Wonders of desperation

[Tired of irrationality]

I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
preposterous as the story of the new testament. Honestly, what drives
people? Is it fear of death? A need to feel special? A need to belong?
There is no credible evidence that Jesus was resurected, that Moses
and the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years, that God even exists as
anything more than wishful thinking. Having read the bible (old
testament and new)as well as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Francis Chan, Max
Lucado, and a plethora of other christian apologists, I find myself
astounded at the lengths these intelligent-seeming people go to
present circular, unsubstantiated arguments as if they actually
support thier belief when in truth they only cause obsfucation.

My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and antagonism
of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything like
it.

[Marc]

You will find that intelligence allows people to hold strange views,
as much as it allows others to see the truth. The might of the human
brain can be harnessed to construct narratives, and formulate reasons
for those narratives, which maintain viewpoints that do not align with
reality; just as it can allow us to uncover the secrets of the atomic
world. It appears that part of the reason humans have such a divergent
set of beliefs, many of which do not accord with each other or
reality, is precisely because we are intelligent.

[etio]

Been thinking around related lines:   https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/atheists-all/sOpq5I5HtJI   

Of late I am beginning to think it is shear boredom and the need for involved entertainment.

[GT]

> involved entertainment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Nothing but 'opinionization'. Typical of a 'fly by night type', come
here
unload your narrow minded crap, then flutter off to safety.

It is in fact Atheists, (as the term suggests) that are foisting a
singular
'atheistic' view on those who do not agree. Your "please stop it"
being
a prime example, (We, theists must "stop it", and allow ourselves
be censored by typically arrogant atheism.)

"So please stop". Is a demand that I'm sure 'you' will be happy to
comply with. Your vunerability to logic being as obvious to yourself,
as it is to any of us here.

If your position is an 'honest' one then you will be prepared to
defend it.

Note: Neils, Bob T.s, Lawreys etc, the "honest" applies to the
intellectual
content of Tired of irrationality's arguments, not the "personal'.

There is no 'poisoning of the well', as these (atheistic) positions
have
been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.

[Bob T.]

GT -

It appears that you clicked on etio's post, but you were actually
trying to reply to "Tired of irrationality". These online
conversations make more sense when you take care of these details.

I'll assume that it was an "honest" mistake ;-}

- Bob T

> been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.- Hide quoted text -

[GT]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It took me so long to 'bang' out my post, that the page
had then expired. When I refreshed I chose the wrong
/etio's one to respond to. Thanks for pointing that out
I would not have noticed.

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC and I agree completely.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

"Heaven No! I Won't Go!" --Neil Kelsey

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

[LL]

LL. Or, more likely, intrinsic intelligence is compromised by belief
in myth. Belief in myth prevents intellectual development. A truly
intelligent person whose intellect has been allowed to develop will be
able to tell the difference between intelligent thought and wishful
thinking and will be understand the effects of indoctrination. A
person of normal intelligence will come to understand how the human
mind works and what factors come into play that can compromise proper
development. People who have been indoctrinated into mythical
thinking fail to learn how the mind works and how mythical belief
works against such understanding. Mythical believers either cannot
understand the value of critical thinking or they try, because of
indoctrinated fear, to separate their mythical thinking from whatever
form of low level critical analysis they manage to do. But separation
can't work. Mythical belief infects the intellect and renders it
incapable of most critical thought especially as it applies to
beliefs. The human mind has a great propensity for blocking all
thought that interferes with its fear-driven mythical beliefs. It's a
form of brain damage that has far-reaching detrimental effects. This
phenomenon is what inspired Richard Dawkins to say that religious
indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse, with which I
agree. If a parent deliberately crippled his child's legs and
prevented proper physical development there would be no doubt that it
was child abuse. When a parent cripples his child's intellectual
development, somehow it is seen as proper upbringing by far too many
people whose own intellectual development has probably been
compromised by mythical indoctrination. So the abuse becomes
generational, invisible to those involved and accepted by them as the
proper intellectual development.

.........


........

........

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jan 2, 5:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
> preposterous as the story of the new testament. Honestly, what drives
> people? Is it fear of death?

Yes.

> A need to feel special?

Yes.

> A need to belong?

Yes.

> There is no credible evidence that Jesus was resurected, that Moses
> and the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years, that God even exists as
> anything more than wishful thinking. Having read the bible (old
> testament and new)as well as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Francis Chan, Max
> Lucado, and a plethora of other christian apologists, I find myself
> astounded at the lengths these intelligent-seeming people go to
> present circular, unsubstantiated arguments as if they actually
> support thier belief when in truth they only cause obsfucation.
>
> My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and antagonism
> of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
> selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
> not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything like
> it.

I'm with you.

[LL]

On Jan 3, 3:53 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

LL. This is a perfect example of what happens to a person's thinking
ability when its development has been compromised by mythical belief.
A perfect case study.


.........

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jan 3, 3:53 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

That sounds like "opinionization" to me (although I prefer to use
regular language, and just say "opinion").

> It is in fact Atheists, (as the term suggests) that are foisting a
> singular
> 'atheistic' view on those who do not agree. Your "please stop it"
> being
> a prime example,

Asking politely is not "foisting."

>  (We, theists must "stop it", and allow ourselves
> be censored by typically arrogant atheism.)

How do you derive "must stop it" from "please stop it"?

> "So please stop". Is a demand

It's a polite request.

> that I'm sure 'you' will be happy to
> comply with. Your vunerability to logic being as obvious to yourself,
> as it is to any of us here.

It seems like he's *applying* logic more than he's vulnerable to logic
(whatever that means) to me.

> If your position is an 'honest' one then you will be prepared to
> defend it.

He doesn't have to defend his position for it to be an honest one. But
you've already demonstrated that you have your own quack definition of
the word "honest."

> Note: Neils, Bob T.s, Lawreys etc, the "honest" applies to the
> intellectual
> content of  Tired of irrationality's arguments, not the "personal'.

Irrelevant, since you literally don't know what the word "honest"
means.

> There is no 'poisoning of the well', as these (atheistic) positions
> have
> been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.

Non sequitur.

[Observer]

On Jan 3, 3:53 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Observer

Resolve the issue now by presenting your case in accordance with ,
logic, reason, critical
thought (an necessary integral of both) and provide scientifically
verifiable substantiating data as to the existence of or any act of
the god thing , peculiar to christian mythology, in or on the
universe. Then of course it will be necessary to provide equal
substantiation for the myths/folk lore of "the bible".

Psychonomist

[etio]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:23:02 PM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

Our narrow 'crap' is way superior to your thick slimy fuzz of creation in every respect but popularity.

 

It is in fact Atheists, (as the term suggests) that are foisting a
singular
'atheistic' view on those who do not agree. Your "please stop it"
being
a prime example,  (We, theists must "stop it", and allow ourselves
be censored by typically arrogant atheism.)

Too bad you can't burn any more Brunos or have Galileos jailed and to repent for their heretic truth.

You look like the type that won't hesitate in doing that even today.

"So please stop". Is a demand that I'm sure 'you' will be happy to
comply with. Your vunerability to logic being as obvious to yourself,
as it is to any of us here.

Vulnerability to logic?

Whatever it is it sounds way superior to vulnerability to theological superstition. I suggest you become "vulnerable to logic" as well.

 

If your position is an 'honest' one then you will be prepared to
defend it.

If you find yourself ready to attack it, be my guest.

Keep in mind that your plea above already establishes that the defense of your position has been broken.

 

Note: Neils, Bob T.s, Lawreys etc, the "honest" applies to the
intellectual
content of  Tired of irrationality's arguments, not the "personal'.

There is no 'poisoning of the well', as these (atheistic) positions
have
been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.

There is no "well" to poison ... just people's minds and their lives.

The damage done is already too great for anyone to be able to ignore it.

[Tired of irrationality]

Honesty...okay, I am being honest and earnest when I ask how and why a
rational, intelligent person would find it necessary to believe in a
creator, a superior 'father figure' master, or so-on. I have wondered
about this many times, read fairly extensively of the various
rationales, and still am unconvinced and unable to fathom a true,
objective reason for such beliefs. I chose christianity as my example
because of my constant exposure to it, but suspect any of the major
religions of the world would be similarly dificult to prove in any
concrete fashion.

Some thoughts. Are we as a race.animal incapable of comprehendiing a
universe without beginning or end as well as no need for a creator or
manager? Why do so many not only assume that the world/universe was
'made', but have a need to believe it is so?

Is the proposition that we live and die only once so frightening? I
understand that anxiety of death is natural as we evolve like all
creatures to survive, yet we all know we will die at some point; does
this make the fear of death somewhat irrational, and does this fear in
part drive the need for belief in a spiritual realm and an after
life?

On another tack, why does God change so much accross the old and new
testaments? There are to my mind many examples of this. And what was
happening in the rest of the world Iif God and Jesus were focused on
Israel for 1000+ years?

As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.

I welcome logical, thoughtful commentary. Fire away! :-)

> been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

Oh, that certainly (luckily) depends on what group you're talking
about. The general public may have some affinity to creationism, but
among scientists there is simply not even a question: evolution is
*it*.

[GT]

On Jan 4, 10:46 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Honesty...okay, I am being honest and earnest when I ask how and why a
> rational, intelligent person would find it necessary to believe in a
> creator, a superior 'father figure' master, or so-on. I have wondered
> about this many times, read fairly extensively of the various
> rationales, and still am unconvinced and unable to fathom a true,
> objective reason for such beliefs. I chose christianity as my example
> because of my constant exposure to it, but suspect any of the major
> religions of the world would be similarly dificult to prove in any
> concrete fashion.
>

You would be being honest if you had already resolved the
question; Why a rational, intelligent person would find it
necessary to believe in a creator, a superior 'mother figure'
(Mother Nature) Matriarch.

We here would be very interested in your 'rationale' for a
'natural' universe. Which in the interest of intellectual honesty
you are now obliged to present.

(You do state your 'opinions' honestly, but are they 'honest'
statements?)

> Some thoughts. Are we as a race.animal incapable of comprehendiing a
> universe without beginning or end as well as no need for a creator or
> manager? Why do so many not only assume that the world/universe was
> 'made', but have a need to believe it is so?
>

It's a logical conclusion, see 'the watchmaker analogy'.

> Is the proposition that we live and die only once so frightening? I
> understand that anxiety of death is natural as we evolve like all
> creatures to survive, yet we all know we will die at some point; does
> this make the fear of death somewhat irrational, and does this fear in
> part drive the need for belief in a spiritual realm and an after
> life?
>

Death in a godless universe would be the ultimate catastrophe.

When we die we would say goodbye (If we got the chance)
to our family, our friends, our pets, our home, our job.
All 'physical reality' would cease to exist. All our memories
irretrievably erased, including those of our participation here.

And it gets worse, It would not be our own death we would
just have to contemplate. We should be constantly in fear of
the death of those close to us.

Why then aren't we turning into a neurotic, horribly depressed
society, now that the opiate of 'religion' is being withdrawn?

A godless universe would have no care for our feelings.

> On another tack, why does God change so much accross the old and new
> testaments? There are to my mind many examples of this. And what was
> happening in the rest of the world Iif God and Jesus were focused on
> Israel for 1000+ years?
>
> As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
>

No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
Parkes. Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.

Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights
movement, not godless atheism.

We are all born Theists, Atheism, as the term suggests is
an imposition.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

If someone said that a novel like "The Great Gatsby" helped them
understand ceratin aspects of human nature, would you call them
irrational? The largest Christian denominations don't consider the
Bible to be historically or scientifically accurate. It's like a
serious novel in that it's trying to help you understand certain
important things. But of course Christians think the information
comes from God, making it much more than a mere novel.

I think paranoid is a more specific term for Bible literalists. It
requires holding a terrible opinion of the majority of scientists and
historians, for no other reason than they reach conclusions that
contradict the Bible when taken literally.

[LL]

LL. Are you actually claiming that a newborn baby believes in god?

....

[Bob T.]

On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:46 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Honesty...okay, I am being honest and earnest when I ask how and why a
> > rational, intelligent person would find it necessary to believe in a
> > creator, a superior 'father figure' master, or so-on. I have wondered
> > about this many times, read fairly extensively of the various
> > rationales, and still am unconvinced and unable to fathom a true,
> > objective reason for such beliefs. I chose christianity as my example
> > because of my constant exposure to it, but suspect any of the major
> > religions of the world would be similarly dificult to prove in any
> > concrete fashion.
>
> You would be being honest if you had already resolved the
> question;  Why a rational, intelligent person would find it
> necessary to believe in a creator, a superior 'mother figure'
> (Mother Nature) Matriarch.

This concept only exists in your imagination - atheists don't believe
in Mother Nature.

Indeed. In a godless universe, children would starve to death and
good people would die young.

>
> > On another tack, why does God change so much accross the old and new
> > testaments? There are to my mind many examples of this. And what was
> > happening in the rest of the world Iif God and Jesus were focused on
> > Israel  for 1000+ years?
>
> > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
>
> No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> Parkes. Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.

I don't understand why acknowledging the fact of biological evolution
would logically lead to racism. Perhaps you can explain your
reasoning to us?

>
> Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights
> movement, not godless atheism.

Christianity was in the vanguard of slavery for hundreds of years.

>
> We are all born Theists, Atheism, as the term suggests is an imposition.
>

What a stupid concept.

- Bob T

[friendhis@yahoo.com]

There are a lot of ways that people come to faith in Christ. The most
common path is through a trusted source.

For example, you have a friend that tells you that God is real - they
say that they know that God is real and beneficial. You explain to
them all the reasons that you think this cannot be so, but they claim
to know God in a personal way. Although you can't see any substantial
reason to believe what they say, you know that they are sincere, so
you decide to go to church with them. At first, it seems unusual but
you meet more people that are like your friend - you think to yourself
that they are deceived, but sincere.

Then something happens. Sometimes it is a crisis or sometimes it is
an inspiring moment like looking at the Grand Canyon or sometimes it
is hearing a preacher or sometimes it involves getting knocked off
your horse and blinded for a few days. Whatever it is, suddenly you
consider the possibility that God is real. So you take the leap - you
pray. And then God does something inside you and believing doesn't
seem silly anymore.

[Marc]

The issue of why religious belief persists is one I have been
thinking, discussing, and reading on for some time.

Some conclusions (I have come to):
1) Intelligence - as in the brute power of the human meat computer -
wonderful though it is, can be harnessed to maintain unsupported
claims/narratives just as it can be harnessed to overturn those
claims. The brain can create little narratives of justification to
hold onto views all too easily, much like astronomers created a
proliferation of epicycles to hold onto the Ptolemaic model of the
solar system. The point: when new evidence comes up the first move
(psychologically speaking) is all too often conservative in favour of
the old ways of doing things... people would rather create of series
of props to their old thinking than discard or give it up. This is
seen in eighteenth century naturalists: when they recognised that the
world was much older than any of them had thought (thanks to geology),
their response was that God had created the world/universe to look as
if it had a deep history because in God's glory the deep history was
more aesthetically pleasing - this is like an epicycle, allowing the
person to 'see' the new evidence, but have the evidence change
nothing. Intelligence allows humans to create epicycles and narratives
of maintenance in the face of evidence to the contrary.
The reason for conclusion 1: I am not a super-intelligent special
snowflake individual with special access to the world by virtue of
atheism. People are (often) intelligent, creative, and well-meaning.
And it is glib to suggest just because I 'see' something that someone
else is stupid because they do not; not only glib but a move of the
ego...

2) Belief in god(s) makes sense - this is in terms of the social,
existential, and as a explanation.
Social: It signals to the group that you are part of the group because
you have the same beliefs... you know and understand the group's
memes. This would reinforce group cohesion, and appropriate behaviours
- which was very important to the survival of our ancestors. And
whilst the world has changed our evolved neurobiology has yet to catch
up.
Existential: Why I am here? However crude 'because God' is as an
answer, it is an answer that gives meaning (meaningfully) to the lives
of many, it helps them overcome life's little difficulties and
tragedies. I agree that this is a signal of a certain weakness,
wherein those with the belief cannot get through the day without a
psychological crutch (God), but IT really does allow them to get
through the day, with a semblance of psychological health.
Explanatory (1): 'because God' IS crude. But consider this computer -
I do not really need to know how it works to use it; I need to know
how to use it. The belief in God creates the illusion of explanation
(God of the gaps) in a way that IS acceptable (from the perspective of
evolutionary psychology) because in terms of survival in the world we
need a ready to hand default - which was to our ancestors that
everything had its own spirit (animism) - that allows for an easy
black box explanation, but still you get to use the object. The point
is we were using stuff (including our own bodies) well before we
understood what we were using - 'because spirits/god(s)' was an easy
way to go. Today for most people (myself included with respect to the
computer) this is still true - still many, however, do not like to
claim 'I do not know' so rather pretend by saying 'because God'. You
can say this makes no sense, if you want...
Explanatory (2): God as a metaphysical stop sign. Problem: infinite
regress of causality; our brains evolved to see in everything cause/
effect chain. No effects without causes - but this creates an infinite
regress because the effect of the first cause needs a cause. Answer:
'because God' this serves as a stop sign which allows early thinkers
(i.e. Aristotle) to stop worrying about the problem and move on.

You can say that this made sense in the past, or doesn't make sense
really, either way I might agree... but when thinking on these things
the issue is why are these beliefs accepted so readily and persist so
well. Indoctrination, for example, IS NOT child abuse it is the parent
recognising, however correctly/incorrectly, that they live in a social
world with ideas that indicate identity with the group - in the USA
being Christian makes (or did make) a bunch of social situations
easier (this is true of Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism). Obviously this will
change, and people are changing it, indeed the rise of fundamentalism
is itself a response to the FACT that the world is changing it is (I
believe) an indication of the belief system ACTUALLY no longer being
able to create epicycles of maintenance and so it is forced into final
stage of denial.

[xeno]

On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.

> No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> Parkes.

The analogy isn't between atheism & Rosa Parks. Don't be a numbskull.
The other poster is saying that it's absurd to say atheists are
foisting their views on theists because theists have the dominate
position & some feel *entitled* to maintain that position regardless
of any others rights. Rosa Parks was just asserting her rights, not
trying to dominate anybody. The same goes for atheists. You may
object to the analogy because you may want atheists to stay in their
place or be in no place at all that but that's what is actually being
said here.

> Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.

First of all, that premise isn't necessarily true. It may be true for
atheists that take a scientific approach. & what you may be trying to
refer to is social Darwinism: "a sociological theory that
sociocultural advance is the product of inter-group conflict and
competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth
and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for
existence" (m-w.com). That's a dubious theory & yes, a tool for
racism, no doubt. But that has nothing necessarily to do with atheism
or Darwinism. There are professed Christians who may subscribe to
that theory. What conclusions do you want to rush to draw about that?

> Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights

> movement...

But that in itself proves *nothing* about whether Christian theism, or
any theism has any real connection with reality other than being a
belief system.


You ultimately can't liberate yourself from the system by religion.
Religion will keep you from going all the way. Religion is just a
fix.

[Ian]

You clearly study the Bible but do you also study Psychology to see how the Human  brain uses experiences.   Here you explain a very real way in which individuals and groups influence people though the conscious and sub conscious processes.   Your prayer is your c mediating with your SC, if it meet a need there is sticks for a while.   Trouble is the SC is the child part of your makeup and easily influenced and that is why the undeliverable become believeable.          Some became more mature in their SC and know its just a palliative and not real.     -------Original Message-------

[Ian]

Its a great leap of mind or faith the interpret the contents of the bible into a supernatural being, it easier to understand the scene some writers put in novel about the human condition..            -------Original Message-------

From: Walt Date: 04/01/2012 03:39:35 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

[GT]

On Jan 4, 6:52 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
> > No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> > Parkes.
>
> The analogy isn't between atheism & Rosa Parks. Don't be a numbskull.
> The other poster is saying that it's absurd to say atheists are
> foisting their views on theists because theists have the dominate
> position & some feel *entitled* to maintain that position regardless
> of any others rights. Rosa Parks was just asserting her rights, not
> trying to dominate anybody. The same goes for atheists. You may
> object to the analogy because you may want atheists to stay in their
> place or be in no place at all that but that's what is actually being
> said here.
>

Your perpetuating your own propaganda, theist don't try and stop
atheists at all, it's the other way around. Check out the 'stats'.

"As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus."

The analogy 'is' between atheism & Rosa Parks. Don't be a numbskull.

"My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and
antagonism
of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything
like
it."

So from this we are not to conclude that the majority of people on
earth should not have the right to express their views. And that
they should not "stop" and forget about their god, "or anything like
it.

No one reading the above can not be aware of who is "foistering".
It is quite clear who is being selfish. Theists have every much the
same right to express their beliefs as Atheists do.

I suggest you look carefully at your own (atheisms) position, you
will see that you people aren't even aware of your own beliefs.

Your (atheism's) purpose is to 'oppose' the beliefs of Theism,
which is a shocking form of censorship.

(Theists repeatedly mention God as the foundation of their beliefs,
and rarely attack 'Nature'. Whereas Atheists rarely mention their
'Nature', but repeatedly attack God.)

> > Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> > no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> > part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.
>
> First of all, that premise isn't necessarily true. It may be true for
> atheists that take a scientific approach. & what you may be trying to
> refer to is social Darwinism: "a sociological theory that
> sociocultural advance is the product of inter-group conflict and
> competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth
> and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for
> existence" (m-w.com). That's a dubious theory & yes, a tool for
> racism, no doubt. But that has nothing necessarily to do with atheism
> or Darwinism. There are professed Christians who may subscribe to
> that theory. What conclusions do you want to rush to draw about that?
>

Slavery is a perfect example of darwinism in action. A 'superior'
race exploiting another. (race, or class )

But one rather ironic point I should make is that it is in fact
conservative christians that champion the dog eat dog
darwinism that drives modern capitalism.

> > Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights
> > movement...
>
> But that in itself proves *nothing* about whether Christian theism, or
> any theism has any real connection with reality other than being a
> belief system.
>

Of course it does not prove *nothing* about whether Christian theism,

or
any theism has any real connection with reality other than being a

belief system. The intention was to make the point that it's theism,
and
not atheism that was, standing up for these peoples rights.

(Ask yourself, why is it you wan't 'us' to go straight to our beliefs,
if
your purpose is not simply to attack)

People such as yourself come here for an endorphine fix, hunting
theists is your pastime. Try looking at this debate in a more clinical
way, you will get even more satisfaction from your visits.

> You ultimately can't liberate yourself from the system by religion.
> Religion will keep you from going all the way. Religion is just a
> fix.

Not so, many of the religious practice science, Joe, for example.
I have never had religion in my life, not my fault, just a fact.

[etio]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2012 5:46:09 AM UTC+5:30, rappoccio wrote:

Obviously.

[GT]

On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:46 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Honesty...okay, I am being honest and earnest when I ask how and why a
> > > rational, intelligent person would find it necessary to believe in a
> > > creator, a superior 'father figure' master, or so-on. I have wondered
> > > about this many times, read fairly extensively of the various
> > > rationales, and still am unconvinced and unable to fathom a true,
> > > objective reason for such beliefs. I chose christianity as my example
> > > because of my constant exposure to it, but suspect any of the major
> > > religions of the world would be similarly dificult to prove in any
> > > concrete fashion.
>
> > You would be being honest if you had already resolved the
> > question;  Why a rational, intelligent person would find it
> > necessary to believe in a creator, a superior 'mother figure'
> > (Mother Nature) Matriarch.
>
> This concept only exists in your imagination - atheists don't believe
> in Mother Nature.
>

Then they believe in God, there are only two choices when
making the decision. Why not use an existing deity?

When it comes to personal decisions we can believe in any
silly thing we wan't, but this is not being intellectally honest.

(There is still only two choices, the natural, or the supernatural.)

But no afterlife. and therefore no justice.

>
>
> > > On another tack, why does God change so much accross the old and new
> > > testaments? There are to my mind many examples of this. And what was
> > > happening in the rest of the world Iif God and Jesus were focused on
> > > Israel  for 1000+ years?
>
> > > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
>
> > No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> > Parkes. Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> > no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> > part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.
>
> I don't understand why acknowledging the fact of biological evolution
> would logically lead to racism.  Perhaps you can explain your
> reasoning to us?
>

Darwinism is about survival of the fittest, not the nicest.
Got it now.

The exploitation of another race or class for your own
betterment is an example of darwinism.

>
>
> > Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights
> > movement, not godless atheism.
>
> Christianity was in the vanguard of slavery for hundreds of years.
>

No, Christianity played the major part in destroying slavery.
The Quakers probaly did more than any other religion to abolish
slavery. Richard Nixon was from a Quaker upbringing, he continued
the work of the JFK and LBJ governments in improving rights and
dismantling legal segregation.

(Kennedy and Johnson both had very strong christian backgrounds.)

> > We are all born Theists, Atheism, as the term suggests is an imposition.
>
> What a stupid concept.

There are only two possibilties, God of Nature. to be born Naturalists
we would somehow have to had to been aware of 'evolution' and
Darwin's theory from birth. What actually happens is we are taught
it a school, it is an 'imposition'. Got it now?

>
> - Bob T- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

Very nice post Marc!

[Observer]

On Jan 3, 11:13 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of ways that people come to faith in Christ.  The most
> common path is through a trusted source.
>
> For example, you have a friend that tells you that God is real - they
> say that they know that God is real and beneficial.  You explain to
> them all the reasons that you think this cannot be so, but they claim
> to know God in a personal way.  Although you can't see any substantial
> reason to believe what they say, you know that they are sincere, so
> you decide to go to church with them.  At first, it seems unusual but
> you meet more people that are like your friend - you think to yourself
> that they are deceived, but sincere.
>
> Then something happens.  Sometimes it is a crisis or sometimes it is
> an inspiring moment like looking at the Grand Canyon or sometimes it
> is hearing a preacher or sometimes it involves getting knocked off
> your horse and blinded for a few days.  Whatever it is, suddenly you
> consider the possibility that God is real.  So you take the leap - you
> pray.  And then God does something inside you and believing doesn't
> seem silly anymore.

Observer

All of the above is dependent upon a belief that the god thing ,
peculiar to christian superstition , is an actuality.

If you so believe then present your case in accordance with , logic,

reason, critical
thought (an necessary integral of both) and provide scientifically
verifiable substantiating data as to the existence of or any act of
the god thing , peculiar to christian mythology, in or on the

universe. Oh and of course supply equal substantiation as to the
veracity of your "bible",

Psychonomist

[Bob T.]

On Jan 4, 5:53 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 10:46 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Honesty...okay, I am being honest and earnest when I ask how and why a
> > > > rational, intelligent person would find it necessary to believe in a
> > > > creator, a superior 'father figure' master, or so-on. I have wondered
> > > > about this many times, read fairly extensively of the various
> > > > rationales, and still am unconvinced and unable to fathom a true,
> > > > objective reason for such beliefs. I chose christianity as my example
> > > > because of my constant exposure to it, but suspect any of the major
> > > > religions of the world would be similarly dificult to prove in any
> > > > concrete fashion.
>
> > > You would be being honest if you had already resolved the
> > > question;  Why a rational, intelligent person would find it
> > > necessary to believe in a creator, a superior 'mother figure'
> > > (Mother Nature) Matriarch.
>
> > This concept only exists in your imagination - atheists don't believe
> > in Mother Nature.
>
> Then they believe in God, there are only two choices when
> making the decision.  Why not use an existing deity?

Atheists don't believe in any deities at all. Duh.

>
> When it comes to personal decisions we can believe in any
> silly thing we wan't, but this is not being intellectally honest.

Indeed, which is why we atheists wonder why you theists believe in
such silly things.

>
> (There is still only two choices, the natural, or the supernatural.)

You seem to think that believing in the natural world somehow involved
worshipping "Mother Nature". Apparently you can't understand atheism
at all - you seem to think that everybody believes in mythology, and
atheists just believe in a different mythology from yours. You are
mistaken.

So, it's OK with you that children starve to death, as long as bad
people go to Hell? In any case, you have missed my point, which is
that starving children are strong evidence that we do not live in a
universe run by an all-powerful and all-loving entity.

>
> > > > On another tack, why does God change so much accross the old and new
> > > > testaments? There are to my mind many examples of this. And what was
> > > > happening in the rest of the world Iif God and Jesus were focused on
> > > > Israel  for 1000+ years?
>
> > > > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > > > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
>
> > > No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> > > Parkes. Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> > > no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> > > part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.
>
> > I don't understand why acknowledging the fact of biological evolution
> > would logically lead to racism.  Perhaps you can explain your
> > reasoning to us?
>
> Darwinism is about survival of the fittest, not the nicest. Got it now.

Yes, that is correct. Similarly, gravity is about the attraction of
masses, not love.

>
> The exploitation of another race or class for your own
> betterment is an example of darwinism.

No, that's an example of "Social Darwinism", which is not the same
thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

>
> > > Christianity has been the vanguard of the race civil rights
> > > movement, not godless atheism.
>
> > Christianity was in the vanguard of slavery for hundreds of years.
>
> No,  Christianity played the major part in destroying slavery.
> The Quakers probaly did more than any other religion to abolish slavery.

Actually, it was the Baptists of the Confederacy who destroyed slavery
by seceding from the union in order to protect their God-given right
to own other human beings.

> Richard Nixon was from a Quaker upbringing, he continued
> the work of the JFK  and LBJ  governments in improving rights and
> dismantling legal segregation.
>
> (Kennedy and Johnson both had very strong christian backgrounds.)
>
> > > We are all born Theists, Atheism, as the term suggests is an imposition.
>
> > What a stupid concept.
>
> There are only two possibilties, God of Nature. to be born Naturalists
> we would somehow have to had to been aware of 'evolution' and
> Darwin's theory from birth.

No, atheists don't believe in "Nature", we just don't believe in God.
Babies do not believe in God, therefore they are atheists.

> What actually happens is we are taught it a school, it is an 'imposition'. Got it now?

Yes, I've got it - you are confusing people who don't believe in God
with people who understand science. While there certainly is a
correlation there (people who understand science are less likely to
believe in God), there are many atheists who know nothing about
biological evolution.
>
- Bob T

[rappoccio]

On Jan 4, 7:57 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:52 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:25 pm, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As for atheists foisting on theists, this is a bit like accusing Rosa
> > > > Parks of foisting her views on the white men riding the bus.
> > > No analogy can ever be made between atheism and Rosa
> > > Parkes.
>
> > The analogy isn't between atheism & Rosa Parks. Don't be a numbskull.
> > The other poster is saying that it's absurd to say atheists are
> > foisting their views on theists because theists have the dominate
> > position & some feel *entitled* to maintain that position regardless
> > of any others rights.  Rosa Parks was just asserting her rights, not
> > trying to dominate anybody.  The same goes for atheists. You may
> > object to the analogy because you may want atheists to stay in their
> > place or be in no place at all that but that's what is actually being
> > said here.
>
> Your perpetuating your own propaganda, theist don't try and stop
> atheists at all, it's the other way around.  Check out the 'stats'.

This isn't even remotely true. Just walk around a downtown area, or
drive anywhere in the US. You'll eventually be accosted by someone (or
see a billboard) that wants you to find Jesus. It's called
"Evangelism".

[Bob T.]

On Jan 4, 4:57 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:52 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I suggest you look carefully at your own (atheisms) position, you
> will see that you people aren't even aware of your own beliefs.
>
> Your (atheism's) purpose is to 'oppose' the beliefs of Theism,
> which is a shocking form of censorship.

You're wrong again, to nobody's surprise. Atheism is not opposed to
anything, it is merely the lack of belief in God.

>
> (Theists repeatedly mention God as the foundation of their beliefs,
> and rarely attack 'Nature'.  Whereas Atheists rarely mention their
> 'Nature', but repeatedly attack God.)

That's because the association between atheists and "Nature" is a
figment of your imagination.

>
> > > Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> > > no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> > > part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.
>
> > First of all, that premise isn't necessarily true. It may be true for
> > atheists that take a scientific approach. & what you may be trying to
> > refer to is social Darwinism: "a sociological theory that
> > sociocultural advance is the product of inter-group conflict and
> > competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth
> > and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for
> > existence" (m-w.com). That's a dubious theory & yes, a tool for
> > racism, no doubt.  But that has nothing necessarily to do with atheism
> > or Darwinism.  There are professed Christians who may subscribe to
> > that theory. What conclusions do you want to rush to draw about that?
>
> Slavery is a perfect example of darwinism in action. A 'superior'
> race exploiting another. (race, or class )

Darwin's theory describes how living things gradually change from
generation to generation - it has nothing to do with people exploiting
each other.

<snip>

- Bob T

[Walt]

One argument I've heard advanced is that the original disciples saw
Jesus perform many miracles. These disciples had the ability to heal
the sick and exorcise the possessed, and pass on these powers. People
of the first century saw the power of the disciples and became
Christian, creating the Church. The Church is the miracle that you
can witness first hand. It's appearance is a unique event in
history. The Bible by itself is not intended as a basis for becoming
a Christian.

> > it.- Hide quoted text -

[Ian]

But that is again just tales from a book. You quote these passages as if the are real verifiable history when all they are is parables or plain word of mouth.  Just like fables passed by roaming peddlers.

-------Original Message-------   From: Walt Date: 04/01/2012 21:59:13 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

[xeno]

On Jan 4, 4:57 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The analogy 'is' between atheism & Rosa Parks. Don't be a numbskull.

The analogy is between *atheists* & Rosa Parks, DUMB-ASS. It's about
people who may express views contrary to a dominate group's position
who are then accused of foisting their views on group in power because
the dominate group wants to maintain their hegemony.

>
> "My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and
> antagonism
> of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
> selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
> not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything
> like
> it."
>
> So from this we are not to conclude that the majority of people on
> earth should not have the right to express their views.

No. You can express anything you want, just like you're doing here.
Who's stopping you by asking you to stop? Only an asshole would take
offense at somebody asking, "please, stop."

>  And that
> they should not "stop" and forget about  their god, "or anything like
> it.

That's not an unreasonable *request*, considering that there's
evidence for no such thing. But, you can continue on with whatever
you want to believe anyway.

> No one reading the above can not be aware of who is "foistering".
> It is quite clear who is being selfish.

She's only asking you to stop. She's not forcing you to stop. She even
said: "Please".
So, what's clear is that you're over-reacting.

Theists have every much the
> same right to express their beliefs as Atheists do.

OK. I don't believe in god. I think the world would be better off if
people didn't believe in such things. Fundamentalists & other
dogmatists should reconsider how they practice their theism & what
they propagate. Now what?




> (Theists repeatedly mention God as the foundation of their beliefs,....

So what? You object to people attacking "god" but the people oppose to
theism are attacking the *idea* of god because as far as they're
concerned there's no such thing. Given that you can't prove that a god
exists, people oppose to the idea of god have a legitimate gripe. If
your practice involves trying to dictate social policy, and/or
creating a theocratic superstructure over society, then all bets are
off. You don't have any special rights to do that. Otherwise, nobody
is stopping you to believe anything merely by expressing a contrary
view.

> > > Atheists are by default Darwinists, there would be
> > > no room on the bus of darwinism for anyone who was not
> > > part of the 'ruling class'. It would be strictly 'whites only'.

> > First of all, that premise isn't necessarily true. It may be true for
> > atheists that take a scientific approach. & what you may be trying to
> > refer to is social Darwinism: "a sociological theory that
> > sociocultural advance is the product of inter-group conflict and
> > competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth
> > and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for
> > existence" (m-w.com). That's a dubious theory & yes, a tool for
> > racism, no doubt.  But that has nothing necessarily to do with atheism
> > or Darwinism.  There are professed Christians who may subscribe to
> > that theory. What conclusions do you want to rush to draw about that?

> Slavery is a perfect example of darwinism in action. A 'superior'
> race exploiting another. (race, or class )

Social Darwinism & Darwinism are not the same thing. You keep making
this equivocation. & if you may recall, social Darwinism was not the
default ideology of the slave owners in the US, if that is
specifically what you are alluding to. They were predominately
Christian & used the bible to justify chattel slavery.

> But one rather ironic point I should make is that it is in fact
> conservative christians that champion the dog eat dog
> darwinism that drives modern capitalism.

Modern capitalism affects a variety of views, not the other way
around. Religion is the cart, not the horse. So I don't subscribe to
the view that religion is the root of all evil.

> Of course it does not prove *nothing* about whether Christian theism,
> or
> any theism has any real connection with reality other than being a
> belief system.  The intention was to make the point that it's theism,
> and
> not atheism that was, standing up for these peoples rights.

But that's an inaccurate depiction of things. Not everybody involved
held religious beliefs, nor were motivated primarily by religious
reasons. & standing up for people's rights doesn't require any
religious belief at all.

> > You ultimately can't liberate yourself from the system by religion.
> > Religion will keep you from going all the way. Religion is just a
> > fix.

> Not so, many of the religious practice science, Joe, for example.

Joe is hardly a point in your favor. He thinks psychiatry is all
bullshit. He prefers to self-medicate with religion as one particular
option. This is what he himself puts out there.

[Tired of irrationality]

Okay...

> 'You would be being honest if you had already resolved the

> question; Why a rational, intelligent person would find it
> necessary to believe in a creator, a superior 'mother figure'

> (Mother Nature) Matriarch.'

Not sure where this is coming from; I haven't referenced a belief in
'Mother Nature', so don't know if you have a point here or
are just being sarcastic. The relevent point is, I have not found a
persuasive rationale that supports the existence of God (or gods)
and so wonder why others so easily believe. If there is no good
explaination for the actual existence of God, then there must be a
reason choose to believe anyway. This is the thrust of my question:
What reason (backed by some type of verifiable evidence) is there for
believeing in God, and if there is no explaination, why do people
believe/ (sorry for belaboring the point, but want to be clear).

> We here would be very interested in your 'rationale' for a
> 'natural' universe. Which in the interest of intellectual honesty
> you are now obliged to present.

As for a 'natural' universe, I take that to mean one without a supreme
being who created said universe and guides it's workings from moment
to moment. My thought here is that there is nothing to suggest such a
creator/cosmic manager, and so what are the alternatives? One
certainly could be a state of equilibrium (or a dynamic system if you
like) of such breadth in both size and time (a fluid concept also) as
to seem eternal and be beyond our current abilities to properly
understand. One can appreciate such a thing without fully
understanding it, nor the need to personify it and assign various
dubious qualities and motives to such a universe.

>It's a logical conclusion, see 'the watchmaker analogy'

I feel this is a non sequitur; The idea that a watch requires a watch
maker implies a complexity beyond that which could be found in a given
system. But I believe, because the sheer immensity of the universe is
nearly impossible for us to grasp, we are unable to understand the
equally immense number of complexities possible in such vastness. Can
we postulate that a supreme being is responsible? Yes, but we are
surely not required to, and the simple example of a watch/watch maker
is obviously not analogous to the universe; to put in other words,
the universe may or may not be a watch, but for us to assume a maker
says more about or own anthopomorphistic tendencies.

As for death, why is it horrible? If everything dies, why do we expect
to be different?

I actually think the Rosa Parks analogy is apt. Theists dominate our
country andare far and away the majority, yet seem to grow angry and
defensive at the meer suggestion of a different line of thought. I
suppose this is a product of the religion itself, a 'Catch Twenty-
Two'. The religions I am most often exposed to require a faith that,
while superficially supporting questions, in the end demand
unquestioning fealty to their theology. Futher, it seems as if said
religions demand, in one form or another, the conversion of all others
to their theology. This, of course, makes honest, open discussion
necessarily difficult. Rosa Parks was not subordinate to the white men
riding her bus, as atheists, agnostics, and the like are not
subordinate to theists. My suggestion here is, rather than attacking
in a personal fashion (implying dishonesty and so-on), you (GT) should
focus on presentiing your beliefs and the reasons for them in a
coherent form. The ensuing discussion would then be civil and worth
while.

[Tired of irrationality]

Have been down this path. Have not had such an awakening. Also, why is
it people only seem to find God when they are desperate? I am
concerned it could be a form of stress-relieveing self-delusion. Not
trying to be insulting, but truly wiondering.

> > it.- Hide quoted text -

[Tired of irrationality]

A lot to digest, thank you for your thoughts. I don't find much to
disagree with. One thing; your explanation seems to purport that God
is more of a catch all in terms of things not understood as well as an
agent of social cohesiveness. But many people I know believe in a very
personal, close relationship with God (i.e. praying throughout day,
studying the bible and other religious tracts with zeal, and so-on). I
guess I'm not sure what drives such an almost maniacal obsession.

[Walt]

OK, suppose we accept the implication of what you are saying, that
ancient people were ignorant slack jaws who would easily believe the
fables of roaming peddlers. The question then becomes, why not more
abrupt changes of dominant religion? Greco-Roman Paganism, according
to current archeological thinking, evolved (without abrupt changes)
gradually starting from the religious beliefs of the Proto-Indo-
European culture.

I am also a non-believer, but I don't agree that it's irrational to be
Christian, There are many times in life that we choose to accept and
act on information that is not as well-proven as scientific or
historical fact. No one would ever get married if they felt they had
to know for a scientific certainty that the marriage would succeed.
Christians simply choose to accept the truth of Christianity just as
many accept the truth of Keynesian Economics. There are valid reasons
to doubt either, but it's not practical in life to always (or even
often) be immobilized by doubt. I do find it irrational when
Christians say it's irrational to NOT be Christian, but those are
typically the Bible literalists.

> > put in novel about the human condition..- Hide quoted text -

[friendhis@yahoo.com]

On Jan 4, 4:34 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have been down this path. Have not had such an awakening.

Don't give up

> Also, why is
> it people only seem to find God when they are desperate?

Because our natural inclination is to think that we can handle
anything - being confronted by the reality that we can't is a
"teachable moment".

>I am
> concerned it could be a form of stress-relieveing self-delusion. Not
> trying to be insulting, but truly wiondering.
>

I totally understand that it could look that way.

Compare this method of stress relief to others:

1. Belief that God loves me and that I am his child
2. Chemical induced altered states
3. Acting out - behaving badly

They are all effective to some extent

[friendhis@yahoo.com]

Why? I was answering the question about how/why people come to belief
in Christ. The key is in taking a step of faith, not becoming
convinced to believe by logic.

Here is an analogy... suppose that you only like to swim in a pool
where the water is not too cold and not too hot, your preferred
temperature is between 75f and 85f. So you approach the pool and see
that there are several swimmers enjoying the pool. You ask if there
is a thermometer in the pool and there is. So you ask the temperature
and one of the swimmers says "78 degrees, come on in!" You respond
with "please provide a certificate from the department of weights and
measures indicating the veracity of that thermometer".

C'mon obs, you know you wanna do a cannon ball! :)

[Ian]

I call this wishful thinking or the "blue haze syndrome".     I think its like getting children to eat, you get them to taste it and if they spit it out you put it in other food preparations so they will just lap it up, Logical children soon work this out and recognise the said had those horrible mushrooms in so again they refuse the food.     I can look at the Grand Canyon and think its a marvelous natural construction made by earth movement, wind and water. I can have an accident and concentrate on getting better and not acting so carelessly again, neither turns my mind to God.   However I do recognise that the sub consious can give different messages to other people who are built with a susceptible consious.      -------Original Message-------

From: frie...@yahoo.com Date: 01/05/12 06:24:51 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

[Observer]

Observer
If it can not be established that this god thing , peculiar to
christian ideologues is an actuality it by the rules of reason ,
logic, and critical thinking one has no reason to invest belief
therein. and the proposition must be considered to be meaningless .



[quote]

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing
conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does
exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the
evidence, because the conclusion is already known — the claim is
invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however,
that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is
meaningless. This is so because it is impossible — logically
impossible — for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true
claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim
untrue — in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.


Logic
Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be
sound.

An argument is said to be “valid” if its conclusion follows
unavoidably from its premises; it is “sound” if it is valid and if all
the premises are true.




To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently
problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often
demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require
empirical investigation. If the argument passes these two tests,
however — if it is both valid and sound — then the conclusion can be
embraced with certainty.


Comprehensiveness
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive — that
is all of the available evidence must be considered.

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the
evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that
contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it
requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a
rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and
by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.


Honesty
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without
self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness.
When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you
be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the
weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to
abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as
well

In practice, the rule of honesty usually boils down to an injunction
against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out.
There is more to it than that, however: The rule of honesty means that
you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once
you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all
the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the
belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion
forthrightly. In the face of overwhelmingly negative evidence,
neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith.
Denial, avoidance, rationalization, and all the other familiar
mechanisms of self-deception would constitute violations of the rule
of honesty.
.

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility
of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experimental result is never
adequate in and of itself, whether the experiment concerns the
production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability.
Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is
always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected
error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers
to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an
effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error
remains permanently unrecognized. If the experimental results are the
product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure
that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest
researchers.

If the phenomenon in question could conceivably be the product of
coincidence, then the phenomenon must be replicated before the
hypothesis of coincidence can be rejected. If coincidence is in fact
the explanation for the phenomenon, then the phenomenon will not be
duplicated in subsequent trials, and the hypothesis of coincidence
will be confirmed; but if coincidence is not the explanation, then the
phenomenon may be duplicated, and an explanation other than
coincidence will have to be sought. If I correctly predict the next
roll of the dice, you should demand that I duplicate the feat before
granting that my prediction was anything but a coincidence.




Sufficiency
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to
establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:

the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and
evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate
for any paranormal claim
The burden of proof always rests with the claimant for the simple
reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as
the presence of confirming evidence. This rule is frequently violated
by proponents of paranormal claims, who argue that, because their
claims have not been disproved, they have therefore been
proved.Conclusion
The first three rules of FiLCHeRS — falsifiability, logic, and
comprehensiveness — are all logically necessary rules of evidential
reasoning. If we are to have confidence in the veracity of any claim
whether normal or paranormal, the claim must be prepositionally
meaningful, and the evidence offered in support of the claim must be
rational and exhaustive.

The last three rules of FiLCHeRS — honesty, replicability, and
sufficiency — are all pragmatically necessary rules of evidential
reasoning. Because human beings are often motivated to rationalize and
to lie to themselves, because they are sometimes motivated to lie to
others, because they can make mistakes, and because perception and
memory are problematic, we must demand that the evidence for any
factual claim be evaluated without self-deception, that it be
carefully screened for error, fraud, and appropriateness, and that it
be substantial and unequivocal.

What I tell my students, then, is that you can and should use FiLCHeRS
to evaluate the evidence offered for any claim. If the claim fails any
one of these six tests, then it should be rejected; but if it passes
all six tests, then you are justified in placing considerable
confidence in it.

Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is
true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today
is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence
available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons
for believing the claim. It guarantees that you have sold your belief
for a fair price, and that it has not been filched from you.

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all
knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be
required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and
you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what
skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.

[end quote]

Excerpt from

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

I was answering the question about how/why people come to belief
> in Christ.  The key is in taking a step of faith, not becoming
> convinced to believe by logic.

Observer

You ,however, ignore the fact that logic, reason, critical thought
(an necessary integral of both) and scientifically verifiable
substantiating data are the only tools by which we can escape from our
near infinite ignorance to lesser degrees thereof. Failure to do so
endangers the well-being and even the very existence of the species.

Of all the the life forms which ever lived on this planed 99.9999
percent are extinct because they could not adapt to a changing
environment.
Human kind , because of these special tools ,may be able to avert such
calamities. Surrendering to self imposed ignorance is the rejection
of not only knowledge but of our very humanity and the survivability
of the
species.

Poverty is the single most. life threatening disaster ,experienced by
any living creature and of all the forms of poverty ignorance is the
most violence producing .

So long as we continue to structure our models of reality based upon
fragmentary and therefore inadequate data, less than perfect recall
and or selective memory , dependence on oft misinterpreted
experience , personal or alleged by others ,failure or reticence to
apply reason, logic ,critical thought and the produce of scientific
method ,we form , dangerous ,ignorance based ,cognitive bias (the
result of all of the above) we do great violence to our selves and our
progeny.

Your analyses of reasons people believe in these counterproductive
vile and corrupt ideologies is reflected in the above.

Only models driven concepts of reality which provide for testing and
analysis of utility ,are worthy of sentient creatures in their
struggle to survive . All other models are inferior and tend towards
self destruction misanthropy and eventual genocide by volitional
ignorance.

By challenging you to present your case in accordance with , logic,

reason, critical thought (an necessary integral of both) and provide
scientifically verifiable substantiating data as to the existence of
or any act of the god thing , peculiar to christian mythology, in or
on the
universe. Oh and of course supply equal substantiation as to the

veracity of your "bible" I mean to force the issue as to the fact
that belief, in such meaninglessness ,is completely unwarranted and
unsupportable.

>
> Here is an analogy... suppose that you only like to swim in a pool
> where the water is not too cold and not too hot, your preferred
> temperature is between 75f and 85f.  So you approach the pool and see
> that there are several swimmers enjoying the pool.  You ask if there
> is a thermometer in the pool and there is.  So you ask the temperature
> and one of the swimmers says "78 degrees, come on in!"  You respond
> with "please provide a certificate from the department of weights and
> measures indicating the veracity of that thermometer".

Observer

How is such a silly statement analogous to belief in sadomasochistic,
misanthropic, ignorance based, filthy,and dangerous ,superstitions?

>
> C'mon obs, you know you wanna do a cannon ball!  :)

[quote]

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;
and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere
Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of
Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July,
1816

[end quote]

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Observer

I wish you well but detest the psychotic ,superstitious filth that has
taken away your mind and your very humanity.

Psychonomist

[thea]

There comes a once in a life-time chance that all human beings have, which is a
moment of intense knowledge that there is something to be grasped which is
just beyond our finger tips.
It is interesting to make a note that when it happens, we realize that God is
there.
I can remember working in my flower bed on a Sunday morning (yep no
church that morning) and feeling closer to God in that Flower Bed, planting
flowers, that I had in church for the last several weeks.
Interesting how God meets us at the place of our needs.  We just forget
to ask HIM to lead, guide and direct our lives, and so miss the blessings
which HE has piled up waiting to be given to us.
thea

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:09 AM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jan 4, 4:34 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have been down this path. Have not had such an awakening.

Don't give up

> Also, why is
> it people only seem to find God when they are desperate?

Because our natural inclination is to think that we can handle
anything - being confronted by the reality that we can't is a
"teachable moment".

>I am
> concerned it could be a form of stress-relieveing self-delusion. Not
> trying to be insulting, but truly wiondering.
>

I totally understand that it could look that way.

Compare this method of stress relief to others:

1. Belief that God loves me and that I am his child
2. Chemical induced altered states
3. Acting out - behaving badly

They are all effective to some extent

The most effective one is to understand the issues you are facing and learning to deal with them head on.

Whether this means changing yourself or changing your environment.

Proactive solutions to problems are a guaranteed and effective stress reliever as is helping your body control the stress through deep breathing meditative techniques.

Fanciful beliefs in helpful sky fairies will get you nowhere other than give you the delusion that either you or your circumstances are being helped.

--

"Heaven No! I Won't Go!" --Neil Kelsey

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

[Tired of irrationality]

Well said Walt (though I'm not sure I ever implied slack-jaw
ignorants). I don't buy the comparison between religion and Keynesian
economic theory, as the latter has a substantial amount of verifiable
data in it's favor. Still, your point is interesting. Still, in the
marriage example, you have (in our culture) a number of interactions
with your mate before marrying leading you to that state; religion
compels the same commitment without the actual interaction.

[Tired of irrationality]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments! In you list of ways to deal
with stress, you listed a faith-based one wit two that obviously are
less than desirable. what about taking a deep breath, getting a new
perspective, and taking what steps you can to positively affect your
situation?

[Tired of irrationality]

Thank you for laying out the way a person can (and perhaps should?)
use to analyze what we perceive around us. I would point out that
sometimes our 'instincts' (or 'gut feelings' if you like) can often
steer us in the right direction without our clearly understanding why.
In fairness, though, I believe our instincts/intuitions are the result
of a subconscious synthesis of both memory and environmental data that
leads to the strong feeling that urges us one way or the other, not
supernatural.

> (an ...
>
> read more »

[Tired of irrationality]

Thank you, Thea, but while you're story has a certain charm, it is not
in any way convincing. I appreciate the many good things in my life,
and I find wonder every day in the world and people around me. It
doesn't follow (for me) that there must be a 'God' responsible for all
of this, nor does the idea of a 'God' make it more wondrous or
understandable.

> ...
>
> read more »

[GT]

On Jan 5, 11:31 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you ever notice how politicians go into long evasive speechs
when put into tight situations?. I call this the long winded avoidence
strategy. Your above post being a typical example of one of these.

By your own admission you haven't "found a persuasive rationale
for that supports the existence of 'Mother Nature' " Surely we are
obliged to start with our our set of beliefs. How can you come here
and insist theists present, what you (athiesm) always avoid doing.

We exist therefore we must believe, state your belief.

I'm not seriously asking you to present your position. I already
believe I know what it is, It's qualified in the chapters of the bible

When you think about it to yourself, you will realize that you don't
really have any idea what Atheism means. Whereas theists have a
very well defined set of beliefs, and understand well their faith..

I have arrived at my set of beliefs by using science, and of
course some knowledge of the bible. Mostly it has been a
very slow path, punctuated by breakthroughs. Which does
suggest, in itself a scientific progression

I did make the point of differentiating between personal honesty
and intellectual honesty. But you still have represented it as
being 'personal'.

You also appear to be having more of a problem with religion,
than theism, It's important not to confuse the two.

I'm not all that religious myself, was never raised that way.

Religion is important though.

It is not logical to be not horrified of death in a godless
world. The thought of dying should traumatize us. We
should be in constant fear of losing someone close,or
our own lives. . We aren't, why?

The product of a creative god, or of complete random chance.
This being the point of the watchmaker analogy.
It is a logical argument, more than it is simply an analogy.

If approached in an unbiased way, we by default chose the
creator. We are born theists. Atheism an imposition.

Atheism is an opposition to theism. Rosa Parks was not
opposing the 'whites'. There is no analogy.

> > > > .
>
> > > > There is no 'poisoning of the well', as these (atheistic) positions
> > > > have
> > > > been stated a billion times before in an 'ocean' of debate.-
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Tired of irrationality]

Gt->

Christianity was indeed heavily involved in slavery, even in biblical
narratives. The Quakers may have been against slavery, but many other
christian sects were all for it. You can't cherry pick.

Further, if we in fact evolved (vast amounts of verifiable evidence
support this), it certainly does not imply we must have had to been
aware of evolution. But, having evolved in both physical and
intellectual capacity, we have reached a point where we are able to
deduce from the evidence around us certain facts about the world and
the universe, the evolutionary process being one of them. Your
argument is a non sequitur.

I would also point out that evolution has involved many explosions in
growths of species as well as massive die-offs, and the resulting
conclusion is that adaptability is important but random chance also
has played a role in who/what has survived to this point. It is quite
possible that if the past million years were replayed, humanity may
never have emerged.

I would like to think there is more to life than the odd years we live
out here on earth, and I am fanciful enough to think there is always
that possibility. But I find no reason so far to place my faith in
christianity or any other faith, and if I should die and be no more
(no justice, all that I care for dying as well, with no eventual
memory of my ever having been), I can understand that may simply be
the way of the universe, and so be at peace with it. I can move
forward with the life I have.

[Timbo]

On Jan 4, 4:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One argument I've heard advanced is that the original disciples saw
Jesus perform many miracles.

Myth

These disciples had the ability to heal
the sick and exorcise the possessed, and pass on these powers.

Myth

People
of the first century saw the power of the disciples and became
Christian, creating the Church.

Myth

The Church is the miracle that you
can witness first hand.

Myth

It's appearance is a unique event in
history.

Opinion

 The Bible by itself is not intended as a basis for becoming
a Christian

Opinion

[Timbo]

On Jan 5, 6:29 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There comes a once in a life-time chance that all human beings have, which
> is a
> moment of intense knowledge that there is something to be grasped which is
> just beyond our finger tips.
> It is interesting to make a note that when it happens, we realize that God
> is
> there.
> I can remember working in my flower bed on a Sunday morning (yep no
> church that morning) and feeling closer to God in that Flower Bed, planting
> flowers, that I had in church for the last several weeks.
> Interesting how God meets us at the place of our needs.  We just forget
> to ask HIM to lead, guide and direct our lives, and so miss the blessings
> which HE has piled up waiting to be given to us.
> thea

On any given Saturday evening, I can stand in my flower garden and
start talking in tongues at the drop of a hat. So what? It just means
that you can have anything that you want at Alice's restaurant at a
drop of a hat.

When you say " We just forget to ask HIM to lead, guide and direct our

lives, and so miss the blessings

which HE has piled up waiting to be given to us." Wake the fuck up! It
is your head talking to your head. Nothing more.

> ...
>
> read more »

[friendhis@yahoo.com]

Nice post. But you're still hot and sweaty while we're enjoying the
water <g>

> (an ...
>
> read more »

[friendhis@yahoo.com]

On Jan 5, 12:57 am, "Ian" <igbett...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I call this wishful thinking or the "blue haze syndrome".

Wishful thinking is awesome - I wish more people had wishful thinking.

>
> I think its like getting children to eat, you get them to taste it and if
> they spit it out you put it in other food preparations so they will just lap
> it up, Logical children soon work this out and recognise the said had those
> horrible mushrooms in so again they refuse the food.
>

To their benefit??

> I can look at the Grand Canyon and think its a marvelous natural
> construction made by earth movement, wind and water. I can have an accident
> and concentrate on getting better and not acting so carelessly again,
> neither turns my mind to God.
>
> However I do recognise that the sub consious can give different messages to
> other people who are built with a susceptible consious.
>

Can the structure of a person's sub conscious mind change over time?
If not, then how would a person change from being a Christian to an
atheist or from an atheist to a Christian?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------

> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups
> com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google

> com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Marc]

On Jan 5, 2:59 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot to digest, thank you for your thoughts. I don't find much to
> disagree with. One thing; your explanation seems to purport that God
> is more of a catch all in terms of things not understood as well as an
> agent of social cohesiveness. But many people I know believe in a very
> personal, close relationship with God (i.e. praying throughout day,
> studying the bible and other religious tracts with zeal, and so-on). I
> guess I'm not sure what drives such an almost maniacal obsession.

In many ways God is a catch-all term: this is why some study god(s)
with zeal (as you put it) they believe (however falsely) that in doing
so they are studying the deep mysteries of existence, on par with what
is being done in physics/chemistry/maths. In studying god(s) they are
studying 'all' - in the sense of all that matters.

From a social perspective: How would other believers, in the group,
know you were sincere in claiming to be one of them? You demonstrate
your sincerity at being a believer by taking on the behaviours of the
believers (i.e. praying, reading the bible) and by reproducing memes
like, in Christianity, claiming a deep and personal relationship with
God, this is also partly many people will memorize large numbers of
verses and the like from their respective holy books. Precisely
because once you have invested so heavily in the study and
reproduction of the beliefs, others will KNOW you to be sincere in
your claims of belief. What is more interesting is those who are
(supposedly) sincere without really knowing much of the content of
their belief system. Within Christianity I know many who claim to be
Christian (especially in Africa where I live) but will not refuse the
existence of deities/spirits (and the like) from other religious
faiths which contradicts much of modern Christian teaching... i.e.
There is only ONE God. They are agnostic about non-Christian deities
whilst claiming to be truly Christian.

[Ian]

I did not use the word irrational, that is your word, not did I infer slack jawed anybody.   I will acknowledge that more able and learned men added to later versions on those early writings hence the gradual uptake of Christian belief.   I do not see what relevance your Greco-Roman/Proto- Ido references have, perhaps you could expand.   Lets just concentrate on the mythical Jesus, nothing exists, no real evidence that he was born as described in the bible.   There was no telephone or  www in those days so word of mouth and maybe pictures were the only  way people passed on history and knowledge.   There were powerful people who though they were god before Jesus is said to have claimed  that position, Julius Caesar said he was God on Earth 55  Years BC   Marriage is nothing like a belief in a mythical figure so what does that have to do with anything.   I did not say Christians should not believe, it their choice.

[Ian]

The saying springs to mind "what turns you on".   Tinkering in my tool shed give me a buzz because I am usually doing something to make home life more comfortable for my wife. I do not think of God.         -------Original Message-------

[LL]

On Jan 5, 9:31 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 12:57 am, "Ian" <igbett...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I call this wishful thinking or the "blue haze syndrome".
>
> Wishful thinking is awesome - I wish more people had wishful thinking.
>
>
>
> > I think its like getting children to eat, you get them to taste it and if
> > they spit it out you put it in other food preparations so they will just lap
> > it up, Logical children soon work this out and recognise the said had those
> > horrible mushrooms in so again they refuse the food.
>
> To their benefit??
>
> > I can look at the Grand Canyon and think its a marvelous natural
> > construction made by earth movement, wind and water. I can have an accident
> > and concentrate on getting better and not acting so carelessly again,
> > neither turns my mind to God.
>
> > However I do recognise that the sub consious can give different messages to
> > other people who are built with a susceptible consious.
>
> Can the structure of a person's sub conscious mind change over time?
> If not, then how would a person change from being a Christian to an
> atheist or from an atheist to a Christian?

LL. It isn't the structure that changes but the conscious and
unconscious factors that go into creating your thoughts. A mature mind
works differently than a immature one, for example. Otherwise we'd all
think like children. There are so many factors, and we can't control
which factors are going to take precedence at any time. Emotions also
come into play, and hormones and education and intellectual
development. Our minds are not static things. They change
imperceptably every moment. When it comes to belief a lot depends on
how much indoctrination we've received, how much fear we've had
instilled into us, and how independently we can think despite
indoctrinqtion and fear. Native intelligence is also a factor.

......

......

[xeno]

On Jan 5, 7:38 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have arrived at my set of beliefs by using science, and of
> course some knowledge of the bible.

What motivated you? The threat of fluoridation?

> The thought of dying should traumatize us.

Your need to traumatize people is traumatizing.

> The product of a creative god, or of complete random chance.
> This being the point of the watchmaker analogy.

Life didn't happen completely randomly, & there isn't any evidence
that a god had anything to do with the process.

> Atheism is an opposition to theism. Rosa Parks was not
> opposing the 'whites'. There is no analogy.

She did oppose white supremacy & the whites that supported that. So,
an analogy can be made here. It just pisses you off for some reason.

[Ian]

I still work on that old Freudian structure of the mind, where the conscious mind (adult) needs to mediate for the sub conscious mind (child) so while I go along with indoctrination and fear it is not always those elements that cause the distress in the choice.              -------Original Message-------

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ian]

-------Original Message-------

From: frie...@yahoo.com Date: 01/05/12 17:31:51 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

On Jan 5, 12:57 am, "Ian" <igbett...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I call this wishful thinking or the "blue haze syndrome".   >>>>Wishful thinking is awesome - I wish more people had wishful thinking.

So you agree the bible it just that.

> > I think its like getting children to eat, you get them to taste it and if > they spit it out you put it in other food preparations so they will just lap > it up, Logical children soon work this out and recognise the said had those > horrible mushrooms in so again they refuse the food. > To their benefit??

>>>>So you believe in forced feeding.

> I can look at the Grand Canyon and think its a marvelous natural > construction made by earth movement, wind and water. I can have an accident > and concentrate on getting better and not acting so carelessly again, > neither turns my mind to God. > > However I do recognise that the sub consious can give different messages to > other people who are built with a susceptible consious. > >>>>>Can the structure of a person's sub conscious mind change over time? If not, then how would a person change from being a Christian to an atheist or from an atheist to a Christian?

No it cannot, SC that is the child within us all, only the C conscious mind matures and mediates with the child.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 2, 8:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
> preposterous as the story of the new testament.

Amen!

> Honestly, what drives
> people? Is it fear of death? A need to feel special? A need to belong?

All of the above.

> There is no credible evidence that Jesus was resurected, that Moses
> and the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years, that God even exists as
> anything more than wishful thinking. Having read the bible (old
> testament and new)as well as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Francis Chan, Max
> Lucado, and a plethora of other christian apologists, I find myself
> astounded at the lengths these intelligent-seeming people go to
> present circular, unsubstantiated arguments as if they actually
> support thier belief when in truth they only cause obsfucation.
>
> My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and antagonism
> of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
> selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
> not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything like
> it.

Seconded.

[Tired of irrationality]

'excepting Alice'

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

Excellent post, unfortunately, theists will not touch this, probably
because it makes way too much sense...

We can offer at least a dozen perfectly rational explanations that
describe how gods came to be part of the human psyche, better yet,
many of those explanations are perfectly complimentary. However, what
can you do when a theist replies with stuff like: "Well, I believe
what my parents taught me." or "It is all very nice, but I am not
convinced, gods could still be real." or even "I have felt god."...
I think most of our efforts must be directed towards the next
generation. It is important to educate children in the art of critical
thinking and to make sure schools are as secular as can be. This does
not mean that we must ignore religion, au contraire, it is part of the
human history and must be taught as such, i.e.one of the may
irrational beliefs human societies have held over time... like beliefs
in witches, ghosts, astrology, fortune telling, alchemy, etc.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 4, 7:31 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> subordinate to theists. My suggestion here is, rather than attacking
> in a personal fashion (implying dishonesty and so-on), you (GT) should
> focus on presentiing your beliefs and the reasons for them in a
> coherent form.

Good luck with that!

> The ensuing discussion would then be civil and worth
> while.

Indeed.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 5, 10:38 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > subordinate to theists. My suggestion here is, rather than attacking
> > in a personal fashion (implying dishonesty and so-on), you (GT) should
> > focus on presentiing your beliefs and the reasons for them in a
> > coherent form. The ensuing discussion would then be civil and worth
> > while.
>
> Do you ever notice how politicians go into long evasive speechs
> when put into tight situations?. I call this the long winded avoidence
> strategy. Your above post being a typical example of one of these.
>

<Long evasive speech snipped>

See? What did I tell you!

[GT]

On Jan 6, 3:34 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:38 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have arrived at my set of beliefs by using science, and of
> > course some knowledge of the bible.
>
> What motivated you? The threat of fluoridation?
>
> > The thought of dying should traumatize us.
>
> Your need to traumatize people is traumatizing.
>

You live in a "natural' world, surely you would have thought
these things over before, why should anything I say change
this. I would not make this point over and over again if there
were no hope of an afterlife. It would be unecessarilly cruel.

> > The product of a creative god, or of complete random chance.
> > This being the point of the watchmaker analogy.
>
> Life didn't happen completely randomly, & there isn't any evidence
> that a god had anything to do with the process.
>

In a 'natural' universe absolutely everything that exists is
ultimately
the product of random chance you dimwit. I take it for granted
that even the most stupid here have been around long enough
for this to sink in. Why is it, do you think that Mt. Rushmore
is used as an example so often. How can anyone be so dumb?

That 'watch' is a product of random chance or God, which one?

To understand the point of the analogy is in ignoring all other
factors: Theism, Athiesm, religion, god, the bible, satan etc.

If left to logic with no other distractions we choose 'created'
over 'random chance'. By accepting created/designed we
accept God. A naturalist would have to accept and have no
problem accepting random chance.

It just goes to show your naivety. You (atheists) get even
the most basic things wrong, But still remain sarcastic.

> > Atheism is an opposition to theism. Rosa Parks was not
> > opposing the 'whites'. There is no analogy.
>
> She did oppose white supremacy & the whites that supported that. So,
> an analogy can be made here. It just pisses you off for some reason.

Bullcrap, Rosa Parks was standing up for her god given rights.
The rights of Atheists are not being violated by the rights of
Believers to believe, or express their beliefs. See the difference?

Rosa's rights were being violated, she was 'defending' her rights.

xeno, I'm not going to bother with your posts if they don't
improve. You, like so many others seem to have problems
with concepts. You have everything pre-concieved. Try having
an open mind. I have no problem with you or anyone else trying
to convince me I'm wrong. If there is no god, I would have no
other choice than to accept this as fact. I'm not a 'believer'.

Now, I had used some psychology to get you off my back
some time back , as you will still remember.

The fact that this is still stuck in my mind is proof that it was
nothing more than 'psyching'. The 'dimwit', dumb and stupid,
are just out of frustration. Okay.

[Tired of irrationality]

Interesting. It's worth noting that the christian god in old testament
tracts was originally tolerant of other dieties as long as he/she
(Yaweh) was the primary god they worshiped.

> > > stage of denial.- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On Jan 5, 1:09 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Don't give up
>
> > Also, why is
> > it people only seem to find God when they are desperate?
>
> Because our natural inclination is to think that we can handle
> anything -

Wrong.
I do not think that, I am aware of my limitations as a human, as
parent, as a lover, as a friend, etc.

So in order to believe in a delusional story one has to be delusional
to start with, it figures...

> being confronted by the reality that we can't is a
> "teachable moment".

Right, people, convert after a hardship, just like people praise good
for their luck and happy moments.

Just like you never hear a million-dollar lottery winner converting to
theism, you never hear a theist blame their god for a natural
catastrophe that kills thousands.
Another silly example that theists never stop and think about is the
case of an athlete praising or thanking god after a victory... How
fucking arrogant that is! And yes, I think the expletive is necessary
here. I'd love to see a journalist interview an athlete on the losing
side and hear that athlete lash out against god who let him down
despite his prayers before the game. How arrogant is it to believe
that the creator of the whole known universe favoured you over some
other equally puny and unimportant being.

The last season of Survivor drove me nuts with this. All those
"Christians" praying for victory over the other team.. How insanely
infantile AND arrogant, but they thought they were being so
spiritual... Ironically, the main "spiritual" leader lost... I don't
remember him blaming god though...
Also, he kept saying that he would do what god would dictate him to
do! How cowardly! Yet many people respect such "thinking"!

These patterns are very informative as to just how "real" god is...
i.e. not at all.

> >I am
> > concerned it could be a form of stress-relieveing self-delusion. Not
> > trying to be insulting, but truly wiondering.
>
> I totally understand that it could look that way.
>
> Compare this method of stress relief to others:
>
> 1. Belief that God loves me and that I am his child
> 2. Chemical induced altered states
> 3. Acting out - behaving badly
>

> They are all effective to some extent

If you think that these three are are the only alternatives to
handling stress in one's life, no wonder you are a theist.

What are theist arguments always illogical and/or fallacious?

[Brock]

On Jan 2, 8:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
> preposterous as the story of the new testament.

Well, atheist Thomas Nagel at least had the honesty to admit:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of
the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
believers. "

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345

Perhaps consider that the objective nature of reality isn't limited by
humankind's credulity regarding it. :)

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

your reality is governed by incredulity, so you finally said something
i can buy into ... ;-^)

[Bob T.]

On Jan 6, 7:26 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> > can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
> > preposterous as the story of the new testament.
>
> Well, atheist Thomas Nagel at least had the honesty to admit:
>
> "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of
> the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
> believers. "

In my experience, some of the most pompous idiots are religious
believers - present company very much included.

>
> http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345
>
> Perhaps consider that the objective nature of reality isn't limited by
> humankind's credulity regarding it. :)

Indeed, especially the credulity of people who believe that Bronze Age
priests understood the nature of reality better than 21st Century
scientists.

- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Tired of irrationality]

-> Brock

I don't know that I want atheism to be true, just that I don't see the
evidence/logic behind theism. I too have pondered the phenomenon of so
many intelligent, respected people professing such deep beliefs. Some
possibilities:

Most are raised in a theistic environment, and so have the idea/need
of a diety ingrained from an early age?

There can be a personal need fulfilled by such belief, i.e. a need to
believe in an after life, a need to believe he/she is special, a need
to belong/fit in, etc.

I do allow that a person could arrive at a theistic point of view
rationally/logically, but have yet to be presented with such a case.
Am always willing to listen/read though, and have done quite a lot of
that already.

Sincerely,

TOI

[Tired of irrationality]

Also, I don't believe the atheist point of view is less wonderous,
only that it is a matter of perspective. Consider this possibility:

We are alive in a universe of (to our limited ability to understand)
unlimited size and potential, abounding in
phenomenon that we perceive as beautiful beyond words and stunning in
both scale and complexity. We are part of this cosmic order, and if
our lives are short with no consciousness lasting beyond our death,
still we have been and that is enough. And while we are here, we can
use our lives to learn and understand more and more of the world
around us, perhaps evolving as a race to something truly significant.
(Is this analogous to the spiritual jorney to reach perfection while
resisting evil?)

Not so bad, really.


On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>

> > Brock- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 6, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Bob T. wrote:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of

the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious

believers. "

In my experience, some of the most pompous idiots are religious
believers - present company very much included.

Nagel was perhaps a bit more honest and candid. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Tired of irrationality wrote:

> -> Brock
>
> I don't know that I want atheism to be true, just that I don't see the
> evidence/logic behind theism. I too have pondered the phenomenon of so
> many intelligent, respected people professing such deep beliefs.

I appreciate that statement. :)

> Some
> possibilities:
>
> Most are raised in a theistic environment, and so have the idea/need
> of a diety ingrained from an early age?

Other possibilities:

* their belief is independent of their environment

> There can be a personal need fulfilled by such belief, i.e. a need to
> believe in an after life, a need to believe he/she is special, a need
> to belong/fit in, etc.

One could say the same for atheism. But there is no epistemological merit to such an argument.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 6, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Tired of irrationality wrote:

We are part of this cosmic order, and if
our lives are short with no consciousness lasting beyond our death,
still we have been and that is enough.

Well, consider that good enough is not "good enough", contrastingly:

"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htm

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 6, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Tired of irrationality wrote:

Not so bad, really.

I consider instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJccOedwHT0

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

Or perhaps Nagel never spent time with the theists on this group ;-}

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of

the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious

believers. "

In my experience, some of the most pompous idiots are religious

believers - present company very much included.

Nagel was perhaps a bit more honest and candid. :)

Or perhaps Nagel never spent time with the theists on this group ;-}

Or might come to his similar, earlier conclusion if he did. 

Regards,

Brock

[Observer]

On Jan 6, 7:26 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> > can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as
> > preposterous as the story of the new testament.
>
> Well, atheist Thomas Nagel at least had the honesty to admit:
>
> "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of
> the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
> believers. "
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345
>
> Perhaps consider that

Reasoning from ,what is given for us to cogitate
upon ,discernible ,definable, and of the maximum utility as
representative of the only available, actuality based premise, upon
which to launch any logical, sequential and necessarily continuous
research into its functions is of paramount importance in the process
of initiating , or expanding useful edification.

The actuality, being the, physical , discoverable and, hopefully
cognizable multiverse (all that is was or ever shall be) , it's
fluctuations (productive of all phenomena), the interconnected
segmental products , referred to as components thereof , and
presented to all as the physical universe(s) and an attribute
bearing space of origin , its, their, changing properties, inclusive
of inhabitants, the interaction there-between, and the consequences
thereof, , constitutes the only valid object or bases of inquiry in
the rational search for edification.

Extrapolations made from dualism ( a fictive god peculiar to christian
myths , and it's theoretical creation) wherein it is promulgated that
there are two distinct actualities , one natural and the other
supernatural.) is productive only fictional mythology.

Simply put ,reality, actuality(all that is was or ever will be) can
not , in conformance with reason, logic and critical thought( a
necessary and integral segment there of) be considered as being
divided or
divisible, from it's self .

quote]
[
Sir James George Frazer FRS[1] FRSE FBA OM (1 January 1854, Glasgow –
7 May 1941, Cambridge), was a Scottish social anthropologist
influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and
comparative religion.[2] He is often considered to be the father of
modern anthropology.

His most famous work, The Golden Bough (1890), documents and details
similar magical and religious beliefs across the globe. Frazer posited
that human belief progressed through three stages: primitive magic,
replaced by religion, in turn replaced by science.

[end quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frazer

[ quote]

(Max Planck, 1920) A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.

Quote We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if
they have existed up to now, that will continue to exist in a similar
manner in
the future. (Max Planck)


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Max-Planck.htm

Psychonomist









Objective nature ? If you refer to actuality then you must admit that
we are on the cusp of near infinite ignorance there about. Only by,
reasoning from ,what is given for us to cogitate
upon ,discernible ,definable, and of the maximum utility as
representative of the only available, actuality based premise, upon
which to launch any logical, sequential and necessarily continuous
research into its functions is of paramount importance in the process
of initiating , or expanding useful edification.

The actuality, being the, physical , discoverable and, hopefully
cognizable multiverse (all that is was or ever shall be) , it's
fluctuations (productive of all phenomena), the interconnected
segmental products , referred to as components thereof , and
presented to all as the physical universe(s) and an attribute
bearing space of origin , its, their, changing properties, inclusive
of inhabitants, the interaction there-between, and the consequences
thereof, , constitutes the only valid object or bases of inquiry in
the rational search for edification.

Extrapolations made from dualism ( a fictive god peculiar to christian
myths , and it's theoretical creation) wherein it is promulgated that
there are two distinct actualities , one natural and the other
supernatural.) is productive only fictional mythology.

Simply put ,reality, actuality(all that is was or ever will be) can
not , in conformance with reason, logic and critical thought( a
necessary and integral segment there of) be considered as being
divided or
divisible, from it's self .

quote]
[
Sir James George Frazer FRS[1] FRSE FBA OM (1 January 1854, Glasgow –
7 May 1941, Cambridge), was a Scottish social anthropologist
influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and
comparative religion.[2] He is often considered to be the father of
modern anthropology.

His most famous work, The Golden Bough (1890), documents and details
similar magical and religious beliefs across the globe. Frazer posited
that human belief progressed through three stages: primitive magic,
replaced by religion, in turn replaced by science.

[end quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frazer

[ quote]

(Max Planck, 1920) A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.

[Quote] We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or
if
they have existed up to now, that will continue to exist in a similar
manner in
the future. (Max Planck)


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Max-Planck.htm

Observer
The superstitious filth in which you believe notwithstanding

Psychonomist











>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Ian]

What I have always felt sick to my stomach about is the roll of Religion in an Army.   Ok lads get ready to go out and kill as many of the enemy as you can today but before you go lets say a pray to god so we come back safe and sound.   Does God clap hands with glee when he sends soldiers to their deaths while they attempt to kill thousands of civilians and the enemy.              -------Original Message-------

From: Answer_42 Date: 06/01/2012 14:54:38 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

[Ian]

Who said they weren't and what he did not add was that there are just as many atheists who are  intelligent and well-informed people         -------Original Message-------

From: Brock Date: 06/01/2012 15:26:13 To: Atheism vs Christianity Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation

[xeno]

On Jan 6, 1:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Regards,
>
> Brock

Consider proof, that god is an asshole. (In 45 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_ZoZwYx_5c

[xeno]

On Jan 6, 1:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regards,
>
> Brock

Fuck Jesus Christ! A theist rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH3Yo6PQRIU

[xeno]

On Jan 6, 1:38 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
> commandments, because this applies to every person.

Here's a real good argument, (right at the beginning), why original
sin is complete bullshit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dxvdl6uyVM

[Walt]

On Jan 5, 4:23 pm, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  One argument I've heard advanced is that the original disciples saw
>  Jesus perform many miracles.
>
> Myth
>
>  These disciples had the ability to heal
>  the sick and exorcise the possessed, and pass on these powers.
>
> Myth
>
>  People
>  of the first century saw the power of the disciples and became
>  Christian, creating the Church.
>
> Myth

Some beliefs we can dismiss as myths because they give a false
explanation for something we know the real explanation for. For
example, we know lightening bolts are NOT thrown by Zeus.

Purported New Testament miracles are all unique events. We cannot
observe them now and there is no record of unbiased observation.
Science and history can't verify them, but that's different from
proving they didn't happen.

>
> The Church is the miracle that you
>  can witness first hand.
>
> Myth

So there AREN'T billions of Christians in the world?

>
>  It's appearance is a unique event in
>  history.
>
> Opinion

Can you think of something like it? Buddhism outside of India maybe
kinda. But much of Buddhism focuses on earthly life so it doesn't
come into such direct conflict with existing beliefs as much as
Christianity does. The spread of Islam in Indonesia seems to have
happened by unforced conversion like the spread of Christianity so
maybe it's not totally unique. But rare.

>
>   The Bible by itself is not intended as a basis for becoming
>  a Christian
>
> Opinion

The standardized Christian Bible only can into existence BECAUSE
Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 5:14 am, "Ian" <igbett...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Its a great leap of mind or faith the interpret the contents of the bible
> > > into a supernatural being, it easier to understand the scene some writers
> > > put in novel about the human condition..
>
> > > -------Original Message-------

>
> > > From: Walt
> > > Date: 04/01/2012 03:39:35
> > > To: Atheism vs Christianity
> > > Subject: [AvC] Re: Wonders of desperation
>

> > > If someone said that a novel like "The Great Gatsby" helped them
> > > understand ceratin aspects of human nature, would you call them
> > > irrational?  The largest Christian denominations don't consider the
> > > Bible to be historically or scientifically accurate.  It's like a
> > > serious novel in that it's trying to help you understand certain
> > > important things.  But of course Christians think the information
> > > comes from God, making it much more than a mere novel.
>
> > > I think paranoid is a more specific term for Bible literalists.  It
> > > requires holding a terrible opinion of the majority of scientists and
> > > historians, for no other reason than they reach conclusions that
> > > contradict the Bible when taken literally.

>
> > > On Jan 2, 8:57 pm, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent, thoughtful person
> > > > can bring themselves to a state where they would believe something as

> > > > preposterous as the story of the new testament. Honestly, what drives

> > > > people? Is it fear of death? A need to feel special? A need to belong?

> > > > There is no credible evidence that Jesus was resurected, that Moses
> > > > and the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years, that God even exists as
> > > > anything more than wishful thinking. Having read the bible (old
> > > > testament and new)as well as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Francis Chan, Max
> > > > Lucado, and a plethora of other christian apologists, I find myself
> > > > astounded at the lengths these intelligent-seeming people go to
> > > > present circular, unsubstantiated arguments as if they actually
> > > > support thier belief when in truth they only cause obsfucation.
>
> > > > My wish for the world is to see an end to the division and antagonism
> > > > of humanity by those who (for reasons I believe to be entirely
> > > > selfish) insist on foisting a singular theistic view on those who do
> > > > not agree. Please stop, the world does not need a God or anything like

> > > > it.- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Jan 7, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Ian wrote:

Who said they weren't and what he did not add was that there are just as many atheists who are  intelligent and well-informed people

Well, the point is that the terrible nature of sinful humankind is such that all faculties, including human intelligence, are fatally and fundamentally flawed:

"Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. … Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

So the limitations of an hubristic appeal to intelligence are clear.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Jan 9, 6:14 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Ian wrote:
>
> > Who said they weren't and what he did not add was that there are just as many atheists who are  intelligent and well-informed people
>
> Well, the point is that the terrible nature of sinful humankind is such that all faculties, including human intelligence, are fatally and fundamentally flawed:
>
>

The Doctrine of Total Stupidity is the belief that we are all sinners
because a woman was deceived by a snake and ate the wrong piece of
fruit.

- Bob T

[Bonaventura]

You can be cured of Total Stupidity by becoming Catholic. Because
christening washes up all Total Stupidity.

[Bob T.]

On Jan 9, 7:15 am, Bonaventura <christoph.overk...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> You can be cured of Total Stupidity by becoming Catholic. Because
> christening washes up all Total Stupidity.

Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a literal snake? Do
you believe that we are literally being punished for Eve's literal
sins? If so, then you too are a believer in the Doctrine of Total
Stupidity.

- Bob T

> > > Brock- Hide quoted text -

[xeno]

On Jan 9, 6:14 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...terrible nature of sinful humankind is such that all faculties, including human intelligence, are fatally and fundamentally flawed:

Fuck it, dude. Let's go bowling.

> "Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin.

Sin, Schwinn. God didn't intend for people to stay in paradise. But he
couldn't say, get out, humans. I want to build a condo. No more
welfare state. No. He had an image to protect & he had to make sure
the humans blamed it all on themselves. Otherwise, he'll have a whole
new rebellion on his hands. (& the last one was a doozy.) Telling Adam
not to do something was like talking to the cat. He only knew right &
wrong until after he ate the fruit. & the "woman" was made the patsy.
God didn't tell her shit. She got it all second-hand. God & the
serpent were acting in collusion. Good cop, bad cop. Tempt the humans.
They're idiots. We can play chess with them for awhile until the earth
gets swallowed by the sun. Human beings just can't beat god in the
total depravity department.

> So the limitations of an hubristic appeal to intelligence are clear.

Isn't that a little *depraved*? It isn't hubris to find rational
reasons for doing things. It's depraved to justify irrational reasons
by calling rational reasoning hubris. Excellent clownage, Brock. Keep
up the good work.

[Ian]

If you belive all that you are truely sick in. Original sin was a made up word tool to subjugate simple minds.              -------Original Message-------

[xeno]

On Jan 5, 3:29 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There comes a once in a life-time chance that all human beings have, which
> is a
> moment of intense knowledge that there is something to be grasped which is
> just beyond our finger tips.

You can't legitimately call what is "beyond [your] finger tips",
knowledge of anything.

[xeno]

On Jan 6, 6:49 am, GT <greg.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > The thought of dying should traumatize us.

> > Your need to traumatize people is traumatizing.

> You live in a "natural' world, surely you would have thought
> these things over before

Death is just a natural part of life, moron.


,
> In a 'natural' universe absolutely everything that exists is
> ultimately
> the product of random chance you dimwit.

Everything that exists is the result of interactions between matter &
energy, jack-ass.



> That 'watch' is a product of random chance or God, which one?

Neither. The watch is a human product. Nobody needs to get caught up
in your stupid analogies.

> To understand the point of the analogy is in ignoring all other
> factors: Theism, Athiesm, religion, god, the bible, satan etc.

The answer to the origins of existence doesn't lie in metaphysics, dip-
shit.

> If left to logic with no other distractions we choose 'created'
> over 'random chance'.

Without facts, you're just speculating on the basis of nothing. Mr.
Spock would be appalled.




>  By accepting created/designed we accept God.

Don't strain yourself with the profundity. You might hurt yourself.




> > She did oppose white supremacy & the whites that supported that. So,
> > an analogy can be made here. It just pisses you off for some reason.

> Bullcrap, Rosa Parks was standing up for her god given rights.

To do that, she had to challenge white supremacy. Whether her rights
are god given is *not* a foregone conclusion just because she *may*
have believed that.
It's no disrespect to Rosa Parks to signify that an analogy can be
made between her struggle with white supremacy & atheists' struggle
against fundamentalists who want to censure and/or demonize atheists
or any other group that don't uphold the beliefs they do. If you
can't deal with that, that's your problem, angry man.


> xeno, I'm not going to bother with your posts if they don't
> improve.

I don't care. If you post here, & I find some reason to comment on
your shit, I'm going to say what I have to say, & you're just going to
have to live with it, balloon-head.

> You, like so many others seem to have problems
> with concepts.

Without facts, concepts are useless.

> You have everything pre-concieved.

You're the one who seems reliant on metaphysics.

> Try having an open mind.

& like people who are reliant on metaphysics, you always admonish
others to be open minded. What for? If you can't make a case for what
you're arguing for without demanding submission from others then what
you're pushing is probably groundless. The truth speaks for itself.

> Now, I had used some psychology to get you off my back...

How can anybody get on your back here by merely posting? You're
fucking delusional.

[Timbo]

On Jan 7, 4:48 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:23 pm, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  One argument I've heard advanced is that the original disciples saw
> >  Jesus perform many miracles.
>
> > Myth
>
> >  These disciples had the ability to heal
> >  the sick and exorcise the possessed, and pass on these powers.
>
> > Myth
>
> >  People
> >  of the first century saw the power of the disciples and became
> >  Christian, creating the Church.
>
> > Myth
>
> Some beliefs we can dismiss as myths because they give a false
> explanation for something we know the real explanation for.  For
> example, we know lightening bolts are NOT thrown by Zeus.
>
> Purported New Testament miracles are all unique events.  We cannot
> observe them now and there is no record of unbiased observation.
> Science and history can't verify them, but that's different from
> proving they didn't happen.
>
>
>
> > The Church is the miracle that you
> >  can witness first hand.
>
> > Myth
>
> So there AREN'T billions of Christians in the world?

Billions of Christians (yes) Church is a miracle (no)

>
>
>
> >  It's appearance is a unique event in
> >  history.
>
> > Opinion
>
> Can you think of something like it?

Stick Ball, soccer, shoping

 Buddhism outside of India maybe
> kinda.  But much of Buddhism focuses on earthly life so it doesn't
> come into such direct conflict with existing beliefs as much as
> Christianity does.  The spread of Islam in Indonesia seems to have
> happened by unforced conversion like the spread of Christianity so
> maybe it's not  totally unique.  But rare.
>
>
>
> >   The Bible by itself is not intended as a basis for becoming
> >  a Christian

Handbook for selling a superstition.
>
> > Opinion
>
> The standardized Christian Bible only came into existence BECAUSE

> Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

It should have died with the Roman Empire as did many religions before
died with their respective empires. It had something very unique to
hold it's audience once the regime lost power. "forgiveness" ?

[Tired of irrationality]

Perhaps the fundamentally flawed item is the idea that there is a
perfect being overseeing everything.

[xeno]

On Jan 10, 9:48 am, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It should have died with the Roman Empire ...

It didn't die because of it. Christianity became the state religion &
then it was enforced by the sword.

[xeno]

On Jan 10, 10:35 am, Tired of irrationality <kvasel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps the fundamentally flawed item is the idea that there is a
> perfect being overseeing everything.

& since Brock's idea comes from people, & not some god, this is just a
reflection of the "depravity" he uses to dismiss human endeavors with.
Of course, maybe "Brock" is just a routine to see how other people
will react like we're just lab rats here, & not knowing it.