it takes different forms. Life is just one of them.

There is no end to space because space is by it's own definition, nothing. And there can't be an end to nothing. However, there is an end to matter out there in space, but the idea that "all the matter in the universe that exists currently is all the matter that there ever will be" is ludicrous. What do you call reproduction if not the creation of matter?

We are destined to become Godlike. We will live forever, and we will master space and the universe. And eventually, we'll all separate from one another, as death will be the only obstacle we'll face, as only God's can kill one another. We will create our own kingdoms in the vast, endless universe.

The End.

Um... To each their own? I'll give you credit for at least breaking up the monotony.

[RD2191]

Can you imagine theycallmepro and xmas together while smoking a joint? Ho lee shit. I'd pay to see that shit. :lol

[xmas1997]

God isn't allowed to have contradictions and paradoxes because perfection requires it.

"free will" is a sidebar, but since you bring it up, it's also a holy paradox.

Someday, you might actually say something profound,



but it isn't today.
:lol

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
So, are you 13, 14, or 15?

[xmas1997]

Um... To each their own? I'll give you credit for at least breaking up the monotony.

You do a pretty good job of it yourself.

Too bad things are so boring upstairs, or I wouldn't be down here.

[xmas1997]

Can you imagine theycallmepro and xmas together while smoking a joint? Ho lee shit. I'd pay to see that shit. :lol

I have a feeling you'd be right there with us. :lol

[RD2191]

I have a feeling you'd be right there with us. :lol
:lol:smokin

[spurraider21]

That would only be a reasonable assumption if you believed everything in life is cut and dry, black and white.
But I give you more credit than that simplistic viewpoint, life is much more gray, and the black and white conception is just an illusion that is easier for us to wrap our minds around than to consider other possibilities.
I look for the truth, rather than illusion, and I rarely take any ones' word for things anymore because nine times out of ten they will be wrong.
i'm not talking about "everything in life"

i'm not talking about "black, white, grey, conceptions, illusions"

i'm talking about a very specific event that either happened or didn't happen, and its apparent you are just trolling by not being straightforward with it.

but you already goofed by admitting you dont think the events of the bible happened literally, and thus believe they are fiction

[xmas1997]

i'm not talking about "everything in life"

i'm not talking about "black, white, grey, conceptions, illusions"

i'm talking about a very specific event that either happened or didn't happen, and its apparent you are just trolling by not being straightforward with it.

but you already goofed by admitting you dont think the events of the bible happened literally, and thus believe they are fiction

I agree with the bold part, but not the rest, sorry.
Things are just not that cut and dry, especially where it comes to the bible and other other religious books.

[spurraider21]

I agree with the bold part, but not the rest, sorry.
Things are just not that cut and dry, especially where it comes to the bible and other other religious books.
if the events didn't happen, then they are by definition fiction. that is not a matter of "agreeing" with me, and not subject to debate

[xmas1997]

if the events didn't happen, then they are by definition fiction. that is not a matter of "agreeing" with me, and not subject to debate

Just saying.
So what do you believe or disbelieve about the bible in particular, and God in general???

[spurraider21]

Just saying.
So what do you believe or disbelieve about the bible in particular, and God in general???
myself? im not a man of faith. i will never believe in anything solely on the grounds of "faith."

i will "believe" in something if there is evidence to support it. if there is a question we can't answer, then i will accept that we don't have the answers for it yet. for instance, we don't know exactly how the first life originated on earth. we have some tiny clues, a very basic understanding of how the building blocks of life came about, but its still a mystery. rather than throwing my arms up and saying "we dont have the answer, so it must be god" (also known as having a 'god of the gaps'), i will accept that we don't know, and wait for further advancements and research to provide an answer.

when it comes to my religious views, i think the best description for me is N/A. i can't sit here and tell you "god doesn't exist." i can't prove it. its a logical fallacy to try to prove it, since its impossible to do so. but at the same time, i dont believe in a god. its the same logic as the flying spaghetti monster. i know the concept of the flying spaghetti monster is completely moronic and is meant to be satirical, but can i actually prove that it doesn't exist? nope. its illogical to attempt to do so.

as i tried to explain to robdiaz many times, the fact that i say "i dont believe in god" is NOT me claiming that "god does not exist."

[spurraider21]

as for the bible or other holy books? i'm really not a fan. i was raised christian, attended private school with weekly religion classes, etc. i grew up believing the tales. but as i grew, learned, and tried making sense of the tales, they no longer made any sort of sense to me. i see the bible as allegory as well. it is meant to teach us lessons, give us hope, etc. but i doubt its based on true, historical events. it was also written and used as a method of control. its also a moneygrab, which religious institutions take advantage of

[xmas1997]

myself? im not a man of faith. i will never believe in anything solely on the grounds of "faith."

i will "believe" in something if there is evidence to support it. if there is a question we can't answer, then i will accept that we don't have the answers for it yet. for instance, we don't know exactly how the first life originated on earth. we have some tiny clues, a very basic understanding of how the building blocks of life came about, but its still a mystery. rather than throwing my arms up and saying "we dont have the answer, so it must be god" (also known as having a 'god of the gaps'), i will accept that we don't know, and wait for further advancements and research to provide an answer.

when it comes to my religious views, i think the best description for me is N/A. i can't sit here and tell you "god doesn't exist." i can't prove it. its a logical fallacy to try to prove it, since its impossible to do so. but at the same time, i dont believe in a god. its the same logic as the flying spaghetti monster. i know the concept of the flying spaghetti monster is completely moronic and is meant to be satirical, but can i actually prove that it doesn't exist? nope. its illogical to attempt to do so.

as i tried to explain to robdiaz many times, the fact that i say "i dont believe in god" is NOT me claiming that "god does not exist."

This is true, the two statements are not equivalent.
A phase I never heard before is "god of the gaps" which I imagine has to do with once you have exhausted all attempts to prove or disprove something, then all that is left to say is, "well, it must mean God".
I have used the phrase "flying spaghetti monster" many times in the past when I was an atheist, or rather an agnostic.
Thanks for being frank.
I am sorry I could not answer your question with as much candor.

[RandomGuy]

But it doesn't make him wrong - and you are implying that - and you appear to be in cahoots with the trolls in the thread who have no interest whatsoever in learning anything, sharing anything, discovering anything.

Their sole purpose is to ridicule, confirm their own inaccurate conclusions, troll, lie, distort, condescend, etc...

Xmas has been more than open and honest and respectful - yet - this is just something that means nothing to trolls.


Why are you suddenly jumping on the troll bandwagon?


The scriptures are merely a guide, a handbook, an example, a teaching tool to grasp some of the planet's mysteries.

Some people believe certain writings and take comfort in them, study them, try to interpret them, understand them.

Some of the events are allegorical. Some are factual. Some are embellished. Some are interpreted and re-interpreted wrongly or inaccurately.

Some events happened and then a LOT was lost in translation. Some seem impossible and probably are - but yet - they had meaningful messages and meaningful teachings - even if the event itself was exaggerated or misinterpreted.


But you know and knew all this - why the dishonest game?

Meh. Sounds like you are talking about the Smurfs movie.

I mean, Neal Patrick Harris really did say the things in the movie. The movie shows a real New York. A real person with a real place.

There is even a moral to the movie.

That doesn't mean that there are magic blue creatures being chased by a wizard and his pet cat.

I think of Jesus the same way.

Jesus real? Quite possibly.

Jesus being the Son of God, and wandering around doing magic tricks? No.

[spurraider21]

This is true, the two statements are not equivalent.
A phase I never heard before is "god of the gaps" which I imagine has to do with once you have exhausted all attempts to prove or disprove something, then all that is left to say is, "well, it must mean God".
I have used the phrase "flying spaghetti monster" many times in the past when I was an atheist, or rather an agnostic.
Thanks for being frank.
I am sorry I could not answer your question with as much candor.
yeah, the flying spaghetti monster concept was basically made up to highlight the "burden of proof"... when people say "you can't prove that god DOESN'T exist" they are misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies. if you are making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why god exists. much like if i actually claimed the flying spaghetti monster exists, the burden of proof should be on me to prove it.

[RandomGuy]

Answer is the same. Different times, different customs, different circumstances.

So tell me where Jesus said slavery is a bad thing.

[RandomGuy]

yeah, the flying spaghetti monster concept was basically made up to highlight the "burden of proof"... when people say "you can't prove that god DOESN'T exist" they are misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies. if you are making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why god exists. much like if i actually claimed the flying spaghetti monster exists, the burden of proof should be on me to prove it.

You might find this useful:

KayBys8gaJY

Short, concise, and a decided lack of vitriol.

One of the best explanations I have seen outside of nonstampcollector.

[Blake]

lol

referring to "god" as "him"


as if "god" were something "separate" from you, from me, from the earth, from the universe", and as if you reached this conclusion and were arrogant enough to believe you were even close...


what a blind arrogant fool you are and I gave you truth in my last post to you and you could not even respond to it because it was irrefutable.


I don't think they are going to "get" this, since they are already having problems understanding what I am saying.
And we know he isn't interested in truth.
Like you said, trolls and truth don't go together.

We're talking about the Bible, geniuses.

[RandomGuy]

as for the bible or other holy books? i'm really not a fan. i was raised christian, attended private school with weekly religion classes, etc. i grew up believing the tales. but as i grew, learned, and tried making sense of the tales, they no longer made any sort of sense to me. i see the bible as allegory as well. it is meant to teach us lessons, give us hope, etc. but i doubt its based on true, historical events. it was also written and used as a method of control. its also a moneygrab, which religious institutions take advantage of

Pretty much how I view it.

The bible was a cheap copy of the mythology of the times. The Jesus story was probably based loosely on an actual figure, that borrowed a LOT of elements of the story from other prevalent myths, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Yahweh as a god was one of a pantheon, likely canaanite, likely a war god. Moses was a made up story, as was a lot of the rest of it.

The war god took prominence, as the peoples were pressed militarily. Not unsurprising.

[RD2191]

Pretty much how I view it.

The bible was a cheap copy of the mythology of the times. The Jesus story was probably based loosely on an actual figure, that borrowed a LOT of elements of the story from other prevalent myths, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Yahweh as a god was one of a pantheon, likely canaanite, likely a war god. Moses was a made up story, as was a lot of the rest of it.

The war god took prominence, as the peoples were pressed militarily. Not unsurprising.
:lmao

[RD2191]

:lmao

[spurraider21]

You might find this useful:

KayBys8gaJY

Short, concise, and a decided lack of vitriol.

One of the best explanations I have seen outside of nonstampcollector.
no. posting 10+ minute videos during a debate is not useful tbh. nobody will watch it

[Blake]

RG is doing him a favor, tbh.

There's no debate here, only dancing around simple questions like "do you believe in the resurrection story"

[RD2191]

RG try not getting your beliefs from evilbible.com and you just might be able to clear your mind and think with an open mind without bias.

[xmas1997]

yeah, the flying spaghetti monster concept was basically made up to highlight the "burden of proof"... when people say "you can't prove that god DOESN'T exist" they are misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies. if you are making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why god exists. much like if i actually claimed the flying spaghetti monster exists, the burden of proof should be on me to prove it.

When it comes to religious matters, as well as other people's statements in general these days, I tend to take Poe's idiom to heart, "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see."
I have learned that just when I think that I have the answer, and something pinned and locked down, it goes and changes on me, and I have go back and start from scratch.
My metaphysical studies over the years have only strengthened this attitude.
And then as science tends to make things clearer, it also is a double edged sword in that it gives me a false sense of security, because the more I know, then the more I realize that there is even more to know, and that I really don't know very much at all.
This is why I love Pop's platitude, of "not taking yourself so seriously", because the moment you do, you either end up getting pissed off or of making a fool of yourself.
So I try to take that to heart as well.
:lol

[xmas1997]

no. posting 10+ minute videos during a debate is not useful tbh. nobody will watch it

Actually I do.

[spurraider21]

And then as science tends to make things clearer, it also is a double edged sword in that it gives me a false sense of security, because the more I know, then the more I realize that there is even more to know, and that I really don't know very much at all.
that is the beauty of it. it makes us feel small

[RD2191]

So tell me where Jesus said slavery is a bad thing.
He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

[xmas1997]

I have only one other thing to add:

San Antonio Raiders!

[spurraider21]

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.
yes according to holy books they were slaves in egypt that built the pyramid. but you will pretty much never find actual historical or archeological evidence to support that. Egyptians scoff at that notion

[RD2191]

yes according to holy books they were slaves in egypt that built the pyramid. but you will pretty much never find actual historical or archeological evidence to support that. Egyptians scoff at that notion
Never is a strong word. It is possible that maybe the evidence has never been found or it was destroyed. Why would they keep a record of people who served another (true) God who kicked the crap out of them and led his people out of a "mighty" kingdom?

[RD2191]

*Just hasn't been found

[xmas1997]

Burden of proof has been debated on here before too.
When I was an atheist, and I made the claim that God does not exist, then it became impossible for me to prove it.
And conversely the opposite is true.
The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim.
But how do you prove something that is the result of a subjective experience?
I don't think you can.
You can only prove those things that are "objective" IMHO.
Anyone care to weigh in on this?

[Chinook]

Burden of proof has been debated on here before too.
When I was an atheist, and I made the claim that God does not exist, then it became impossible for me to prove it.
And conversely the opposite is true.
The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim.
But how do you prove something that is the result of a subjective experience?
I don't think you can.
You can only prove those things that are "objective" IMHO.
Anyone care to weigh in on this?

The null is indeed flexible, but not to that extent. You can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Nulls almost always are negative claims while alternates are positive.

Meaning someone who says god doesn't exist with certainty is a fool, since that's improvable. A person who says with certainty that god does exist is being disingenuous, but he may eventually be able to prove his point.

[xmas1997]

The null is indeed flexible, but not to that extent. You can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Nulls almost always are negative claims while alternates are positive.

Meaning someone who says god doesn't exist with certainty is a fool, since that's improvable. A person who says with certainty that god does exist is being disingenuous, but he may eventually be able to prove his point.

Thanks for some clarification.
I have been on both sides of the God debate, and neither side seems able to prove anything.
While I am no stranger to making a fool of myself, or of being disingenuous in the past, I try to be more circumspect these days.
:lol

[phyzik]

Thanks for some clarification.
I have been on both sides of the God debate, and neither side seems able to prove anything.
While I am no stranger to making a fool of myself, or of being disingenuous in the past, I try to be more circumspect these days.
:lol

The thing I don't get is that you cant "claim" to be on both sides.... One side that is making extraordinary claims needs to provide proof... The skeptic does not.

How hard is this to understand with "believers"? Is it some kind of mental block that is enacted as a defense mechanism so they can defend their beliefs?

Do you flip flop because you "WANT" to believe? Or do you have some empirical evidence that supports a sky fairy? (Hint: There is none.... If you provided some, you would win a Nobel prize and all Atheist would shut up once and for all).

You say both sides "seem" to be unable to prove anything, and I think that is where you are tripping up.... It is NOT on the skeptic to prove anything, this goes for ANY scientific theory or ideology. That is the whole basis of science! You make a claim, you must support it with evidence in a peer review of skeptics.... If your evidence holds up, it is then accepted.... Anecdotes don't count as they cannot be verified, quantified or replicated.

Example: Let's say I have a Fat ass bitch... let's say 350lbs.... I tell you she is a fitness expert. You would at the very least (I hope) doubt me and ask for some evidence.... or would you just take my word for it? At least I would think you would fucking think I'm full of shit until I provided proof.

So far, Religion has provided more proof against itself than it has to support itself.

There are more than 1000 religions in recorded human history (lets not even take into account the unrecorded beliefs)... Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Yours is the correct one? Because you want to "believe" it is? seriously.... do you even understand how mental that sounds?

[xmas1997]

The thing I don't get is that you cant "claim" to be on both sides.... One side that is making extraordinary claims needs to provide proof... The skeptic does not.

How hard is this to understand with "believers"? Is it some kind of mental block that is enacted as a defense mechanism so they can defend their beliefs?

Do you flip flop because you "WANT" to believe? Or do you have some empirical evidence that supports a sky fairy?

You say both sides "seem" to be unable to prove anything, and I think that is where you are tripping up.... It is NOT on the skeptic to prove anything, this goes for ANY scientific theory or ideology. That is the whole basis of science! You make a claim, you must support it with evidence in a peer review of skeptics.... If your evidence holds up, it is then accepted.... Anecdotes don't count as they cannot be verified, quantified or replicated.

So far, Religion has provided more proof against itself than it has to support itself.

There are more than 1000 religions in recorded human history (lets not even take into account the unrecorded beliefs)... Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Yours is the correct one? Because you want to "believe" it is? seriously.... do you even understand how retarded that sounds?

No, what I was saying was that those years when I was an atheist, I could not support my contention that when I was asked if I believed in God, I said, no, I believe that God does not exist.
Since I was the one making as chinook says is a negative or null claim it seemed to me at the time that it was up to me to provide the burden of proof of my claim. And as expected, I couldn't do it.
Now that I have come full circle, I cannot prove that either.
So I finally came to the conclusion that neither claim can be proved, at least in this point in time.
But I never said I was both at the same time.
Now, you are saying that the skeptic has no burden of proof ever, right? I guess because he is not claiming anything.
But if the skeptic does make a claim whether negative or positive, doesn't it fall to him to provide proof of his claim?
No offense meant to either side by the way.

[phyzik]

No, what I was saying was that those years when I was an atheist, I could not support my contention that when I was asked if I believed in God, I said, no, I believe that God does not exist.
Since I was the one making as chinook says is a negative or null claim it seemed to me at the time that it was up to me to provide the burden of proof of my claim. And as expected, I couldn't do it.
Now that I have come full circle, I cannot prove that either.
So I finally came to the conclusion that neither claim can be proved, at least in this point in time.
But I never said I was both at the same time.
Now, you are saying that the skeptic has no burden of proof ever, right? I guess because he is not claiming anything.
But if the skeptic does make a claim whether negative or positive, doesn't it fall to him to provide proof of his claim?

You obviously were not an Atheist and do not understand the ideology behind it. If you felt that you had to come up with the burden of proof of "non-belief" you did not understand the concept at all. You just fell into the trap of "Wanting" to believe. Again, if you "were" an atheist, the burden of proof was not on you... you were not the one making extraordinary claims.

To make it blunt... There is NO CLAIM that an atheist is making. It is merely the lack of evidence of the extraordinary.

When I say "there is no God" I am not denouncing the POSSIBILITY of one, I (and almost every Atheist) is simply saying based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely and until there is QUANTIFIABLE evidence, we simply wont believe it.... just like we dont believe in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus as any sane person should.

If "God" where to post a message in the sky or some form of irrefutable evidence claiming himself as such... do you know what I (and most Atheist) would do?

We would say "shit, I was wrong!"

That is all it would take. We are not asking much from an all powerful omnipotent being that controls the universe that somehow requires our adulation to stroke his ego.

Until that happens, take your sky fairy bullshit and shove it.

[RD2191]

:lolphyzik being a faggot per usual. You have some deeply rooted issues bro, take care of it.

[xmas1997]

You obviously were not an Atheist and do not understand the ideology behind it. If you felt that you had to come up with the burden of proof of "non-belief" you did not understand the concept at all. You just fell into the trap of "Wanting" to believe. Again, if you "were" an atheist, the burden of proof was not on you... you were not the one making extraordinary claims.

To make it blunt... There is NO CLAIM that an atheist is making. It is merely the lack of evidence of the extraordinary.

When I say "there is no God" I am not denouncing the POSSIBILITY of one, I (and almost every Atheist) is simply saying based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely and until there is QUANTIFIABLE evidence, we simply wont believe it.... just like we dont believe in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus as any sane person should.

If "God" where to post a message in the sky or some form of irrefutable evidence claiming himself as such... do you know what I (and most Atheist) would do?

We would say "shit, I was wrong!"

That is all it would take. We are not asking much from an all powerful omnipotent being that controls the universe that somehow requires our adulation to stroke his ego.

Until that happens, take your sky fairy bullshit and shove it.

Hey, I was asking a question, not telling what to believe and not believe.
That last part in bold was uncalled for.
Who do you think you are?
Only an unreasonable bastard would say something like that when it was unnecessary.
Is that what you are?

[phyzik]

:lolphyzik being a faggot per usual. You have some deeply rooted issues bro, take care of it.

What issues?

That I don't believe in a sky Daddy?

OK... I guess....

Someone with issues of reality claiming someone without issues of reality has issues.... :lmao

I bet none of you Sky daddy worshipers even bothered to watch the videos in my original posts.... Fingers in ears, la la la la... :lol

[RD2191]

What issues?

That I don't believe in a sky Daddy?

OK... I guess....

Someone with issues of reality claiming someone without issues of reality has issues.... :lmao
You believe you came from a fish.

[phyzik]

You believe you came from a fish.

No... I believe I already explained to you, first understand Evolution before making assumptions about it. Until then, you still sound like a moron.

At least make the ATTEMPT to understand what Evolution is before you make broad assumption like "Life came from Rocks" or "Fish turned into man" or "If monkeys evolved into man, why are there still monkeys" :rollin

[xmas1997]

:lolphyzik being a faggot per usual. You have some deeply rooted issues bro, take care of it.

Very deeply rooted issues apparently.
He acts as if I slapped him in the face when I was only clarifying my position and asking a question.
That is the epitome of ignorance!
How does this guy manage in life with that huge chip on his shoulder?
Insecure I guess, no other explanation.

[RD2191]

Very deeply rooted issues apparently.
He acts as if I slapped him in the face when I was only clarifying my position and asking a question.
That is the epitome of ignorance!
How does this guy manage in life with that huge chip on his shoulder?
Insecure I guess, no other explanation.
Pretty much this.

[phyzik]

Hey, I was asking a question, not telling what to believe and not believe.
That last part in bold was uncalled for.
Who do you think you are?
Only an unreasonable bastard would say something like that when it was unnecessary.
Is that what you are?

Yes, I am in fact an unreasonable bastard when it comes to unreasonable people when they are presented with facts but choose to ignore them in favor of what they WANT to be true. People who choose fantasy over reality deserve no sympathy and deserve all the ridicule that is directed at them.

[xmas1997]

Yes, I am in fact an unreasonable bastard when it comes to unreasonable people when they are presented with facts but choose to ignore them.

You sound pretty unstable to me.
Prison life not to your liking it appears.
I have very little patience for ignorance like yours when there is no excuse for it in this day and age.
I suffer fools badly.
This is a classic example that "class" cannot be learned.

[phyzik]

You sound pretty unstable to me.
Prison life not to your liking it appears.
I have very little patience for ignorance like yours when there is no excuse for it in this day and age.
I suffer fools badly.

So, I am the fool that doesn't believe in some mythical sky being that watches over us...

Gotcha.

Glad we cleared that up there. :lmao

[xmas1997]

So, I am the fool that doesn't believe in some mythical sky being that watches over us...

Gotcha.

Whatever floats your boat, son.
Grow up, and get a life.

[RD2191]

Don't waste your time with this guy xmas. Not worth it.

[phyzik]

Whatever floats your boat, son.
Grow up, and get a life.

Whats the matter?

I can provide all kinds of "dirty little secrets" about your mythical sky daddy... but when you have no room, I am some faggot loser who needs to get a life.

OK... so no evidence on your side.

I guess I win.

[xmas1997]

Don't waste your time with this guy xmas. Not worth it.

Is he a child? Or a retard? Or was he just born a moron and can't help it?
My dogs have more couth and class.
Probably thinks he is winning some mythical contest in his mind. :lol
Believe me, I won't waste another word on him/it.

[RD2191]

Whats the matter?

I can provide all kinds of "dirty little secrets" about your mythical sky daddy... but when you have no room, I am some faggot loser who needs to get a life.

OK... so no evidence on your side.

I guess I win.
:lolThat's exactly what you come off as.

[RD2191]

Is he a child? Or a retard? Or was he just born a moron and can't help it?
My dogs have more couth and class.
Believe me, I won't waste another word on him/it.
:lolI feel bad if he's actually an adult. His ignorance has no boundaries.

[xmas1997]

:lolI feel bad if he's actually an adult. His ignorance has no boundaries.

So you have dealt with him/it before?
I wonder if he has any friends in real life if he acts like this on a message board.

[RD2191]

So you have dealt with him/it before?
I wonder if he has any friends in real life if he acts like this on a message board.
:lolI probably have just don't remember. People like him almost come of as believers to me. Believers who hate God because their life isn't perfect.

[RD2191]

I just don't see how anyone could be so angry over a God they don't believe in or think exists.

[xmas1997]

:lolI probably have just don't remember. People like him almost come of as believers to me. Believers who hate God because their life isn't perfect.

He sounds miserable tbqh.
Like someone kicked him in the balls, if he has any.

How is it that you and I can get along even though we do not believe the same things in quite the same way?
And then there are some people, and I am being complementary in the extreme in calling them people, who are totally off their rocker like blake and this guy?

Hope you will make the GTG by the way, it will be good to meet you.

[xmas1997]

I hope SBM makes it too.

[phyzik]

I just don't see how anyone could be so angry over a God they don't believe in or think exists.

You see, that is the problem... People think I am "Angry at God"

Why WOULD I be angry at something that DOESN'T exist....

My "anger" is more directed at the stupidity of humanity who fall in like sheep for this nonsense!

How frustrated would you be if people all around you insisted that, despite all of the available evidence, a square peg fits in a round hole? And that they have believed this nonsense for more than 2000 years? It is not so much anger, it is exasperation! At some point, SOMEONE has to get fed up with it!

[RD2191]

He sounds miserable tbqh.
Like someone kicked him in the balls, if he has any.

How is it that you and I can get along even though we do not believe the same things in quite the same way?
And then there are some people, and I am being complementary in the extreme in calling them people, who are totally off their rocker like blake and this guy?

Hope you will make the GTG by the way, it will be good to meet you.
I just think they're miserable people in general. How many people that believe in God/Creator do you see making atheists bashing/hate threads? I respect all beliefs. I don't go around saying fuck atheists or anything of the sort. Maybe I did a bit in this thread but most of it was just me trolling people who were trying to mock me and my beliefs.

I'm really going to try. Have you guys set a date yet?

[RD2191]

You see, that is the problem... People think I am "Angry at God"

Why WOULD I be angry at something that DOESN'T exist....

My "anger" is more directed at the stupidity of humanity who fall in like sheep for this nonsense!

How frustrated would you be if people all around you insisted that, despite all of the available evidence, a square peg fits in a round hole? And that they have believed this nonsense for more than 2000 years? It is not so much anger, it is exasperation! At some point, SOMEONE has to get fed up with it!
Who are you to tell anyone what they should believe in? Who gave you that right? Religion/God has been around since the beginning of civilization, and guess what, life is still thriving.

[phyzik]

I don't have ANY of the answers myself, but I know for DAMN sure "God" didn't provide the answers we DO have and using him as an explanation for the unknown is fucking stupid as all available, peer reviewed data suggest that "He" does not exist.... He is now a "GAP" God...... Meaning "We dont know, therefore, God" and that is just fucking silly at this point in time.

[xmas1997]

I just don't see how anyone could be so angry over a God they don't believe in or think exists.

Yes, this is undoubtedly his problem, he has issues with God.
God is the One he needs to seek out the most and resolve them with, not those of us who have found, or are finding our way.
Maybe his parents are forcing him to go to church or take Sunday school classes or something and he resents it.
I can honestly say I do not know anyone like this dude in real life, nor would I want to.
He sounds like he is one step away from going postal and ending up in jail.
I know ex cons who have more class than him.

[phyzik]

Who are you to tell anyone what they should believe in? Who gave you that right? Religion/God has been around since the beginning of civilization, and guess what, life is still thriving.

And just to be clear... Which one of the 1000+ gods are you referring to?

[RD2191]

Peer reviewed? As if scientists have never been wrong before.

[phyzik]

Yes, this is undoubtedly his problem, he has issues with God.
God is the One he needs to seek out the most and resolve them with, not those of us who have found, or are finding our way.
Maybe his parents are forcing him to go to church or take Sunday school classes or something and he resents it.
I can honestly say I do not know anyone like this dude in real life, nor would I want to.
He sounds like he is one step away from going postal and ending up in jail.
I know ex cons who have more class than him.

Which god?

[phyzik]

Peer reviewed? As if scientists have never been wrong before.

And that is the beauty of Science... it can omit what it gets wrong... unlike religion.

[RD2191]

Yes, this is undoubtedly his problem, he has issues with God.
God is the One he needs to seek out the most and resolve them with, not those of us who have found, or are finding our way.
Maybe his parents are forcing him to go to church or take Sunday school classes or something and he resents it.
I can honestly say I do not know anyone like this dude in real life, nor would I want to.
He sounds like he is one step away from going postal and ending up in jail.
I know ex cons who have more class than him.
:lolHe really does come off as being on the edge/ready to explode.

[phyzik]

:lolHe really does come off as being on the edge/ready to explode.

Ahh... And here we go, after starting a good debate you resort to this shit again. :lmao

To make things clear, I am not angry, upset, in turmoil, hateful or bitter at life.

I'm just trying to get you to engage in a TRUE debate, all you do is keep calling me faggot and loser and shit when I posit claims that can be verified. Again..... winning. :lol

Before we go further... I would like you to explain, in explicit terms, how I have issues with a being that I believe does not exist. Please explain.

[RD2191]

What shit? You're the one hurling insults. There is no debate here, and that is what most don't understand. You could have a gun to my head and I would not renounce my faith in God.

[xmas1997]

I just think they're miserable people in general. How many people that believe in God/Creator do you see making atheists bashing/hate threads? I respect all beliefs. I don't go around saying fuck atheists or anything of the sort. Maybe I did a bit in this thread but most of it was just me trolling people who were trying to mock me and my beliefs.

I'm really going to try. Have you guys set a date yet?

JoeChalupa says Saturday the 23rd at Hooters on 281 at Bitters is good, three weeks away.

We all get a little passionate, but we sure don't go off the deep end like this guy for no good reason.
Blake does this too, just not as angry. Blake is a pest, this guy is a scourge.

[phyzik]

What shit? You're the one hurling insults. There is no debate here, and that is what most don't understand. You could have a gun to my head and I would not renounce my faith in God.

No one is putting a gun to your head, but would you deny fact in favor of belief?

[RD2191]

JoeChalupa says Saturday the 23rd at Hooters on 281 at Bitters is good, three weeks away.

We all get a little passionate, but we sure don't go off the deep end like this guy for no good reason.
Blake does this too, just not as angry. Blake is a pest, this guy is a scourge.
Sounds good, hopefully I won't be working. Saturdays are a little slower so I'll probably be able to get away.

Blake is just a living contradiction. He hates Christians yet sent his daughter to a christian school. What the heck.

[phyzik]

JoeChalupa says Saturday the 23rd at Hooters on 281 at Bitters is good, three weeks away.

We all get a little passionate, but we sure don't go off the deep end like this guy for no good reason.
Blake does this too, just not as angry. Blake is a pest, this guy is a scourge.

Ahh... the Pious believer "We dont bash Atheist, we are peaceful!"

Say that to the fuckers that constantly badger people in Target or any other market place or go door to door trying to sell their religion to everyone in every isle on every street across America.... Lets not forget saying prayer in government offices...

[RD2191]

Ahh... the Pious believer "We dont bash Atheist, we are peaceful!"

Say that to the fuckers that constantly badger people in Target and go door to door trying to sell their religion to everyone in every isle on every street.
Most people will leave you alone if you let them know you aren't interested. I doubt your life is so important that you also can't give 2 minutes of your time. :lol

[phyzik]

Most people will leave you alone if you let them know you aren't interested. I doubt your life is so important that you also can't give 2 minutes of your time. :lol

So, what would a Christian think if I came up to them promoting Atheism? Just out of curiosity.

And not just once in a blue moon, but constantly.

answer Honestly.

[xmas1997]

Rob, why do you think that it is so offensive to the atheists on this site that they cannot respect the beliefs of others and feel compelled to bash and attack and try to ridicule those of us who do believe?
I don't find this same attitude out in the real world, only on here.
I never fucked his girlfriend or something equally as terrible and heart wrenching, because all he can do is hurl insults and then have the gall to expect us to want to debate or discuss with him.
Insanity reigns!
:lmao

[RD2191]

So, what would a Christian think if I came up to them promoting Atheism? Just out of curiosity.

And not just once in a blue moon, but constantly.
I don't know, but it's becoming more and more common. Seeing billboards and adds about atheism isn't all that uncommon these days. If you're really passionate about it then go out and do it.

[phyzik]

Rob, why do you think that it is so offensive to the atheists on this site that they cannot respect the beliefs of others and feel compelled to bash and attack and try to ridicule those of us who do believe?
I don't find this same attitude out in the real world, only on here.
I never fucked his girlfriend or something equally as terrible and heart wrenching, because all he can do is hurl insults and then have the gall to expect us to want to debate or discuss with him.
Insanity reigns!
:lmao

When your beliefs are being constantly thrown in our faces, how do you you expect someone to react?

[RD2191]

Rob, why do you think that it is so offensive to the atheists on this site that they cannot respect the beliefs of others and feel compelled to bash and attack and try to ridicule those of us who do believe?
I don't find this same attitude out in the real world, only on here.
I never fucked his girlfriend or something equally as terrible and heart wrenching, because all he can do is hurl insults and then have the gall to expect us to want to debate or discuss with him.
Insanity reigns!
:lmao
I have no idea. I just don't get why they're so angry. He seems to spend most of his life being pissed off at God/religion than actually enjoying his life.

[phyzik]

I don't know, but it's becoming more and more common. Seeing billboards and adds about atheism isn't all that uncommon these days. If you're really passionate about it then go out and do it.

Finally, some middle ground.

[phyzik]

I have no idea. I just don't get why they're so angry. He seems to spend most of his life being pissed off at God/religion than actually enjoying his life.

You are wrong, I enjoy life quite a bit...

This is just after hours entertainment for me. :lol

[phyzik]

Let me ask you this... How pissed off are you that I keep constantly throwing Atheism around on this site that you are so compelled to defend your beliefs? It obviously annoys you enough to call someone a faggot and a loser and shit....

And this is just a website.

[xmas1997]

No doubt he thinks he is winning some mythical message board contest that actually only exists in his head when the truth is we are just barely tolerating him and his rants.
If he wants people to mind their own business, which by the way most everyone I know does, then he needs to be his own example and do umto others as he would have them do unto him.
No one would force their beliefs on him, and none of us want him to force his disbeliefs on us.
I wonder if he is also a racist too. Sounds like one.

[RD2191]

It really doesn't bother me. Of course I don't enjoy people mocking me or my beliefs but at the end of the day I enjoy debating and discussing various topics. I also feel obligated to give my side of the story/defend my beliefs. But as I said before, we are all free to believe what we want.

[RD2191]

No doubt he thinks he is winning some mythical message board contest that actually only exists in his head when the truth is we are just barely tolerating him and his rants.
If he wants people to mind their own business, which by the way most everyone I know does, then he needs to be his own example and do umto others as he would have them do unto him.
No one would force their beliefs on him, and none of us want him to force his disbeliefs on us.
I wonder if he is also a racist too. Sounds like one.
He could deff use more help in the being tolerant department. I for one do not agree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle but as someone who tries to follow Gods rules I have to respect them and be tolerant of their lifestyles. I don't go around hating gays/lesbians.

[RD2191]

Now of course some idiotic "christians" do hate on them but they set a bad example imo.

[xmas1997]

It really doesn't bother me. Of course I don't enjoy people mocking me or my beliefs but at the end of the day I enjoy debating and discussing various topics. I also feel obligated to give my side of the story/defend my beliefs. But as I said before, we are all free to believe what we want.

I feel the same way, no skin off my back. They can rant and mock all they want to, but it just makes them look like bigger fools and unreasonable assholes.
This is my late night up btw.

[phyzik]

No doubt he thinks he is winning some mythical message board contest that actually only exists in his head when the truth is we are just barely tolerating him and his rants.
If he wants people to mind their own business, which by the way most everyone I know does, then he needs to be his own example and do umto others as he would have them do unto him.
No one would force their beliefs on him, and none of us want him to force his disbeliefs on us.
I wonder if he is also a racist too. Sounds like one.

Im not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I'm providing information, take it for what you will, I just ask that you actually LOOK at it instead of dismissing it because you "choose" to believe something else. You say people should mind their own business.... perhaps you should look into how much the Church puts into politicians pockets. I AM doing unto others as they have done to me.

[phyzik]

No doubt he thinks he is winning some mythical message board contest that actually only exists in his head when the truth is we are just barely tolerating him and his rants.
If he wants people to mind their own business, which by the way most everyone I know does, then he needs to be his own example and do umto others as he would have them do unto him.
No one would force their beliefs on him, and none of us want him to force his disbeliefs on us.
I wonder if he is also a racist too. Sounds like one.

Im not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I'm providing information, take it for what you will, I just ask that you actually LOOK at it instead of dismissing it because you "choose" to believe something else. You say people should mind their own business.... perhaps you should look into how much the Church puts into politicians pockets. I AM doing unto others as they have done to me.

I think that is the disconnect... religious people inherently think they "own" this nation. It was NOT founded on "christian" values... It was specifically created as a SECULAR Nation from the get go. The very REASON our ancestors left Europe is infiltrating our Government to the point that EVERY Politician has to profess God in order to get elected, if not, he simply wont be... and that is fucking stupid.

[phyzik]

Today, around 21,000 children died around the world.

Yankees Win though..

God :lol

[phyzik]

somewhere between 240,000 and 3,500,000 North Koreans died from starvation or hunger-related illnesses, with the deaths peaking in 1997.

But the Spurs got Tim Duncan in the draft in 1997.

God :lol

[xmas1997]

Rob, is this guy a Spurs fan?
Because if he is, I wonder what any one of the players would say to him if he spewed his venom around them?
He should be ashamed of himself for acting like an immature brat.
He is literally ranting.

[RD2191]

I'm not sure. And I really hope he's trolling. God had nothing to do with the events he mentioned, good or bad.

[silverblk mystix]

You obviously were not an Atheist and do not understand the ideology behind it. If you felt that you had to come up with the burden of proof of "non-belief" you did not understand the concept at all. You just fell into the trap of "Wanting" to believe. Again, if you "were" an atheist, the burden of proof was not on you... you were not the one making extraordinary claims.

To make it blunt... There is NO CLAIM that an atheist is making. It is merely the lack of evidence of the extraordinary.

When I say "there is no God" I am not denouncing the POSSIBILITY of one, I (and almost every Atheist) is simply saying based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely and until there is QUANTIFIABLE evidence, we simply wont believe it.... just like we dont believe in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus as any sane person should.

If "God" where to post a message in the sky or some form of irrefutable evidence claiming himself as such... do you know what I (and most Atheist) would do?

We would say "shit, I was wrong!"

That is all it would take. We are not asking much from an all powerful omnipotent being that controls the universe that somehow requires our adulation to stroke his ego.

Until that happens, take your sky fairy bullshit and shove it.



lol


the great "copout"

I don't have to prove it - I didn't make a claim! (giving me license to ridicule the other side!)


:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

Now, you are saying that the skeptic has no burden of proof ever, right? I guess because he is not claiming anything.
But if the skeptic does make a claim whether negative or positive, doesn't it fall to him to provide proof of his claim?
No offense meant to either side by the way.

Hey look at that. You're starting to get how burden of proof works.

Bravo. :tu

[Blake]

lol


the great "copout"

I don't have to prove it - I didn't make a claim! (giving me license to ridicule the other side!)


:lmao:lmao:lmao

That's correct, unless the "other side" can back their claim.

[Blake]

He could deff use more help in the being tolerant department. I for one do not agree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle but as someone who tries to follow Gods rules I have to respect them and be tolerant of their lifestyles. I don't go around hating gays/lesbians.

Bible God's rule is to kill the gays.

You're not following his rule.

[Blake]

Sounds good, hopefully I won't be working. Saturdays are a little slower so I'll probably be able to get away.

Blake is just a living contradiction. He hates Christians yet sent his daughter to a christian school. What the heck.

I hate public schools. That's really all it boils down to.

I don't hate Christians. I just make fun of christianity.

[RandomGuy]

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

So, slavery is moral then?

[RandomGuy]

no. posting 10+ minute videos during a debate is not useful tbh. nobody will watch it

Not on me if they don't. I never assume the intellectually lazy and dishonest people that I tend to take to task have the intellectual ooomph to do so.

But, I thought you might like it. Take it or leave it.

To be clear:

Not saying you are either lazy or dishonest, it seemed to me that you might actually be interested.

[RandomGuy]

RG try not getting your beliefs from evilbible.com and you just might be able to clear your mind and think with an open mind without bias.

Logical fail.

An anti-smoking website may be horribly biased against smoking, but they are not wrong when they tell you that smoking is bad for you.

I rarely take anything I read at any website at face value and almost always check sources, and read background material. It is part of what makes me effective at evaluating information.

Criticizing someone for not having an open mind in the same sentence where a source is close-mindedly dismissed doesn't help your case, FYI. Your definition of "open-minded" is "someone who drinks the same cool-aid as me", and everybody knows it. You don't give a shit about being truly open minded.

[RandomGuy]

What shit? You're the one hurling insults. There is no debate here, and that is what most don't understand. You could have a gun to my head and I would not renounce my faith in God.

Neither would the people who flew planes into office buildings, or detonate themselves in crowded markets. Congrats on admitting you are part of that crowd. :clap

[RD2191]

You believe you came from a fish, have fun admitting you're part of that crowd. Next.

[RD2191]

Neither would the people who flew planes into office buildings, or detonate themselves in crowded markets. Congrats on admitting you are part of that crowd. :clap
What a stupid generalization. Faggot.

[RD2191]

So, slavery is moral then?
If you wanna talk about morals you must first admit that humans are not animals and therefore did not evolve from an ape. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

[spurraider21]

You believe you came from a fish, have fun admitting you're part of that crowd. Next.
my dude you still have zero understanding of the theory of evolution :lol

at least when i discuss the bible i can demonstrate that i've read it and understand it

[RD2191]

my dude you still have zero understanding of the theory of evolution :lol

at least when i discuss the bible i can demonstrate that i've read it and understand it
RG has zero understanding of the bible. That much is clear. And what are you talking about? Evolution tecahes that man evolved from apes. Apes evolved into Neanderthals and various other bipedal human/ape like species. To say evolution teaches that man evolved from ape is not false.

[Blake]

You could have a gun to my head and I would not renounce my faith in God.

Lol

[spurraider21]

RG has zero understanding of the bible. That much is clear. And what are you talking about? Evolution tecahes that man evolved from apes. Apes evolved into Neanderthals and various other bipedal human/ape like species. To say evolution teaches that man evolved from ape is not false.
you say "we came from a fish." a fish has never given birth to a human, tbh :lol

[Blake]

RG has zero understanding of the bible. That much is clear.

lol you've barely read it

[RD2191]

you say "we came from a fish." a fish has never given birth to a human, tbh :lol
If you go far back enough evolution teaches that fish eventually led to humans.

[spurraider21]

If you go far back enough evolution teaches that fish eventually led to humans.
indeed. but it wasn't a short term process that took only a million years or so

its not like you had 100 generations of fish fish fish and BAM suddenly the next generation is lizard

[xmas1997]

lol you've barely read it

:lmao at blake adding his two cents worth!
Wooden nickles don't count, blake,
or do you not know what those are?
:rollin

[xmas1997]

Lol

Why do you even bother to post when this ^ is the most you ever add to any thread?
You truly are useless, you're not even funny except when making a fool of yourself.
And that barely qualifies for comic relief.
:lmao

[Blake]

:lmao at blake adding his two cents worth!
Wooden nickles don't count, blake,
or do you not know what those are?
:rollin

I'm not adding anything but lols, dumbass.

Lol wooden nickel trash talk

[Blake]

Why do you even bother to post when this ^ is the most you ever add to any thread?
You truly are useless, you're not even funny except when making a fool of yourself.
And that barely qualifies for comic relief.
:lmao

Lol butthurt

[xmas1997]

indeed. but it wasn't a short term process that took only a million years or so

its not like you had 100 generations of fish fish fish and BAM suddenly the next generation is lizard

There's lots of people on both sides of this theory (evolution) not surprisingly.
But I have never found it to contradict my Christianity in the slightest, and it was even taught to me in the Catholic grade school I attended, so it apparently didn't conflict with them either.

[xmas1997]

Lol butthurt

So says the guy who was molested when you attended private school.
Difference is,............... you liked it and begged for more!
:rollin

[spurraider21]

There's lots of people on both sides of this theory (evolution) not surprisingly.
But I have never found it to contradict my Christianity in the slightest, and it was even taught to me in the Catholic grade school I attended, so it apparently didn't conflict with them either.
it contradicts the book of genesis quite heavily, for those who take it literally of course

[xmas1997]

This is probably old news around here since it came out in 2004 and has yet to be debunked, but I found it to be interesting in light of someone bringing up the "burden of proof" issue.
Some of the leading religious clerics are upset about it because they think it "undermines a fundamental tenet of faith, that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation", but others are glad because it shows the existence of God and a sign of His ingenuity.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/14/20041114-111404-8087r/

Geneticist claims to have found ‘God gene’ in humans

By - The Washington Times - Sunday, November 14, 2004

LONDON — An American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.

His findings have been criticized by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a “God gene” and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith — that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain’s electrical impulses.

Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe.

The higher their score, the greater the person’s ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Mr. Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene VMAT2.

Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.

Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief.

Mr. Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the “God gene” explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others.

“Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene,” he said. “This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic makeup. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation. It’s like intelligence.”
A Versatile And Timeless WardrobeThe Line

His findings, published in a book, “The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes,” are being greeted skeptically by many in the religious establishment.

The Rev. John Polkinghorne, a fellow of the Royal Society and a canon theologian at Liverpool Cathedral, said: “The idea of a God gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can’t cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking.”

The Rev. Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in theology, said: “Religious belief is not just related to a person’s constitution. It’s related to society, tradition, character — everything’s involved. Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me.”

Mr. Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.

“Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence,” he said.

[Blake]

So says the guy who was molested when you attended private school.
Difference is,............... you liked it and begged for more!
:rollin

Wow. Vivid.

[Avante]

I can't believe anyone STILL argues this stuff. I haven't read anything recent here but I gurantee we will never ever ever ever read.....ya know what, you're right I was wrong.

[xmas1997]

Mr. Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.

“Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence,” he said.

I have a good feeling that the more science discovers, the more we will be assured of the existence of God.

[leemajors]

So says the guy who was molested when you attended private school.
Difference is,............... you liked it and begged for more!
:rollin

This is really what you're reduced to now?

[xmas1997]

This is really what you're reduced to now?

Only with respect to blake, he is getting back what he puts out.

[Chinook]

A lot of people not understanding science in this thread. Not just theists, either.

[xmas1997]

A lot of people not understanding science in this thread. Not just theists, either.

Science is necessary, I have never seen it as a threat to my beliefs.
I have no idea why anyone would see it that way.
I also have no idea why so many atheists find theism so threatening that they feel the need to ridicule, deride, and attack those of us who believe.
This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.
So why all the flak on here, I wonder?

[xmas1997]

In fact in real life when we get together we can discuss it and laugh, regardless of what the other person believes or does not believe, with lots of playful humor and kidding, but never with the venom that we get on here.
What's up with that?

[spurraider21]

So says the guy who was molested when you attended private school.
Difference is,............... you liked it and begged for more!
:rollin
^troll post

[xmas1997]

^troll post

He gets back, what he puts out.

[Chinook]

Science is necessary, I have never seen it as a threat to my beliefs.
I have no idea why anyone would see it that way.
I also have no idea why so many atheists find theism so threatening that they feel the need to ridicule, deride, and attack those of us who believe.
This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.
So why all the flak on here, I wonder?

As I said, a lot of people misunderstand science as it pertains to knowledge. That leads both to folks dismissing it and misattributing powers to it.

[spurraider21]

He gets back, what he puts out.
a troll post, nonetheless

[xmas1997]

So, are you also saying that 95% of his posts are troll posts?
If not, then what percentage?
And if so, then why do you never point it out?

[leemajors]

Blake has never insisted he doesn't troll

[xmas1997]

Blake has never insisted he doesn't troll

That is all he does.

[leemajors]

That is all he does.

Not true.

[Blake]

So, are you also saying that 95% of his posts are troll posts?
If not, then what percentage?
And if so, then why do you never point it out?

I'd say 95% of your posts contain my name in them.

[xmas1997]

American molecular geneticist, Mr. Hamer insists, "that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.

Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence,” he said.

[spurraider21]

i point it out, xmas, because you always claim to not be a troll, when its clear you are. you derail threads and give personal insults all the time, tbh

[DMC]

American molecular geneticist, Mr. Hamer insists, "that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.

Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence,” he said.


Trust me: if that were true there would be an OTC kit available to see if you have the God gene.

[xmas1997]

Trust me: if that were true there would be an OTC kit available to see if you have the God gene.

So, molecular genetic science isn't good enough for you?
So far no one has been able to debunk his theory.

[DMC]

Science is necessary, I have never seen it as a threat to my beliefs.
I have no idea why anyone would see it that way.
I also have no idea why so many atheists find theism so threatening that they feel the need to ridicule, deride, and attack those of us who believe.
This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.
So why all the flak on here, I wonder?

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.

How can you wholeheartedly embrace science "in varying degrees"?

What does it mean to "embrace science"? Only a delusional individual would consider non-falsifiable claims to be relevant, and if that same individual dismisses falsifiable claims because the word "science" is attached and because the claim is counter to the non-falsifiable claim of a diety, that's even more proof of delusion. If a person believed that an invisible man was dwelling in his home, and lived his life as if it were true, then scoffed at evidence to suggest otherwise even though easily testable and falsifiable, you'd probably want that person to be under medical supervision. Change the invisible man into an invisible god and suddenly it's enlightenment.

[xmas1997]

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.

How can you wholeheartedly embrace science "in varying degrees"?

What does it mean to "embrace science"? Only a delusional individual would consider non-falsifiable claims to be relevant, and if that same individual dismisses falsifiable claims because the word "science" is attached and because the claim is counter to the non-falsifiable claim of a diety, that's even more proof of delusion. If a person believed that an invisible man was dwelling in his home, and lived his life as if it were true, then scoffed at evidence to suggest otherwise even though easily testable and falsifiable, you'd probably want that person to be under medical supervision. Change the invisible man into an invisible god and suddenly it's enlightenment.

We are all welcome to our opinions and beliefs, as long as we don't force it on anyone.
But once you do that, it becomes intrusive, and you cross a line you have no right to cross.
Do you not understand this?

[DMC]

So, molecular genetic science isn't good enough for you?
So far no one has been able to debunk his theory.

Appeal to authority isn't good enough for me nor is your layman generalization and misdirection.You misrepresent what Hamer is saying. He's not saying there is a god gene.. it's saying people who are religious are more likely to possess a specific gene than people who are not religious. He says that well known religious figures likely had that gene. What your saying is akin to saying the Native American genetic predisposition toward alcoholism means Jack Daniels created man. There are plenty of genetic issues that affect people in different ways. He's saying one gene predisposes you to be mentally lazy where you are comfortably numb about science and reality, and you'll easily accept "god did it" as the answer.

[DMC]

We are all welcome to our opinions and beliefs, as long as we don't force it on anyone.
But once you do that, it becomes intrusive, and you cross a line you have no right to cross.
Do you not understand this?

The Crusades say hi.

Theists are the ones claiming there's something out there, and then they go so far as to define it and give it qualities and assign it a title and bow down to it. They then run for office and change policy to reflect that this something is the ruler of us all and we should acknowledge it (in god we trust).

The rest of us just say no, there's nothing out there and we don't need to pretend there is.

[Clipper Nation]

Only with respect to blake, he is getting back what he puts out.
You put out for SBM and Avante....

[xmas1997]

Appeal to authority isn't good enough for me nor is your layman generalization and misdirection.You misrepresent what Hamer is saying. He's not saying there is a god gene.. it's saying people who are religious are more likely to possess a specific gene than people who are not religious. He says that well known religious figures likely had that gene. What your saying is akin to saying the Native American genetic predisposition toward alcoholism means Jack Daniels created man. There are plenty of genetic issues that affect people in different ways. He's saying one gene predisposes you to be mentally lazy where you are comfortably numb about science and reality, and you'll easily accept "god did it" as the answer.

That is a terrible analogy IMHO.
In bold is what he is saying. The rest are assumptions on your part.
His actual statement is, "can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity, a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence".
If he wanted to imply what you are, then he would have said it as you did.

[DMC]

That is a terrible analogy IMHO.
In bold is what he is saying. The rest are assumptions on your part.
His actual statement is, "can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity, a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence".
If he wanted to imply what you are, then he would have said it as you did.
From Scientific AmericanBy page 77 of The God Gene, Dean H. Hamer has already disowned the title of his own book. He recalls describing to a colleague his discovery of a link between spirituality and a specific gene he calls "the God gene." His colleague raised her eyebrows. "Do you mean there's just one?" she asked. "I deserved her skepticism," Hamer writes. "What I meant to say, of course, was 'a' God gene, not 'the' God gene." Of course. Why, the reader wonders, didn't Hamer call his book A God Gene? That might not have been as catchy, but at least it wouldn't have left him contradicting himself. Whatever you want to call it, this is a frustrating book. The role that genes play in religion is a fascinating question that's ripe for the asking. Psychologists, neurologists and even evolutionary biologists have offered insights about how spiritual behaviors and beliefs emerge from the brain. It is reasonable to ask, as Hamer does, whether certain genes play a significant role in faith. But he is a long way from providing an answer. Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, wound up on his quest for the God gene by a roundabout route. Initially he and his colleagues set out to find genes that may make people prone to cigarette addiction. They studied hundreds of pairs of siblings, comparing how strongly their shared heredity influenced different aspects of their personality. In addition to having their subjects fill out psychological questionnaires, the researchers also took samples of DNA from some of them. Hamer then realized that this database might let him investigate the genetics of spirituality. He embarked on this new search by looking at the results of certain survey questions that measured a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated.

[DMC]

An hypothesis (not a theory) has to be replicated, not debunked.

You lack a basic understanding of the scientific method and you want to discuss genetics?

[DMC]

Yeah that's what I thought....

Here's a parting gift for you... via Carl Zimmer, fellow at Yale's Morse College.

The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer had written it 10 years from now-after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better titled: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.

[xmas1997]

From Scientific AmericanBy page 77 of The God Gene, Dean H. Hamer has already disowned the title of his own book. He recalls describing to a colleague his discovery of a link between spirituality and a specific gene he calls "the God gene." His colleague raised her eyebrows. "Do you mean there's just one?" she asked. "I deserved her skepticism," Hamer writes. "What I meant to say, of course, was 'a' God gene, not 'the' God gene." Of course. Why, the reader wonders, didn't Hamer call his book A God Gene? That might not have been as catchy, but at least it wouldn't have left him contradicting himself. Whatever you want to call it, this is a frustrating book. The role that genes play in religion is a fascinating question that's ripe for the asking. Psychologists, neurologists and even evolutionary biologists have offered insights about how spiritual behaviors and beliefs emerge from the brain. It is reasonable to ask, as Hamer does, whether certain genes play a significant role in faith. But he is a long way from providing an answer. Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, wound up on his quest for the God gene by a roundabout route. Initially he and his colleagues set out to find genes that may make people prone to cigarette addiction. They studied hundreds of pairs of siblings, comparing how strongly their shared heredity influenced different aspects of their personality. In addition to having their subjects fill out psychological questionnaires, the researchers also took samples of DNA from some of them. Hamer then realized that this database might let him investigate the genetics of spirituality. He embarked on this new search by looking at the results of certain survey questions that measured a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated.

Can you give me a link for this so I can study this further?
I find it quite interesting.
Thanks.

[DMC]

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177190905



Theists are suckers for confirmation bias. You guys succumb to it all the time, and because of your natural tendency to accept things without real evidence, you take it and run. It always catches you though. 2000 years later and you still haven't passed "Go".

[xmas1997]

Yeah that's what I thought....

Here's a parting gift for you... via Carl Zimmer, fellow at Yale's Morse College.

The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer had written it 10 years from now-after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better titled: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.

However, you can dispense with the condescending attitude while providing that link.
There is no need for that.

[Chinook]

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.


It's horrible form to equate religion to theism. The theist/atheist split and the religious/non-religious split are completely separable. Not all theists are religious, and not all atheists are non-religious.

Theism implies no more mandates than atheism does. Plenty of ideologies on both sides do have mandates, and all folks of free thought should press against them.

[DMC]

It's horrible form to equate religion to theism. The theist/atheist split and the religious/non-religious split are completely separable. Not all theists are religious, and not all atheists are non-religious.

Theism implies no more mandates than atheism does. Plenty of ideologies on both sides do have mandates, and all folks of free thought should press against them.

When I meet a theist who doesn't tell me about it before I ask, I'll give what you said some thought. It's pretentious to suggest that the bulk of theists aren't religious folks. Sure, not all theists are religious, but then theism absolutely implies a mandate. To believe a god exists, you must believe that god has traits, characteristics, be in charge of something. Believing someone else is in charge means you believe there is a mandate, and that doesn't mean you have to follow it, but then you still believe it.

The god of no mandate is no god.

[Chinook]

When I mean a theist who doesn't tell me about it before I ask, I'll give what you said some thought.

An anecdote? That's poorer form.

[DMC]

However, you can dispense with the condescending attitude while providing that link.
There is no need for that.

It's needed, else people like you have no reason to not dick ride every blurb out there as if you just found the holy grail. That way people like me don't have to do the small amount of research to show you that you're once again wrong. That gene must be really thick in you.

[xmas1997]

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177190905



Theists are suckers for confirmation bias. You guys succumb to it all the time, and because of your natural tendency to accept things without real evidence, you take it and run. It always catches you though. 2000 years later and you still haven't passed "Go".

You sound no different than some of the other ignorant condescending atheistic assholes on this site who apparently can't get along with people in the real world so they spew their hatred on here.
Your ridicule however falls on deaf ears and just makes you appear to want to enforce your closed minded biased agenda, rather than get along.
But I thank you again for that link simply because I refuse to stoop to your level. And I will research it some more with an open yet critical mind because this is the first I have seen of any published criticism.

[DMC]

An anecdote? That's poorer form.

You're using an anonymous entity "the non religious theist". Point one out to me.

[DMC]

You sound no different than some of the other ignorant condescending atheistic assholes on this site who apparently can't get along with people in the real world so they spew their hatred on here.
Your ridicule however falls on deaf ears and just makes you appear to want to enforce your closed minded biased agenda, rather than get along.
But I thank you again for that link simply because I refuse to stoop to your level. And I will research it some more with an open yet critical mind because this is the first I have seen of any published criticism.

Some people who have the capacity and tendency for critical and abstract thought don't abide seasoned, wanton ignorance very well, especially from theists who pretend to "embrace science" and don't even understand the basic tenets of science. The multiplier there is when said theist can quote the Bible verbatim but misuses terms like "theory".

[RD2191]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge faggot/douche, tbh.

[Chinook]

You're using an anonymous entity "the non religious theist". Point one out to me.

I'm one. We've gone over that already. I'm much farther down the non-religious scale than most atheist in this thread. I know quite a few, actually. A bunch of young folks nowadays grow up that way.

[RD2191]

Show of hands, who here has observed a monkey evolving into a man? Or a fish into a reptile?

[DMC]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge faggot/douche, tbh.

We don't typically associate with be@ners.

[DMC]

Show of hands, who here has observed a monkey evolving into a man? Or a fish into a reptile?
Or a wetback into a leafblower?