To All Of God's Critics

[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.

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.

Even a causal reading of the New Testament would show you and Hitchens to be wrong. The New Testament repeatedly and strongly teaches personal responsibility and culpability.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

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.

We should not fear death and suffering, but that does not mean all humans don't in some shape or form. Christ clearly demonstrated great anxiety of His eminent death. Peter showed fear of death when he denied Christ. It takes great courage t

 

And He *said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death; remain here and keep watch." And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will."

(Mar 14:34-36)

 

Yes, indeed Christ spoke the truth when He said ...

 

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

(Joh 15:13)

 

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.

First, I used your reasoning that the events after death determines its measure of sacrifice. Second, I'm the one saying death is a sacrifice. You are the one saying it is not - except for your special group.

 

[boftx]

OrdianryClay,

 

Special group? Really? And, no, you did not use my reasoning. You deflected away from it. My reasoning says that a non-believer is giving up actual existence. That is indeed a loss. A believer is giving up nothing at all, at least in their own mind.

 

Consider a person on an expense account buying a meal for someone who is homeless. The person with the expense account simply turns in a receipt and gets reimbursed. They have lost nothing. Whereas a person without such an account who does the same is truly reducing their own resources. That is the difference between a believer and a non-believer.

 

At 59 years of age, if I were to lay down my life for another, I would be giving up 20 years or more of life (according to the SS tables.) If I were a believer, I would be giving that, but looking forward to an eternity with "God" and people like you. (That might be sufficient reason alone to reject salvation.)

 

If a believer fears physical death, then one should consider Jesus' words to Peter: "You of little faith, why are you so afraid? ..." - from Matthew 8:26 [NIV]

 

You continue to denigrate unbelievers, the very people who Jesus says he was sent to save: "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’^[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'" - Matthew 9:13 [NIV]

 

At the same time you continue to denigrate the glory of the martyrs unwavering faith in salvation by saying it is normal for believers to fear physical death. It sounds more as if you value this life to the point that you want as much as possible of it before receiving your eternal reward. I can't think of any denomination that condones such an attitude as you have displayed.

[bornagainathiest]

 

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.

 

False.

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly, Clay. 

 

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

 

The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

Under the Cosmological Principle, all observers are of equal status.

Human's observe a singularity as the creation point of this universe and might conclude that nothing can precede this singularity.

We might also conclude that Chaotic Inflation can only proceed from the singularity onwards, into the future.

But, taking the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation into account, both of these would be false conclusions.

 

All observers will observe a singularity as the creation point of their respective portions of the greater Multiverse.

It would therefore be just as false of them to conclude that Chaotic Inflation began with them and extends only into their future.

Chaotic Inflation extends 'only into the future' for ALL regions of the Multiverse, no matter in which order these regions were inflated. 

 

In Chaotic Inflation, new regions inflate from previous ones and newer ones from them - eternally.  Chaotic Inflation is self-reproducing and once initiated, never ends.  Therefore, it is impossible to say where and when in this sequence our universe sits.

 

Therefore, our region (this observable universe) cannot be accorded the special status of the first region to be Inflated. 

Nor can we, as observers, be accorded the special status of being the reason why Chaotic Inflation was initiated in the first place.

Therefore, any claim that invokes a special status for us or for our portion of the Multiiverse, violates the equal status of all observers in the Multiverse.

Similarly, any claim that treats the 'our' singularity as the origin of all Chaotic Inflation, fails to take into account the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation.

 

All that can be safely said (within the remit of science) is that Chaotic Inflation exists, but the answers as to where, when, how and why it exists are... unknown.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[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.

Even a causal reading of the New Testament would show you and Hitchens to be wrong. The New Testament repeatedly and strongly teaches personal responsibility and culpability.

 

I simply ADORE that primitive presuppositional bullshit you cultists toss around like confetti. To wit:

1. a 'causal' reading shows we're wrong? How about a 25+ years of serious studying to 'show myself approved'? How about my concluding that everything taught in the book of lies/myths as I now regard it was created and even stolen from other equally odious religions and/or cults?

2. The NT repeatedly and strongly teaches personal responsibility/culpability? You might wanna share that fantasy with the millions of your fellow cultists because from my own observations, they behave just the opposite! They do the most horrifble things and say even worse and then get down on their knees in supplication, pray to their imaginary friend, and all is forgiven until the nest event which causes, once more, they're flagellating themselves in prayer. For me and most others in my camp, we take our personal responsibility much more seriously because we know it falls on our own shoulders to deal with our mistakes and try to not repeat them in the future.

3. I'm sure you've studied much of what Hitchens and others have said about this right? Or perhaps you're merely relying on your magical book for guidance?

You can discount #3 because that may expose my own presuppositional tendencies of dismissing people like you because, quite frankly, I can't really take any of the nonsense you and others spout as credible since they're based on nothing verifiable, factual, or even reality based.

[midniterider]

 

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.

 

Eternal: Without beginning, without end.

[Xerces]

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

 

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

 

Are you serious? Why are you even calling this a challenge? Bitch please.

 

*edit* Just realized this thread is 3 years old, who's bumping old threads?

[raoul]

Xerces, nope, it wasn't a challenge. Merely someone who is enamored by her own words. But more problematical, when someone presumes to speak in behalf of their god, they are then expected to show via extremely strong arguments even proof that said god exists and what it's numerous attributes really are and how they work in the naturalistic world.

signed, Leonidas (sorry but I couldn't resist. LOL)

 

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?
2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?
3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?
4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

 

Are you serious? Why are you even calling this a challenge? Bitch please.

 

*edit* Just realized this thread is 3 years old, who's bumping old threads?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

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.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

Your incessant use of the mere assertion fallacy is boring.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Re:  the inference from the Bible's presentation of choices to the conclusion that the Bible teaches free will.  This inference is made by Ordinary Clay and many others.  They need it because the Bible does not articulate a concept of "free will."  The phrase does not even appear.

 

This inference is an example of what Richard Robinson called "misinterpretation by abstraction" and "misinterpretation by inference" (Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed., 1953, p. 2).  About misinterpretation by abstraction, Robinson wrote:

 

"Your author mentions X;  and X appears to you to be a case of Y;  and on the strength of that you say that your author 'was well aware of Y'; or even that he 'explicitly mentions Y.'  Because you have abstracted Y from X, you assume that your author did so too.  But such an assumption must not be made on general grounds, for no man has ever made or ever will make all the abstractions possible from any one object..."

 

About misinterpretation by inference, Robinson wrote:

 

"'Plato says p, and p implies q;  therefore Plato meant q.' The conclusion does not follow;  for Plato may have thought that p did not imply q;  or, more probably, the suggestion that 'p implies q' may never have occurred to him at all;  or, most probably of all, even the proposition q itself may never have occurred to him."

 

Ordinary Clay and others do this when they infer from choices in the Bible that the Biblical writers (or God) teach/es free will.  

 

Another closely related case of these sorts of misinterpretation we've seen on here occurs when Ordinary Clay and others assert that, from the fact that God rewards and punishes humans, it follows that humans have free will.  Kant held that "ought implies can," but it needs to be shown that the biblical writers articulated this thesis.  That has not been shown - only asserted by abstraction and/or inference.

 

[it won't help, by the way, to say something like (A.) "Well, I follow the Bible, not Richard Robinson."  In the above context, such a response would involve question-begging of the most blatant kind.  On the other hand, to say something like  "the Church perceives truths in scripture that are not explicit in scripture" will lead you in the end to Rome, because such a claim brings along Catholic notions of the Church.  Protestant ecclesiology cannot undergird  because its notion of Church is fuzzy and collapses into the private judgment of individuals or groups.]

[raoul]

Ficino, good example cited. Another way I think would be to simply say they rely on presuppositionalism for much if not all of their beliefs and arguments.

[creative]

(sure you have some extremes like Nymphomaniac's) We all want to reproduce,

Not everyone wants to reproduce and birth control is quite popular and abortion too.

 

 

and the fact that mastrubating or having sex feels so good is to motivate us to generate offspring.

 

... so why do so many people engage in the act while not wanting any offspring? I think God made it pleasurable so a man and his wife can bond.

 

In that sense we are no different from any animal. I guess that if your a christian and your masturbating and known god is watching you is a big turnoff.

 

We are supposed to be different from animals, we can reason and can see when our actions negatively affect others. Check out this website: http://www.survivinginfidelity.com/ and see how sexuality gone awry can cause damage. I grew up around people who love revelry and cheating and adultery is rampant and they helped me YEARN for God and not the type of living they had.

 

What about the fear off hell? Thats a much worse image to have in your brain then porn. And unlike porn, the fear of hell causes o ton of bad mental disorders.

 

Perfect love casts out fear, people who are disobedient or misunderstand God will fear hell. Try googling for forums on the terrible effects of porn addiction. I think it's that stupid doctrine of an ever burning hell that causes the mental disorders.

 

Animals like humans got genitalia for the purpose of producing offspring. And also a bunch of other stuff for motivation.

Without the "motivation" part we would be extinct for thousands of years already.

A (un-castrated) cat has just as much lust as a human. The only diference is that humans have fairly large brains wish makes them act different then cats.

How we select a partner? How are we attracted to a partner? Science and psychology can give you the answers to all these questions.

One only needs to accept that facts are facts and that the bible can be wrong.

[TheBeast]

 Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past.

  That is a great example of fundie religious SOP. Take a word, any word, and make it mean whatever you want it too.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past.

  That is a great example of fundie religious SOP. Take a word, any word, and make it mean whatever you want it too.

 

What is SOP?

[centauri]

 

 

 Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past.

  That is a great example of fundie religious SOP. Take a word, any word, and make it mean whatever you want it too.

 

What is SOP?

Standard Operating Procedure

[Thumbelina]

Oh, I did not forget my precious lions. didn't make time to post yet but I'm just saying hello.

[Thumbelina]

 

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

 

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

 

Are you serious? Why are you even calling this a challenge? Bitch please.

 

*edit* Just realized this thread is 3 years old, who's bumping old threads?

 

 

 

I'm glad to hear from you, you're one of the lion cubs around here and sometimes I want to say hello but I feel like I'd be intruding on you if you don't talk first but I do not and did not forget you.

[Thumbelina]

@ buffettphan (I don't recall talking to you before, sorry), Thackerie & Astreja, I do not wish to impose on you or your beliefs, I honestly believe in freedom to choose; I really cannot force you to read what I write or believe it and I hope you can see that. I do believe you all are precious and I believe that you all are so passionate about your beliefs that we simply just talk around each other . Religion or lack of religion should not be forced on anyone.

[Thumbelina]

Xians are by default trying to prove the unprovable. The only "proof" they can possibly posit is their infallible bible, so getting a straight answer may never happen

But it's fun to try.

 

 

Your new avatar looks like a bah humbug type of fellow.

[bornagainathiest]

You still haven't answered my question, Thumbelina.

 

How long does your merciful God take to burn billions of people to ashes, as you say He will?

 

As long as the Greek word Aionos, didn't you say? 

 

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

 

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

<Insert disturbing image here that I did not wish to have appear a second time in my post>

You still haven't answered my question, Thumbelina.

 

How long does your merciful God take to burn billions of people to ashes, as you say He will?

 

As long as the Greek word Aionos, didn't you say? 

 

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

 

Come on now, did you need to show an absolutely disturbing image of human suffering to make a point to Thumbelina?

[buffettphan]

About that pic BAA posted --

 

Thumby avoids the tough questions.  Maybe someday something will break through her  rose-colored glasses god goggles. 

[florduh]

Is everybody still having fun with this interminably long thread? Are we being enlightened, entertained, or just wasting bandwidth at this point? Inquiring minds want to know.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Is everybody still having fun with this interminably long thread? Are we being enlightened, entertained, or just wasting bandwidth at this point? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

I was being entertained by seeing the things Thumbelina would eventually say to the many things people have said to her in this thread, but my enjoyment disappeared the moment I saw the image of a horribly burned person in it.

 

About that pic BAA posted --

 

Thumby avoids the tough questions.  Maybe someday something will break through her  rose-colored glasses god goggles. 

 

Maybe something will break through some day, but if BAA wants her to see that image, then isn't that what PMs are for?

[buffettphan]

Is everybody still having fun with this interminably long thread? Are we being enlightened, entertained, or just wasting bandwidth at this point? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

 

Every now and then I'll check this thread.  At least if she's confined here, she's easily avoided -- or easily confronted if that's what somebody wants to do.   I sure don't want her vomiting all over the rest of the website.  Banning her would give her (an even bigger?) martyr complex and I don't want that either.

 

Where's the mudwrestling?