To All Of God's Critics

[boftx]

It probably does need a separate topic, but the short version of Enlightened Self-Interest means to think beyond the obvious. A good example is public education. Even though one might not have or ever have children, it is in one's best interest to support public education so that the children hopefully grow up to be responsible voters and productive members of society, thereby saving one from paying excess taxes.

[TheBeast]

It probably does need a separate topic, but the short version of Enlightened Self-Interest means to think beyond the obvious. A good example is public education. Even though one might not have or ever have children, it is in one's best interest to support public education so that the children hopefully grow up to be responsible voters and productive members of society, thereby saving one from paying excess taxes.

Definitely worth a separate topic IMO. It's up to you whether you want to start one, but I'm interested if you are.

[boftx]

I guess the topic could fit under The Lions Den. I never really put it in religious terms (other than the assumption that there is no afterlife) but since you mention an interest I think I can bring more of a theological flavor into it. Might be hard to avoid Pascal's Wager (which I really don't want to get into) in the ensuing discussion, though.

 

It might be even more interesting to take on the topic of "There is no greater no love than that a man sacrifice ..." in relation to how real is the "love" if the person making the "sacrifice" is ensured eternal life anyway. Christians often ask how can an atheist (or by extension, an agnostic) know love? I think I can argue that an atheist who gives their life for someone else is demonstrating a love far greater than any Christian could show.

[OrdinaryClay]

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.) 

 

 

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:13)

 

The New Testament teaches there are two deaths. The context of this verse is the first death. So Christ did do that.

[bornagainathiest]

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.) 

 

 

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:13)

 

The New Testament teaches there are two deaths. The context of this verse is the first death. So Christ did do that.

 

No, he didn't.

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1, invalidating every word that follows.

 

There was is no Creator and the was no Creation.

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.) 

 

 

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:13)

 

The New Testament teaches there are two deaths. The context of this verse is the first death. So Christ did do that.

 

“No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.” General Patton

[boftx]

OrdinaryClay,

 

It should be obvious to any Christian, whether they be lukewarm or hardcore, that physical death has no meaning for one who is "saved" and certianly not for Christ: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

 

The resurrection of Jesus completely and utterly destroyed death for those who believe. And even if one grants the physical body of Jesus died, the Godhead remained alive. Jesus was never fully dead if one accepts the Trinity.

 

Believers who die are described as "asleep in the Lord" in at least one place in the NT, awaiting the Resurrection of all. If a teenager were to lay down their life for another, they are trading a mere 60 or 70 years of mortal existence (with the attendant trials and tribulations) for an eternity with their Lord according to Christian dogma. They have lost nothing and gained everything if one believes.

 

No, a Christian who "lay down his life for his friends" is sacrificing nothing if the NT is correct.

 

An atheist (or an agnostic) on the other hand, is giving up everything if he should choose to do so. So tell me, who has a greater understanding of love?

 

In all seriousness, you dishonor the memory of every martyr that joyously traded their physical body for an eternal one starting with Stephen.

[midniterider]

Jesus died on the cross for our sins...for a day and a half. Then he went to heaven to have eternal life. What a sacrifice. Not.

[Astreja]

OrdinaryClay, it's bad enough that the NT asserts that people can come back from the dead. That's just plain silly, and there's no credible evidence for it.

 

The NT also asserts that Someday Real Soon a gigantic dragon is going to sweep one-third of the stars out of the sky with its tail. That's even more preposterous, as such a thing would destroy large swaths of the universe as well. Furthermore, a dragon that big should currently be visible on just about any telescope humans possess... And perhaps even visible to the naked eye.

 

It's all just a nonsensical story, OC. Give it up.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay,

 

It should be obvious to any Christian, whether they be lukewarm or hardcore, that physical death has no meaning for one who is "saved" and certianly not for Christ: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

 

The resurrection of Jesus completely and utterly destroyed death for those who believe. And even if one grants the physical body of Jesus died, the Godhead remained alive. Jesus was never fully dead if one accepts the Trinity.

 

Believers who die are described as "asleep in the Lord" in at least one place in the NT, awaiting the Resurrection of all. If a teenager were to lay down their life for another, they are trading a mere 60 or 70 years of mortal existence (with the attendant trials and tribulations) for an eternity with their Lord according to Christian dogma. They have lost nothing and gained everything if one believes.

 

No, a Christian who "lay down his life for his friends" is sacrificing nothing if the NT is correct.

 

An atheist (or an agnostic) on the other hand, is giving up everything if he should choose to do so. So tell me, who has a greater understanding of love?

 

In all seriousness, you dishonor the memory of every martyr that joyously traded their physical body for an eternal one starting with Stephen.

The verse does not say it has no meaning. Physical death has no victory. It is not the end of the story. I am aware that life after death for a Christian is immeasurably greater than our life here on earth. I'm also aware that Christ was glorified after His death. Our physical death is a sacrifice because of our fear of death and physical harm. The context of John 15:13 was one of teaching men who had fear. Everyone fears physical harm and death just as everyone hungers for food. It is the result of being in biological bodies. So yes death is a sacrifice for everyone.

 

Based on your reasoning, for an atheist death is no sacrifice at all because death for them is the same as before birth and they will have no way of knowing their lose.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay, it's bad enough that the NT asserts that people can come back from the dead. That's just plain silly, and there's no credible evidence for it.

 

The NT also asserts that Someday Real Soon a gigantic dragon is going to sweep one-third of the stars out of the sky with its tail. That's even more preposterous, as such a thing would destroy large swaths of the universe as well. Furthermore, a dragon that big should currently be visible on just about any telescope humans possess... And perhaps even visible to the naked eye.

 

It's all just a nonsensical story, OC. Give it up.

You misunderstand Revelation.

[Astreja]

 

OrdinaryClay, it's bad enough that the NT asserts that people can come back from the dead. That's just plain silly, and there's no credible evidence for it.

 

The NT also asserts that Someday Real Soon a gigantic dragon is going to sweep one-third of the stars out of the sky with its tail. That's even more preposterous, as such a thing would destroy large swaths of the universe as well. Furthermore, a dragon that big should currently be visible on just about any telescope humans possess... And perhaps even visible to the naked eye.

 

It's all just a nonsensical story, OC. Give it up.

You misunderstand Revelation.

On the contrary, OC, I think I understand the Bible far better than you do.

 

For one thing, I see it for the myth that it is.

[boftx]

The verse does not say it has no meaning. Physical death has no victory. It is not the end of the story. I am aware that life after death for a Christian is immeasurably greater than our life here on earth. I'm also aware that Christ was glorified after His death. Our physical death is a sacrifice because of our fear of death and physical harm. The context of John 15:13 was one of teaching men who had fear. Everyone fears physical harm and death just as everyone hungers for food. It is the result of being in biological bodies. So yes death is a sacrifice for everyone.

 

Based on your reasoning, for an atheist death is no sacrifice at all because death for them is the same as before birth and they will have no way of knowing their lose.

 

The core message of the gospel is that Christ removes the reason to fear physical death, this is very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:55. Again, I point to the martyrs. They might rightfully have not looked forward to the pain they would suffer, but they had no fear of death whatsoever. They clearly looked forward to it, as should any Christian who truly believes they are "saved." The message is taught again and again that those who believe should have no concerns for this world, including that of death. One might think that a professing Christian who fears death has some doubts about the their salvation.

 

Your concluding statement above is one of the most arrogant and disgusting things I have ever read. You are basically saying that the life of an unbeliever is worthless. Again, that is in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus himself and the message of the gospel.

 

For an atheist to sacrifice his life is to willingly give up whatever remains of it with the knowledge that there is nothing more. That is true sacrifice. Even from the Christian standpoint you should at least recognize that the unbeliever is trading whatever remains of life for eternal punishment.

 

There are very, very few people in this world who I would not be willing to invite to my table and share some BBQ with, but you are one them after having read that post.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.) 

 

 

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:13)

 

The New Testament teaches there are two deaths. The context of this verse is the first death. So Christ did do that.

 

No, he didn't.

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1, invalidating every word that follows.

 

There was is no Creator and the was no Creation.

 

BAA.

 

 

Listen up, Clay!

 

The days when you could rely upon the cosmology of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin to support your Christian theology... are over.  

The days when you used of the 'past boundary' (singularity) in your arguments are now over.

Creatio ex nihilo and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are... over.

 

I did warn you that your time was running out... and here's the proof of it.

 

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51551  

The latest results from the Planck satellite.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/science/space/planck-satellite-shows-image-of-infant-universe.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"According to Planck's measurements, those fluctuations so far fit the predictions of the simplest model of inflation, invented by Andrei Linde of Stanford, to a T." 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

Here's the paper constraining the parameters of Cosmic Inflation and discounting the Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's model.

 

http://congrexprojects.com/13a11/programme

Which is why it was Linde who gave his keynote talk, Fundamental Physics and the Formation of the Universe' yesterday, in the Netherlands. 

And why he's talking there today about, 'Chaotic Inflation and Model Building'.

 

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

Which is why the science tells us that we are living in a fractal Multiverse. 

(This Wiki page will need to be updated to take into account the new Planck data, the failure of Guth's model and the success of Linde's.)

 

Now Clay, since you're on record as writing that... science always argues to the best explanation.

Will you hold to that and embrace the new, best explanation cosmological science has to offer?

 

Waxing theological for a moment...

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1 because our universe required no Creator. 

 

No Creator = No God, the Father.

No Father = No Son.

No Son = No Christ.

No Christ = No Christianity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[raoul]

Thanks BAA for posting those references regarding what you told us was coming a week or two ago. I'm going to check all of them out and if necessary, comment back about them.

 

I'm reminded of that insipid verse in the bible (and what verses aren't insipid?), 'always learning but never coming to a complete knowledge' of their fairy king. That, as you know, was Paul's indictment against all who didn't buy his bullshit. But for people like you and many of us over here the verse would be 'always learning, always discarding false theories after more investigation, always embracing the truth no matter where it takes us'

[bornagainathiest]

Go for it, friend! 

 

I'll be waiting to see what you think. 

 

BAA.

[Guest r3alchild]

When you act out of love when your not told or when you think no one is watching you, you are acting out of truer sense of love.

[raoul]

Okay, I'm back. I went through your various sources cited and actually had to read the first one twice. The 3rd one, arxiv PDF file was downloaded but after perusing the first couple of pages I screamed in shock and exclaimed no way jose as in there's no freaking way I'm gonna try to wade through that million word (or so it seems) doc. And, even if I attempted to wade through it there's no way I'd be able to comprehend 1/1000th of what was written. That's for people like you to wade through and then write a book report for the rest of us to understand, okay? LOL
HOWEVER, after going through the other stuff I think we can argue that the Higgs boson scientific theory replaces their god theory totally. It's the behind the scenes glue that allows life to exist in the first place by providing the required mass for existence right? So, when they accuse us atheists of believing in something we graciously agree by saying 'yeah, we do. We call it Higgs boson'

But the REAL gift was in your last source - Wiki - aotic inflation. Before I had time to read it and after reading most of the other stuff you cited I still was willing to concede the concept of a designer or intelligence behind the universe although I would hardly say it was very intelligent based on the chaos and anti life hostile environment the universe still contains. I just couldn't get my head around this thing just existing withouit any kind of first cause or whatever. In fact, I even discussed it with my wife who is a deist of sorts. I said that maybe I'll drift back into the deist camp since I can't flat out rule a designer of some kind. HOWEVER this was before I read your LAST source regarding eternal inflation. I've read it very fast since it was an easy read but am going to go over it again slowly in addition to reading other sources cited in that WIKI article along with googling it to find out more about it.

Conclusion? Just because I like so many others cannot fathom the concept of 'eternal' does not validate any god existence by any stretch of the imagination. The concept of eternal can, in fact based on the recent findings you cite, be supported by the Higgs boson view.

I dunno if this makes sense or is rational because unlike you I am merely a lay person when it comes to discussions about the universe. I believe you said you were a member of an astronomy club along with other science related interests so I lean on people like you to assist people like me. Anyway, please let me know if I've made sense and if not, correct whatever incorrect notions I might have expressed. And once more - thanks!

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Raoul!

 

Okay, I'm back. I went through your various sources cited and actually had to read the first one twice. The 3rd one, arxiv PDF file was downloaded but after perusing the first couple of pages I screamed in shock and exclaimed no way jose as in there's no freaking way I'm gonna try to wade through that million word (or so it seems) doc. And, even if I attempted to wade through it there's no way I'd be able to comprehend 1/1000th of what was written. That's for people like you to wade through and then write a book report for the rest of us to understand, okay? LOL

 

People like me?  No way, man!

I'm just an enthusiastic amateur... I can't get to grips with this stuff either.  (Maybe Bhim can?)  All I can do is skim over the superficial details and get the general gist of things.

HOWEVER, after going through the other stuff I think we can argue that the Higgs boson scientific theory replaces their god theory totally. It's the behind the scenes glue that allows life to exist in the first place by providing the required mass for existence right? So, when they accuse us atheists of believing in something we graciously agree by saying 'yeah, we do. We call it Higgs boson'

But the REAL gift was in your last source - Wiki - aotic inflation. Before I had time to read it and after reading most of the other stuff you cited I still was willing to concede the concept of a designer or intelligence behind the universe although I would hardly say it was very intelligent based on the chaos and anti life hostile environment the universe still contains. I just couldn't get my head around this thing just existing withouit any kind of first cause or whatever. In fact, I even discussed it with my wife who is a deist of sorts. I said that maybe I'll drift back into the deist camp since I can't flat out rule a designer of some kind. HOWEVER this was before I read your LAST source regarding eternal inflation. I've read it very fast since it was an easy read but am going to go over it again slowly in addition to reading other sources cited in that WIKI article along with googling it to find out more about it.

Conclusion? Just because I like so many others cannot fathom the concept of 'eternal' does not validate any god existence by any stretch of the imagination. The concept of eternal can, in fact based on the recent findings you cite, be supported by the Higgs boson view.

I dunno if this makes sense or is rational because unlike you I am merely a lay person when it comes to discussions about the universe. I believe you said you were a member of an astronomy club along with other science related interests so I lean on people like you to assist people like me. Anyway, please let me know if I've made sense and if not, correct whatever incorrect notions I might have expressed. And once more - thanks!

 

Raoul,

 

If you liked this, why don't you hop on over to this thread...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54614-jim-and-penny-caldwells-archaeological-findings/page-20

 

...where all of this eternal s**t is being discussed too?

 

That ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that all this eternal **** is pure   p-o-i-s-o-n   to Biblical Christianity! 

[raoul]

I'll check that site (eternal stuff) out later BAA, Didn't want to put all the quotes here since they're repetitive. Thanks.

[raoul]

 

That said, because of different circumstances, I might consider such an action today. If I were to do so, it would not be out of some sense of obligation, but out of my feelings for my child (Jesus had it right that the giving of one's life for another is the greatest love one can show, but he didn't do that, and no Christian who expects to have an afterlife can, either. In their minds, they will never die.) 

 

 

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

(Joh 15:13)

 

The New Testament teaches there are two deaths. The context of this verse is the first death. So Christ did do that.

The late Hitchens calls that scapegoating. He went on to say by believing that myth, one is allowed to be abrogated from any decision making that will negatively impact oneself and others. After all, since the scapegoat has taken all sins including future ones, the cultist is free to merrily go along wreaking his and others' lives and just 'confess' the sins when required. What a nice way to live! I wish I could live that way but I'm like the normal people around here - responsible for my actions and I take that very seriously.

[raoul]

 

 

OrdinaryClay, it's bad enough that the NT asserts that people can come back from the dead. That's just plain silly, and there's no credible evidence for it.

 

The NT also asserts that Someday Real Soon a gigantic dragon is going to sweep one-third of the stars out of the sky with its tail. That's even more preposterous, as such a thing would destroy large swaths of the universe as well. Furthermore, a dragon that big should currently be visible on just about any telescope humans possess... And perhaps even visible to the naked eye.

 

It's all just a nonsensical story, OC. Give it up.

You misunderstand Revelation.

On the contrary, OC, I think I understand the Bible far better than you do.

 

For one thing, I see it for the myth that it is.

the bible fundy replies with the incredibly repetitive and quite boring strawman about the other person 'misunderstanding' the bible, in this case Revelation. It's hysterical because I'm pretty sure MOST if not ALL cultists are clueless over what that book actually meant to convey or say. LOL

[bornagainathiest]

I'll check that site (eternal stuff) out later BAA, Didn't want to put all the quotes here since they're repetitive. Thanks.

 

Repetitive, huh?

 

Intentional or not Raoul, that's the best joke I've heard today. 

 

BAA.

[raoul]

I didn't mean anything you've written or the sources. I was referring to an original quote followed by the next quote, ad infinitum. They can get in the way of actual new comments sometimes. I don't know how to edit them out without screwing up whatever reply I'm trying to make.

 

I'll check that site (eternal stuff) out later BAA, Didn't want to put all the quotes here since they're repetitive. Thanks.

 

Repetitive, huh?

 

Intentional or not Raoul, that's the best joke I've heard today. 

 

BAA.

[OrdinaryClay]

Okay, I'm back. I went through your various sources cited and actually had to read the first one twice. The 3rd one, arxiv PDF file was downloaded but after perusing the first couple of pages I screamed in shock and exclaimed no way jose as in there's no freaking way I'm gonna try to wade through that million word (or so it seems) doc. And, even if I attempted to wade through it there's no way I'd be able to comprehend 1/1000th of what was written. That's for people like you to wade through and then write a book report for the rest of us to understand, okay? LOL

HOWEVER, after going through the other stuff I think we can argue that the Higgs boson scientific theory replaces their god theory totally. It's the behind the scenes glue that allows life to exist in the first place by providing the required mass for existence right? So, when they accuse us atheists of believing in something we graciously agree by saying 'yeah, we do. We call it Higgs boson'

 

But the REAL gift was in your last source - Wiki - aotic inflation. Before I had time to read it and after reading most of the other stuff you cited I still was willing to concede the concept of a designer or intelligence behind the universe although I would hardly say it was very intelligent based on the chaos and anti life hostile environment the universe still contains. I just couldn't get my head around this thing just existing withouit any kind of first cause or whatever. In fact, I even discussed it with my wife who is a deist of sorts. I said that maybe I'll drift back into the deist camp since I can't flat out rule a designer of some kind. HOWEVER this was before I read your LAST source regarding eternal inflation. I've read it very fast since it was an easy read but am going to go over it again slowly in addition to reading other sources cited in that WIKI article along with googling it to find out more about it.

The new evidence solidifies the singularity which is the creation point. All inflation was after the singularity. Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past. So yes there was still a creation point. The evidence is now even stronger for God.