Why fanatics can't see the absurdities in their beliefs.

P.S. Blessed are those who laughed out loud or at least grinned broadly, and already accursed are those who could only furrow their brow and gnash their teeth.



Edit to add: Because this post started a new page, I would just like to clarify and say that I was not here referring to the OP or the title of this thread. over and out/ amen.

Just one last thing.

Maybe there IS another dimension to this whole Jesus business that's otherwise resided in the blindspot of utter contempt, prior to investigation, in regards to a shared triumph in the midst of the human condition.

"If I seek only my own glory then that is no glory at all."

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

And no this isn't mere preaching, nor an attempted forced conversion (as if), but merely an invitation to consider something from an altogether different perspective, that's all. For more in terms of the framing and context, take my new Christmas avatar for example (see left), and note that purple sphere of a star-rise behind the ball in Jesus' Santa hat, which represents the kingdom of heaven already realized in potentia on the other side of all the sin and sorrow, suffering and strife wrought by our individual and collective human ignorance - but note carefully that the circle of it's expanding sphere isn't yet quite completed at the top, near his head - that's our job right there, that tiny portion, whereby in completing the circle of joy, we also complete his joy, with us, making both our joy and his complete, and without which it's not finished "the Great Work".

Let those with the eyes to see and the mind and the reason by which to process it's meaning "grok" of it most fully to borrow a term from Robert Heinlein's "A Stranger in a Strange Land" which means to understand and comprehend a new idea so deeply and so thoroughly that it's akin to eating and/or drinking it, fully integrated as it were through and through, because once the mind and heart changes shape based on new understanding, it can never go back to it's original configuration, and who would want to, when everything else is just garbage by comparison.

That's IT from me, carry on..

Best Regards,

NAM
January 4th, 2013.

Evening Adjensen,

I know your response was a playful dig so all good.

However I must point out:-

A scientist is a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Science is derived from the latin word 'scientia' which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data

Additional to that a scientist is someone that does not assume things they dont know anything about. Such as qualifications and such.

Sorry couldnt help myself. Peace!

Coomba98

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

A star for your humor, that was funny.

Just one thing though - son of God, spirit filled without measure, was/is Jesus, and when you try to tear him down, you tear down you, and me, as children of God, and brothers of Jesus, just so you know.

“God has given you a spirit with wings on which to soar into the spacious firmament of Love and Freedom. How pitiful would it be then, if you were to cut off your own wings with your own hands and suffer your soul to crawl like an insect upon the earth?”
~ Kahlil Gibran

Thanks for the star, NAM. Now, in no way am I attacking you with my next statement. I really want to know, who told you and Kahlil this stuff? Did you just make it up, or did a god whisper it into your ear? I guess what I'm asking is, if anyone comes up with something pertaining to a god that shows him in a good light, yet cannot be substantiated in any way, do you just automatically believe it?

I could say, Weep not for the disabled children, for in heaven they will run like the wind! But just because i said it doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ooh! Thanks to you I just found this! I hope it's good!

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate

And that is Christopher Hitchens, not Richard Dawkins...

Geez, does anyone even read any more?

Drinking again, Ad? lol I watched it. It was Dawkins, but there were a whole bunch of others debating if the universe had purpose. I was really disappointed with Craig and his companions. They said NOTHING of value.

But here comes Michael Shermer in this debate! He was AWESOME!

reply to post by WanDash

It seems to me that - If...God Is...then...He/She/It doesn't want me/us to know Who, Where, What or How...God Is.

I laughed out loud at this while taking a mouthful of ramen noodles. Not a good thing! lol

reply to post by FyreByrd


Interest post, FB. I'd like to address this part:

Now I ask how do you. how do you have reasoned discourse under this "survival"(??) mechanism - how can we work to common purpose with those that see the world very differently?

My answer is probably an impossible one, but here it is. We would have to get everyone on the planet to agree to leave the children alone when it comes to matters of religion, building up a sense of patriotism to country, to political sides..., and instill in them the desire to work for human-kind. Not just their kind, but all of humanity. And, to instill upon them that it would be a shameful thing to think and do otherwise. Admittedly, this would also be a form of brainwashing, but I don't think there's a way to NOT brainwash a child.

Originally posted by polyphemus75
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Well, that being said, you yourself are a fanatic for trying to convince others that they are fanatics for believing in God! Atheists have beliefs, they believe in nothingness, it is a religion all the same, and I get a kick out of how they are just as tyrannical in their beliefs as fanatics, always mocking, always shouting others down, always trying to convince others there is no God, passing out literature, writing articles, pass the tithe, fanatics all the same!

Inspiring reply, poly. I'll answer it in a new thread, 'Why Atheists are Unrelenting'.

reply to post by ChesterJohn

It would indicate that only the graves in the immediate area opened not ALL in every grave yard.

Agreed. There was just no reason to be specific because the whole premise is ridiculous. It's like saying you bought something for $9.99. Are you going to be specific about the price, or are you going to say it cost you ten bucks?

Originally posted by jiggerj
...We would have to get everyone on the planet to agree to leave the children alone when it comes to matters of religion, building up a sense of patriotism to country, to political sides..., and instill in them the desire to work for human-kind. Not just their kind, but all of humanity. And, to instill upon them that it would be a shameful thing to think and do otherwise. Admittedly, this would also be a form of brainwashing, but I don't think there's a way to NOT brainwash a child.

I've thought of this many times, as well... When children are young, they're always asking us to explain the world to them. They want us to tell them that "We" (which includes "they") are "the good guys"...and that We/They are right...
When all of this was going on in my life, I was far too immature to come up with good, sound, reasonable and unbiased answers...so most of what I spewed forth was what had been spewn at me, as a child (I'm sure I tried to change it enough to give it my own superior slant...but...).
Brainwashing -- Programming -- What's the difference?
You almost wonder what would happen if there were no programming ---
No language -- No training of "right & wrong" --
As you say - there's no way around it. They wouldn't even survive in this world without that input.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ooh! Thanks to you I just found this! I hope it's good!

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate

And that is Christopher Hitchens, not Richard Dawkins...

Geez, does anyone even read any more?

Drinking again, Ad? lol I watched it. It was Dawkins

You post a link to the Craig - Hitchens debate, say that it's Dawkins - Craig, and you accuse me of drinking?

Click your own link there -- or look below, I've embedded it:



I'll accept your apology when you're sober

(And yes, I've seen the thing you think you linked to, and that's more of a panel discussion than a proper debate. Why won't Dawkins debate Craig? Because he'd lose and he knows it.)

reply to post by adjensen


Yeah? I just watched that debate and I can't see how any non-biased person could think that Craig won! He's a real tool that can't see how biased and brainwashed he is. His logic keeps jumping the shark and he pleads and appeals to his audience's faith and loyalty more than to the strength of his arguments.

It was hard to watch and listen to the guy, I wanted to pull my hair out with his preacher like rhetoric and circular logic. He was oblivious to the irony of his attempt to use Biblical passages as valid arguments as proof of God. When he started talking about, and kept talking about Jesus and his resurrection and proof of God and of hope of eternal life, I couldn't believe he went there!

I'm sure he thought he was being brilliant, but he was wasting his time on his line of questioning "Is Atheism True?" instead of addressing the topic of the debate "Does God exist?"

I can see why Dawkins wouldn't want to debate him. He's intellectually dishonest. He ignores valid arguments against his case and accepts victory for fallacious conclusions that don't even deserve to be addressed, like the resurrection of Jesus. He just dismisses the possibility that Jesus didn't die and/or didn't rise from the dead, as too absurd to even be considered! Really? No wonder Hitchens didn't want to waste precious time opening that can of worms!

Of course his closing statement was a pitiful "alter call", "Come to Jesus for salvation!" Hubris!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yeah? I just watched that debate and I can't see how any non-biased person could think that Craig won! He's a real tool that can't see how biased and brainwashed he is.

Well, I'd hardly call you unbiased, lol.

As I said, the consensus of debate judges, even among atheists, is that Hitchens lost, big time. Read the review I linked to, or google up others. Yes, an unbiased person would say that Craig won that debate, because he clearly did -- anyone who comes to another conclusion is either blinded by their own biases, or has no idea how a debate works (as Hitchens apparently did not.)

reply to post by adjensen


I did read the review you linked, before I watched the debate. I also did a little research on Luke Muehlhauser, who seems to be the brunt of many jokes and mockery among his peers. What is he trying to say with that picture of Hitchins heading his blog? Looks he didn't like him from the get go!

Here's some other reviews from his page.

In order to defend his moral argument, Craig has to abandon the idea that some things are intrinsically wrong. Instead, he has to say that nothing, no matter how heartbreakingly cruel, could be wrong in a world without God. So he's really flying in the face of common sense—a serious problem, given that his moral argument is so unsupported in the first place.

What is this? I don't understand what is so great about Craig, he hasn't presented any serious argument for God's existence ever. Lot of his arguments sound incredibly convincing and eloquent , but at closer examination they are nothing but mambo-jumbo. He would make absolutely brilliant lawyer , that's for sure, but someone who cares for truth??? wtf? He only cares for winning the debates – which he is very good at! … The most stupid argument is the one about 'the cause'. It's nothing but fancy sounding words, nothing more, it doesn't prove absolutely anything. I am shocked that you as an atheist, who should value critical thinking and search for truth above all, are talking about how appearances would make their points more convincing.

Hitches was on a leash because the social impact of morality was off limits. The point of the debate was the existence of God and Craig failed at that. for if he did then NBC, CBS, and ABC are failing at the most important news break of all time…the proof of God’s existence. Hitchens does not have to prove God does not exist any more than santa clause. He points it out once and gets frustrated becasue of the same ol theoloogical arguments.

Craig was structured but had was not persuasive on many points. The moral point is a double edge sword and when Hitchens usually moves on the point of “will you kill if God commands” he did not touch it because it moves into social impact of people killing in the name of God.

So when people viewed hitches as needing 5 points to prove God does not exist they simply don’t get it he does not need nore can he provide that since it’s no different than going to debate to prove santa clause does not exist.

My opinion is Craig lost on the thesis of “Does God exist” but won in being organized. However if he had to PROVE the existence of God I failed to get it and Hitchens only needs to show there are holes in Craigs reason and from his (athiest) point of view he did just that.

Name a moral action that a non-believer CANNOT do and Craig answers TITHING! Loving God!
LOL
He’s clueless and Hitchens is wasting his time with Craig. Craig was as weak as he was againt Thomas Talbott on Eternal damnation. Talbott smoked him like a cigar and once again he did not do much to prove with facts but rather gave theories why it’s more rational to believe there is a God.

Then of course, there's all the comments from the YouTube page that don't give Craig the win either!

reply to post by adjensen


Sorry about that!? I thought the water in my coffee smelled of alcohol.

For anyone interested, here is the link for the Dawkins vs. Craig debate.



And Dawkins (including the rest of the atheists) tore the religious a new hellhole. lol

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

I did read the review you linked, before I watched the debate. I also did a little research on Luke Muehlhauser, who seems to be the brunt of many jokes and mockery among his peers. What is he trying to say with that picture of Hitchins heading his blog? Looks he didn't like him from the get go!

What you and the peanut gallery on YouTube don't seem to understand is that debate is a sport, it isn't just some guys jabbering and the judges side with whoever they agree with. There are techniques, strategies and point scoring. That was the point of the atheist review that I cited -- Craig is a professional debater, and no matter whether you agree with him or not, someone who doesn't understand how to debate is going to lose against him.

Hitchens showed up unprepared, missed numerous opportunities to score points and abandoned the argument before it was over. By any debate scoring system, he lost, period.

Now, admittedly, this took place a month or two before he was diagnosed with the cancer that would kill him a year later (hence all the coughing, I suppose,) so he may have been a bit disadvantaged, but he really did seem to think that his usual pompous bluster would carry the day, which it did not.

reply to post by adjensen


Those reviews weren't from the "YouTube peanut gallery", they were from the website that you linked.

I have never claimed to be a debater, although I wish I had learned more. I did win a debate in 4th grade, but that was the last time I did debate for sport.

My daughter however, who holds several degrees, including a PHD in MicroBiology and BioChemistry, did do debate in high school. She won so many debates that we didn't have room for all her trophies, and had to box them up and put them in storage, and yet they just kept coming! She and her debate partner, who now works for NOVA, won the state finals 2 years in a row.

And while it's true that I'm a shamelessly bragging mother, I have to ask you if you have kids? Have you ever had to live with and argue with a teenager that always wins debates? It's not a pretty thing! But I did learn a thing or two from her.

That being said, I do wish that Hitchins had brought more fire to the table, but he didn't look well in the video. He looked queezy, like he wanted to pass out or throw-up a few times. But Craig still had faulty logic, and used the debate as an opportunity to proselytize, that in my opinion, lost him the debate.

Originally posted by windword
And while it's true that I'm a shamelessly bragging mother, I have to ask you if you have kids? Have you ever had to live with and argue with a teenager that always wins debates?

I also have a daughter, but unfortunately for her, she had to live with her father that rarely loses professional debates, lol.

But Craig still had faulty logic, that in my opinion, lost him the debate.

Well, you're welcome to debate him, if you think he's that vulnerable, but no -- people lose debates because of faulty logic if their opponent successfully refutes it, they don't lose because someone who wasn't there declares that they had faulty logic two years later.

Again, by every legitimate scoring system, Craig won that debate.

Hey, if you want to hone your skills, why not join us in the ATS Debate Forum? Read the first post in this thread: The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters and you'll see who to request "Fighter" status from.

reply to post by adjensen

Hey, if you want to hone your skills, why not join us in the ATS Debate Forum? Read the first post in this thread: The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters and you'll see who to request "Fighter" status from.

What? And loose my perfect win rating from the 4th grade!

No, I really don't have any technical training in debate, although I do enjoy reading threads in the debate forum.

My daughter, who is an ATS member, usually only posts to answer questions and educate people in subjects she is well versed, but, she has expressed admiration and excitement for our debate forum. You may be seeing her in there at some time in the future, after she catches up on her lab and publication work.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hey, if you want to hone your skills, why not join us in the ATS Debate Forum? Read the first post in this thread: The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters and you'll see who to request "Fighter" status from.

What? And loose my perfect win rating from the 4th grade!

No, I really don't have any technical training in debate, although I do enjoy reading threads in the debate forum.

My daughter, who is an ATS member, usually only posts to answer questions and educate people in subjects she is well versed, but, she has expressed admiration and excitement for our debate forum. You may be seeing her in there at some time in the future, after she catches up on her lab and publication work.

Well, give it some thought -- I won't call your primary school to update them on your record, lol. And encourage your daughter, we are always looking for more member participation!