Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

reply to post by Vicky32

No, there's obviously nothing obvious about your assertion

Of course my assertion wouldn't be obvious if you believed in dogmatic nonsense, if you believe God intervened and sent floods and plagues.

...If religion was as obviously false as ypu claim, then atheists would be the majority, not the minority

"Appeal to majority" - Fail argument. In some Islamic states, the majority believes it's "OK" to cut the hands of criminals off. Does that make it right? Some tribes believe cannabalism is ok? Does that make it right? Does it make it absolute or objective? Interesting to see your answer to defend your appeal to majority strawmen

.. and that would upset you very much, because you guys so love to be the very special clever majority!

Awwww yeah i feel upset. I know to keep my emotions away from these debates as people like you attempt to fuel anger, it doesn't work, I don't believe i'm a very special clever majority - I accept that Atheism is a minority. But in some countries (Sweden) and some sample groups (Scientists) Atheism or Non-belief is the majority. Again, this "majority" argument is NOT an appeal for something's validity or truth.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by stuncrazy

 

Logic is a branch of philosophy. Learn to philosophy.

ok i may have misspoken on this line. how do you argue philosophy with science which is the point i was trying to get across

But we're learning more and more every day. It's not like it's an unknowable question, it's merely one we haven't cracked yet. There is promising ongoing study into neurology that is slowly unraveling the mysteries of our brain.

while this holds true. the fact remains the mind is still a mystery to us.

Define 'powerful'. I've yet to meet a person who can compute algorithms at anywhere near the speed my laptop can. I've also yet to meet any individual who can draw each frame of an animated movie at a rate of 24 frames in a second whilst reciting all of the lines in direct synchronization with the action happening in these drawings.

your right. our brains process visual images in a matter of moments, it processes sound. it makes decisions in a split second. all while running different organs and producing feelings. our mind is an amazing thing.

You don't. Of course, you can approach them with a rational mindset, as philosophy is inherently based within human reason and must follow the rules of logic.

then why battle the bible a philosophical book with science. you can't "prove" philosophy you either agree or you don't.

Um...Plato and Socrates arrived at their conclusions through the exercise of reason, not through 'ideas of the spirit'. They weren't illuminated, they were practicing reason. To attack their claims I would use reason in turn (hell, I'm currently addressing Plato's philosophy of education in a paper for my class on the philosophy of education).

ok then use reason and sound reason to question the morality of the book. find it's teachings good or bad.


theology is a man made word. anything pertaining to the spirit or the self is philosophy.

philosophy

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

source


spirituality(it's a long list i'll shorten it down to the points i am trying to make)

2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
6. of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.

source

spirituality is a matter of the ego. the consciousness is the spirit. the idea the bible brings to is we are simply spiritual beings in a physical world.

Which would be....?

the philosophy.

Flawed and unreasoned ethics and commanded metaphysics do not philosophy make. I'd also like to ask how the lineages in the Bible relate to ethics? How about all of those songs?

i for one know without question in my mind that this book was written by God. how did he do it? no idea. i can't comprehend God as a being just like i can't comprehend infinity, but infinity exists we just can't wrap our minds around it.

but for this discussion we are taking the key part of it which is the philosophy.

What's the story of the conquest of Canaan? What about the story of God's interference in the free will of Pharaoh?

i'm going with poetic justice for the pharaoh.
as for the conquest of canaan.

the Jews had proven (in their infancy) to be deserving of the Love of God. for they were faithful Servants.

the central message of the bible is that every person matters because every individual makes up the whole.

Please, back up this claim with some sort of argument, because I'd like to see how you derived this conclusion from the Biblical texts.

You're right, fellow man, the Bible really has it in for women.

no that ideology is wrong. the bible teaches man and women have different roles which is why they were created differently. all the way down to the way their brains work. they are different.

in no way of lesser value which is why eve was created from the rib of adam and not the foot or the skull.

women are the guiders of family. women should stay home and take care of children. not because they are less valuable workers, but they excel at loving their children guiding and protecting them. the world would benefit from women staying home, and that's just truth.

it's called motherly instincts.

I can quote the letters of Paul for a lot of horrible things. Hell, the New Testament isn't all peaches and cream, I'd suggest actually bothering to read it.

then please do. show me how the teachings of the new testament are not of love

Yes, he tells us that we should punish ourselves for our thoughts, for even the thought of sin is more dangerous than bodily disfigurement. He teaches us that ailments are caused by sin, setting medical science back for a while. Hell, even the good stuff is stuff that had already been floating about in the world for a few hundred years before he supposedly existed.

he teaches us to be mindful of our thoughts. our thoughts turn into action so stop them at their beginning instead of letting your emotions get the best of you.

and this "bodily disfigurement" means it is better for you to hurt yourself than the whole.
the bible is a story of the greater good the betterment of humanity AS A WHOLE.

I'm sorry, but how is "God" the collective whole? God is a being represented as an actual thing, not a metaphorical thing.

Yes he is an actual being but he is a being that is everything that he is God is the collective whole

we know this because when he sent moses he told him that his name is I Am all that I am. or i am everything i created. or I am the collective whole. the collective consciousness if you will.

Was already old hat in quite a few parts of the world at that time.

yes it is also a simplification of the 6 commandments in the 10 commandments. if you love your neighbor as yourself you will not commit any of the 6 commandments.

All with no sort of historical documentation beyond a few third hand accounts written a couple of decades after he supposedly existed....

Of course, you're just doing what Christians really love to do here, prosthelytize, so I'll continue jumping around.

this is a philosophical discussion. those matters are of little importance to the point i am making. what does prosthelytize mean?

And all of these accounts were made several decades after he supposedly existed. And they tell far from the same story, as the characters portrayed within the Gospels are portrayed differently in each one.


In fact, I won't take the account you're giving as factual unless you can support the existence of it with something outside of the text and contemporaneous with the events.

sir i've read through the new testament many times. it's my favorite book pleas tell me where you've gotten that?

the famous historian Josephus (whom was a known pharisee) mentions the existence of Jesus, he also mentions the death of his brother at the same time period he is said to exist.

the best historical evidence possible. the pharisee's were his rivals. so his enemy proved a man named Jesus existed in this time period.

and stop bringing fact into a philosophical debate. the facts are not the important part.

Except that the world doesn't reward truth with suffering and death unless there's a totalitarian dictatorship at hand. Right now the world rewards truth with change. That change can be in the form of positive accolades or it can be in the

really did Jesus ever have a job. did he promote being successful by the worldly definition? no. he told people to sell their processions and be one with God. he spoke out against the church. he was friends with "sinners prostitutes and whores".

even you shun me for speaking this truth.

you debating the morality of Jesus proves the world hates the truth.

And with how "the world likes to complicate things" we've extended the average life span by 20 years since the 1930s.

yes how much has the crime rate grown since the 1930's? how much has poverty grown? what about sickness? STD's?

Subdue women, don't allow them to teach. Great message there.

there were female prophets. what are you talking about?

No, that's the point of the second half of the book..

your right. and the point of the first half is that we failed him. even with his personal guidance the Jews were selfish self-seeking people.

Eternal punishment for finite crime
Punishment of thought crime

no the hell fire is eternal you are simply destroyed there

once again thoughts lead to action. be mindful of your thoughts.

I did.

Of course, even if all of the moral lessons of the Bible were true, it wouldn't speak to the validity of the claim of whether or not a deity exists.

by his namesake. can you deny that a collective conscience exists?

for what it's worth, I am not to fond of atheists myself. They seem to be the largest persecutors of all theistic beliefs worldwide.

not very good traits to have in my personal opinion.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Theism is an ideology, a way of life, if we have concerns about the logical or empirical means by which this ideology has been formed then we will speak out, we will argue. If we see that it has adverse effects in regards to the stability of society, why not stand up. I stand up as i deteste organised religion as much as i deteste nazism or nihilism.

Freedom of speech means you can stand up and say why you think something is wrong. I think it's a great characteristic to have, considering most Atheists are very aware of their social/moral responsibilities and often many Atheists are humanists.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Theism is an ideology, a way of life, if we have concerns about the logical or empirical means by which this ideology has been formed then we will speak out, we will argue. If we see that it has adverse effects in regards to the stability of society, why not stand up. I stand up as i deteste organised religion as much as i deteste nazism or nihilism.

Freedom of speech means you can stand up and say why you think something is wrong. I think it's a great characteristic to have, considering most Atheists are very aware of their social/moral responsibilities and often many Atheists are humanists.

well the same goes for atheism too, being atheism is protected under the Constitution in the United States you are free from governmental persecution, unlike in Muslim countries.

atheism is also a tax exempt religious institution in the United States there is even a first Church of Atheism which I have read all about here on ats. One can become a legally ordained minister which deals in deities or lack of belief thereof.

theists are just cooler people if you ask me.

oh they tried all that Humanist stuff back in the 60's they became the UU's which are all but dead or dying off now.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

our brains are more powerful than supercomputers. like big time.

Define 'powerful'. I've yet to meet a person who can compute algorithms at anywhere near the speed my laptop can. I've also yet to meet any individual who can draw each frame of an animated movie at a rate of 24 frames in a second whilst reciting all of the lines in direct synchronization with the action happening in these drawings.

Computers are inherently stupid, because they're only capable of two pieces of knowledge. Is something on, or is something off? That's it. They give the illusion of power (or intelligence, or whatever quality one wants to view in them,) by being crazy fast. But they can only do what they are taught to do, and it all distills down to that basic 1/0 determination. Drill down far enough, and everything on your computer, from programs to data to music to pixels on your screen, they're all just a long string of ones and zeros.

I haven't paid attention to the field in a while, but back in the seventies and eighties, efforts in artificial intelligence were largely focused on duplicating human intelligence, but it became clear that this was an impossible task, because not only do humans not work on that binary logic (except for oddballs like me ) but that their decisions often are the result of abstract factors that can't be directly duplicated, such as intuition that draws from a knowledge base of incredible volume.

It was thought that, as machines got faster and faster, AI would become feasible, and to a degree, it seemingly has, in some measures, but it's still simply an intelligence transfer, from programmer (or data provider) to machine, with the machine incapable of anything other than the rote decision making that programmer provides the rules for. The last time I looked, the most promising work was from researchers who had chucked the whole notion of replicating human intelligence, and were starting over with insect AI.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

well the same goes for atheism too, being atheism is protected under the Constitution in the United States you are free from governmental persecution, unlike in Muslim countries.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a philosophical stance regarding one issue; atheism has no dogma, no rituals, no pre-subscribed morals/beliefs/ideology.

Your Constitution is brilliant, it was designed to put a "wall" between the church and state. This is great so that theocrats don't encroach on state business; science, law etc. It allows for multiculurism and different religions to co-exist in one country.

atheism is also a tax exempt religious institution in the United States

It's not an intitution, Atheism is a lack of belief. Atheists don't threaten people with eternal fire for not converting.

there is even a first Church of Atheism which I have read all about here on ats. One can become a legally ordained minister which deals in deities or lack of belief thereof.

Haha that's quite ironic really. Suppose the Atheists are just taking on the same priveledges as religious people have:-

"Let's create an ideology and then become tax exempt"; Scientology, Catholocism, Islam..... and now you tell me Atheism. (At least atheism doesn't preach nonsense and belief before evidence!)

I'll be sure to research this "Church of Atheism"..... although quite ironic - it certainly is hypocritical, but then again, i know they won't indoctrinate children with unprovable claims.

Again, you can't prove God does or doesn't exist, so teaching children that there is no reason to believe is not indoctrination, so don't say Atheists indoctrinate there children. Teaching a child that belief without evidence is a great thing is cruel.

Theists are just cooler people if you ask me.

Opinionated bias. - And you havn't met all the Atheists and non-believers in the world. Go to Sweden, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find a few "cool" dudes right there.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

You haven't proven that "Bob" is non-existent to yourself, because there are too many reasons that your proof of "he didn't show up" can be refuted, never mind the heavy lifting of proving his non-existence to me, which you haven't even started to do.

Except that I already have disproven Bob. That you keep attempting to redefine Bob to say that I haven't disproven him doesn't change that. You're simply strawmanning.

No you haven't. The conditions that you set for Bob can be met by an omnipotent being in a fashion that does not require you to be able to testify that you saw him. All you have "proven" is that you do not believe that you saw him. That's evidence about you, not evidence about Bob.

And as for proving it to me, do you expect me to take your word as evidence? You want me to believe, on faith alone?

Correction: I do not demonstrate that no god exists. I do demonstrate that the god defined in that text does not exist. There may be another god, which is the one which the text is supposed to be describing, which does exist, but the one that the text actually describes does not.

I have highlighted the word in your text which points to your error. I've said it a number of times, I'm not sure why you keep insisting on your claim that text defines, rather than describes. It does not.

If I define Bob as "the god which murdered me this morning", then Bob does not exist, because I was not murdered this morning.

Bob is omnipotent, remember? Perhaps he murdered you and resurrected you before you were even aware.

You cannot prove the nonexistence of a supernatural being. Period.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

well the same goes for atheism too, being atheism is protected under the Constitution in the United States you are free from governmental persecution, unlike in Muslim countries.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a philosophical stance regarding one issue; atheism has no dogma,

well that's not quite what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

explain to me then why it is a system based in belief, deals in deities, and has a Church where one can become a legally ordained minister.

reply to post by SisyphusRide




Learn the difference between a religion and atheism.

Again, if you can have a tax free haven for your beliefs based on 0 evidence, so can we. We just don't teach unprovable ideas to children. And we believe in humanism not morality handed on a plate by some man-made God.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

thank you but I have heard enough of Mr Dawkins disgruntled militant biologist arguments.

in actuality the atheists should acknowledge other theistic belief systems exactly like they acknowledge "the First Church of Atheism" -- not at all

this makes a good coexisting atheist.

reply to post by Golden Boy


I gotcha, its just a statement designed to.. "win" arguments? Why bother with that? :shrug:

As long as you arent using such absolutes in actual research or mathematics (any at all) and just in semantic warfare, then we have no "disagreement."

I am posting all of this to better understand how your limited perception of the world is conceptualizing something beyond its comprehension, which is at the real root of.. quite a few things! but most specifically here, the validity of A on the basis of X. i am still struggling to understand its value to you beyond the established semantics. Perhaps that is the only value it has?

apologies for making you repeat yourself.. but just a bit more on the topic.. lets approach this as an actual equation, with operators that are independently verifiable beyond the validity of the total equation. so, if evidence was found that the red sea was parted (lets keep it consistent), does that also link the existence of A requiring X? If no, then why is the container, [A], a derivative of a contained system X and not the other way around? If yes, how do the limits of finite perception apply to an event which is beyond comprehension in its totality (applies to all events that are peceived, then conceptualized, then quantified in this definition). and how would that affect the resulting accuracy and validity of [A] as a reliably and consistently quantifiable term?

[the God that created the entire universe], exists if and only if, the universe was created (a statement straight from the bible too, coincidentally). The evidence for the universe is quite clear, so that God exists? [the God that is the whole universe], exists if and only if, the universe exists. once again, evidence is quite clear.. Such semantics can seemingly be used to prove or disprove anything and everything, but here we have an event that makes the red sea look like a parlor trick. All one needs to do is word it in their favor, no?

Now, the next issue is, if there is lack of evidence, how can any empirical conclusion be made anyway? Being "not murdered" is simply semantically loading the presentation. The evidence for such a thing is clear, because it is present (as i have also proven that "the God that created the entire universe" exists). However, there is not necessarily a simile to the red sea parting. i can see how semantically, but not logically.. The lack of evidence does not allow us to logically go one way or the other, much less invalidate an independent container based on an assumption with no evidence in the first place.

Its all a test

reply to post by stuncrazy

Originally posted by stuncrazy

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by stuncrazy

 

Logic is a branch of philosophy. Learn to philosophy.

ok i may have misspoken on this line. how do you argue philosophy with science which is the point i was trying to get across

I respect that you admit your mistake. I just want to give you that credit because it is due. Too many people don't even take the blame for their misspellings, let alone their misspeakings.

And I'd say...you don't. But they're both founded in reason, so you argue philosophy with reason.

But we're learning more and more every day. It's not like it's an unknowable question, it's merely one we haven't cracked yet. There is promising ongoing study into neurology that is slowly unraveling the mysteries of our brain.

while this holds true. the fact remains the mind is still a mystery to us.

Not entirely. We know that the mind is a product of the brain.

your right. our brains process visual images in a matter of moments, it processes sound. it makes decisions in a split second. all while running different organs and producing feelings. our mind is an amazing thing.

...that wasn't my point. I'm saying that a computer can play a movie, something we as humans are unable to do. Our mind is also unable to store the amount of information that a computer can store. We cannot run algorithmic functions at anywhere near the speed of a computer.

We also cannot process visual images perfectly. The majority of visual information at any given moment is actually ignored, hence why we can watch a video of people passing a basketball around and not notice the guy in a gorilla costume walking by.

Our brain is amazing, but computers have overtaken us in some key areas.

You don't. Of course, you can approach them with a rational mindset, as philosophy is inherently based within human reason and must follow the rules of logic.

then why battle the bible a philosophical book with science. you can't "prove" philosophy you either agree or you don't.

...You can prove philosophy, it's the entire basis of the field of logic. You can prove certain assertions. Of course, you can't prove them all, but you can point out logical holes to disprove some assertions.

ok then use reason and sound reason to question the morality of the book. find it's teachings good or bad.

Slavery is wrong. Commanding a slave to remain subservient to a master is wrong. Commanding women to stay silent and not teach men is wrong. The concept of eternally punishing individuals for finite crimes is wrong.

theology is a man made word. anything pertaining to the spirit or the self is philosophy.

Philosophy is a man made word too. In fact, all words are man made. Or woman made, don't want to exclude the great women of history.

philosophy

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
*snip*
source

I italicized the part you seem to be missing.

spirituality(it's a long list i'll shorten it down to the points i am trying to make)

2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
6. of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.

source

You do realize that definition 9 (and wow, going down to 9 means it's one of the least used versions) is the metaphoric definition of 'spiritual' correct? It's the same way that an a-spiritualist would speak of the 'soul'. I don't believe in a soul, but I understand the use of the term as a metaphor.

spirituality is a matter of the ego. the consciousness is the spirit. the idea the bible brings to is we are simply spiritual beings in a physical world.

Except that we are physical beings in a physical world. We have evidence of the physical and no evidence of anything beyond the physical.

Which would be....?

the philosophy.

Where is the philosophy of the Bible? I've yet to see any systematic practice of reason in the scriptures. I've yet to see any intellectual practice in the Bible. I've read the thing a few times over and see no philosophy, merely religion.

i for one know without question in my mind that this book was written by God.

The word you are looking for isn't 'know', it's 'believe'. Unless you have any evidence for it, you cannot know it.

And how would a perfect being write a text that has demonstrable flaw?

how did he do it? no idea.

Well, 'on a drunken bender' would be the only explanation for how flawed, inconsistent, and frankly vindictive it sounds.

i can't comprehend God as a being just like i can't comprehend infinity, but infinity exists we just can't wrap our minds around it.

Because 'infinity' is an abstract concept of our own imagining. We imagined an idea greater than our ability to comprehend, isn't that kinky?

but for this discussion we are taking the key part of it which is the philosophy.

Direct me to the philosophy contained within the Bible.

What's the story of the conquest of Canaan? What about the story of God's interference in the free will of Pharaoh?

i'm going with poetic justice for the pharaoh.

So your deity, who claims to give us free will, is allowed to violate free will now? That's moronic.

as for the conquest of canaan.

the Jews had proven (in their infancy) to be deserving of the Love of God. for they were faithful Servants.

So that excuses mass rape and genocide?

the central message of the bible is that every person matters because every individual makes up the whole.

Please, back up this claim with some sort of argument, because I'd like to see how you derived this conclusion from the Biblical texts.

You didn't seem to address this query, as the quote remained unaddressed...

You're right, fellow man, the Bible really has it in for women.

no that ideology is wrong. the bible teaches man and women have different roles which is why they were created differently. all the way down to the way their brains work. they are different.

Except they are different in subtle and frankly unsubstantial ways. Any job that a man can do a woman can do either as good as or sometimes better than a man.

Of course, the Bible preaches such hateful things as:

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Apparently only men can file for divorce.

Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

...
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Paul really has some horrible things to say about women. Now, if women aren't supposed to teach...well...that's silly. I would go to quite lengthy extremes to have a lesson in science from Madame Curie or Jane Goodall.

in no way of lesser value which is why eve was created from the rib of adam and not the foot or the skull.

Um...how does the rib not make her of lesser value?
And we know the 'Adam' and 'Eve' didn't exist..

women are the guiders of family.

Le sigh...not this sexist crap again.

women should stay home and take care of children.

So what about all of the contributions to society from working women? Should we just forsake them? Man, we'd have been set back decades if Marie Curie hadn't studied radiation (she was the greater scientist in her relationship).

not because they are less valuable workers, but they excel at loving their children guiding and protecting them.

As do men. Hell, in some species the males are the primary care givers of young.

the world would benefit from women staying home, and that's just truth.

Citation needed.

it's called motherly instincts.

And what about scientific instincts? Achievement instincts? What about the women that actually want to do more with their life than act as reproductive services and care givers? Do women not have an equal right to create, to explore, to live?

then please do. show me how the teachings of the new testament are not of love

See above. And I can provide more, as those are just in reference to women.

he teaches us to be mindful of our thoughts. our thoughts turn into action so stop them at their beginning instead of letting your emotions get the best of you.

I've thought all sorts of horrible things that I never acted upon. I've been wronged before and wished to do much harm on others. Instead of rejecting that I even had those thoughts I did the healthy thing and came to terms with the fact that I had unhealthy thoughts and that it is better to simply reason out that those actions are destructive rather than constructive.

Jesus claimed that to think of a sin is to have sinned, when it really isn't. Unless you're in an Orwellian dystopia.

and this "bodily disfigurement" means it is better for you to hurt yourself than the whole.

So it's a utilitarian document? The greatest good for the greatest number? How is the greatest good defined here?

the bible is a story of the greater good the betterment of humanity AS A WHOLE.

Really? Please, show me where it says that.

I'm sorry, but how is "God" the collective whole? God is a being represented as an actual thing, not a metaphorical thing.

Yes he is an actual being but he is a being that is everything that he is God is the collective whole

So your argument forms a complete circle. There's no end point and no conclusion, merely a circular statement. How about explaining how that is.

we know this because when he sent moses he told him that his name is I Am all that I am.

Yes, it's a redundant statement. It is what it is.

or i am everything i created. or I am the collective whole. the collective consciousness if you will.

Except that is not a logical conclusion based upon the words in the Bible. Please, show me a citation in the original Hebrew text of the Bible that allows you to make this translation.

Was already old hat in quite a few parts of the world at that time.

yes it is also a simplification of the 6 commandments in the 10 commandments. if you love your neighbor as yourself you will not commit any of the 6 commandments.

1-4 are unnecessary and 10 or 9-10 depending on your tradition isn't actually a bad thing. Coveting is the basis for improving the self.

All with no sort of historical documentation beyond a few third hand accounts written a couple of decades after he supposedly existed....

Of course, you're just doing what Christians really love to do here, prosthelytize, so I'll continue jumping around.

this is a philosophical discussion. those matters are of little importance to the point i am making. what does prosthelytize mean?


To preach rather than to discuss. To talk at rather than talk to.

And all of these accounts were made several decades after he supposedly existed. And they tell far from the same story, as the characters portrayed within the Gospels are portrayed differently in each one.

In fact, I won't take the account you're giving as factual unless you can support the existence of it with something outside of the text and contemporaneous with the events.

sir i've read through the new testament many times. it's my favorite book pleas tell me where you've gotten that?

the famous historian Josephus (whom was a known pharisee) mentions the existence of Jesus, he also mentions the death of his brother at the same time period he is said to exist.

No, Josephus mentions "Kristos", the anointed one. Jesus isn't the only person ever anointed. The other issue is that there was a Jesus who was anointed who was a chief priest.

And here's the crazy thing, Josephus isn't contemporaneous with the life of Jesus. If Jesus were a real character, then Josephus would have been born ~5 years after the death of this character.

the best historical evidence possible.

No, the best historical evidence would be physical, not an account for someone who wasn't even a twinkle in his father's eye when Jesus is supposed to have died.

the pharisee's were his rivals. so his enemy proved a man named Jesus existed in this time period.

This shows that you read a lot of apologetics but absolutely no history.

and stop bringing fact into a philosophical debate. the facts are not the important part.

Facts are entirely relevant in philosophy. Where else do you get the basis for the debate? If facts have no import then why am I to not conclude that we should all turpentine a space unicorn flagellum story night film hulk?

If facts were irrelevant we could not have a discussion in the first place and the above demonstrated incomprehensibility would be all we could participate in.

Please, read up on philosophy before trying to claim what is and is not a philosophical debate.

really did Jesus ever have a job.

Well, the Gospels all have 20+ year holes in them, so we have no way of knowing what this character did in those time periods.

did he promote being successful by the worldly definition? no. he told people to sell their processions and be one with God.

And he told people to abandon their families after doing so...which meant a family was going to become destitute.

he spoke out against the church. he was friends with "sinners prostitutes and whores".

He spoke out against the establishment...to call the Jewish religion a 'church' is to use a term that hadn't been invented yet and is slightly misrepresentative. And yes, he had some seedy friends, which is one of the things I don't have a problem with. Jesus said some fine things, he just wasn't perfect (and nobody is).

even you shun me for speaking this truth.

Shun? I disagree with you. I would still aid you in a time of need as a fellow human being. And it's not truth, it's your belief.

you debating the morality of Jesus proves the world hates the truth.

Ah, the old 'My assumed religious beliefs are shown to be true because you're arguing against them' con. And yes, it's a con.

I don't hate the truth. I just think that Jesus and the New Testament as a whole espouse some demonstrably immoral teachings.

Now, if you want this to be a philosophical debate, how about you bother to demonstrate how the teachings of Jesus are moral?

And with how "the world likes to complicate things" we've extended the average life span by 20 years since the 1930s.

yes how much has the crime rate grown since the 1930's?

No clue. Got any numbers?

how much has poverty grown?

It shrank. There may be more poor people now, but that's only because there are more people. The percentage of the world that is poor is much smaller than it used to be. The global economy is uplifting people.

what about sickness?

Sickness? I'm sorry, but we're healthier than we've ever been. Sure, we have a couple of incredibly dangerous diseases that we didn't used to have like AIDS, but people in the developed world don't die of dysentery anymore. The flu isn't a near death sentence. Infant mortality is down. Polio is nearly eradicated, smallpox is eradicated.

We're healthier than we've ever been, all we have to do is spread this health to the developing world.

STD's?

Well, STDs aren't as big of a problem as they used to be due to better understanding of medicine.

Subdue women, don't allow them to teach. Great message there.

there were female prophets. what are you talking about?

This passage:

1Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

No, that's the point of the second half of the book..

your right. and the point of the first half is that we failed him. even with his personal guidance the Jews were selfish self-seeking people.

Because the deity in question guided them to being selfish. Choosing one small tribal group out of all of the world and telling them that they are the chosen people of the creator of the universe and that they can go and commit genocide against a whole slew of city-states is always going to backfire.

Eternal punishment for finite crime
Punishment of thought crime

no the hell fire is eternal you are simply destroyed there

Then the opposite: infinite reward for finite good deeds.

once again thoughts lead to action. be mindful of your thoughts.

Be mindful, but not punished.

Of course, even if all of the moral lessons of the Bible were true, it wouldn't speak to the validity of the claim of whether or not a deity exists.

by his namesake. can you deny that a collective conscience exists?

Yes, I can. There is no evidence of a collective conscience. I'd like you to provide a proof of one before I accept such a hypothesis.

reply to post by eight bits


I'd like to point out that the claim made in the post was that the flaws of religion are 'obvious'. That's a relatively relative term.

Granted, you're outright accusing me of a straw man without explaining how it's a straw man. How am I perpetuating a straw man? You made a serious accusation, and then you made the further accusation that I'm somehow 'losing' a discussion when you didn't even explain how.

...so...evidence, show some. You should have everything you need in the quotes of myself and Vicky.

Also, is it too much to ask that you use the 'reply to' or at the very least the "Originally posted by____" formatting in your quotes? Sorry, just a formatting peeve.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Disgruntled? How is a frankly refined and well-spoken Oxford scholar disgruntled?

Militant? How is he militant? Who has he killed, shot, physically threatened...oh, I forgot, the term 'militant' with atheists doesn't mean the same as what it means with religious people. Militant Christians shoot people, militant Muslims blow themselves up, but militant atheists are just people who happen to be outspoken.

What's wrong with being a biologist? Have you not benefited from the discoveries of biology?

Oh, I get it, that was just an ignorant ad hominem attack.

Problem: Religion hurts people. I'm going to shut up when it stops that.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
well that's not quite what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong on that. Also, how does American Constitutional law have any bearing on what is or is not truth?

explain to me then why it is a system based in belief,

A lack of belief is not belief. Bald is also not a hair color.

deals in deities,

It doesn't.

and has a Church where one can become a legally ordained minister.

So people can have private legal secular marriages. And not all atheists belong to this 'church'.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

We know that the mind is a product of the brain.

The mind needs the brain in order to function and interact consciously in this material reality.

There is a strong relationship between mind and brain, but there is currently no falsifiable theory that mind is a product of brain.

reply to post by mysticnoon


There is no evidence of mind existing separate from the brain. We can alter the mind by altering the brain. We don't need a falsifiable theory of mind to actually dismiss the claim that the mind exists separate of the brain as there is simply no evidence to show otherwise, thus any hypotheses claiming this have a threshold of proof to be met before they can make such demands.

madness

Granted, you're outright accusing me of a straw man without explaining how it's a straw man.

As I said earlier, Vicky made a different argument from what you discussed, even as you pretended that you were discussing hers. In English, that is called making a straw man. In that rhetoric course you took, did your instructor just give you lists of names, and not tell you what they were?

Speaking of which, did he or she happen to mention what straw man is called in Latin? Argumentum ad formidonem, maybe? Well, feel free to add that one to your list.

You made a serious accusation, ...

What you did was serious. You made a straw man, and I called you on it.

The basis of my finding has been explained to you twice, once more than I owe you. Furthermore, you knew, or ought to have known, what you were doing when you did it.

As to your losing, you are losing because you wiggled onto the hook for an insupportable part of your buddy's empty boast. Since then, you just keep digging in deeper and deeper on a point you cannot win, which wasn't worth making in the first place.

On another matter arising, thank you for your formatting suggestion. I am unpersuaded that a change is warranted at this time.