Total Posts:153|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Reminder To New Atheists

DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Darth Vader can't not exist and be a bad-*ss simultaneously. Oh wait..

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.

Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.

Speak for yourself.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 6:40:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.
Gods are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.
Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.
At core, atheism is a position of theological rejection, David: namely that theological claims of metaphysical knowledge (gods, heaven etc...) are not to be believed: they're either outright false, highly improbable, invalid, irrelevant or what have you.

But you might be interested to know that in its originally conceived form, agnosticism was the epistemological position that it is wrong to say you know God exists when you have no independent proof of that (please poke for a link if interested.) While that's something so-called "New Atheists" also say, it's not new and technically it's not even confined to atheism, since people like Thomas Henry Huxley who identified as agnostic but denied he was atheist, also said it.

Another major thing New Atheists are credited with saying is that it's also immoral to pronounce traditional injustice and cruelty good just because it's traditional and attributed to gods -- which isn't new or confined to atheism either, since religious humanists have been saying that since the Enlightenment; so have many Deists; and you can find ancient moral philosophers both sectarian and secular arguing much the same too (again, please poke me for links if you'd like some.)

Finally, a third major thing New Atheists point out is the corruption, cynicism and venality of religious institutions -- which the religious themselves have complained about since ancient times, and which concerns many faithful today.

So "New Atheism" has added little new thought to atheism, not much new to the discussion about morality, or religion and society, and its strongest advocated positions aren't even confined to atheists. However, apparently it's shocking that atheists in particular are saying some historically familiar things all in a single package.

But in short, New Atheism is not new, not a new form of atheism, nor even a body of thought nor a movement -- it's a convenient publishing category, and nothing more. These ideas have been around for at least a century; some have been around for millennia, and they're not intrinsically atheistic ideas. It's just that some famous atheists are promoting them and, y'know... in some quarters, atheists are scary, muahaha.

I hope that may be useful.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 7:11:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Why not? Many mythical characters are bad characters who do not exist. They simply portray the human concept of evil.

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

All mythical characters are human creations which exist only in human imagination and stories.

Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.

Morality might be subjective but it seems that many humans believe it is relevant enough to their lives to choose a few morals to live by and attempt to force those morals onto others as well.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 7:20:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Darth Vader can't not exist and be a bad-*ss simultaneously. Oh wait..

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.
Unnecessary suffering...prove it. Need to see you actually prove it isn't necessary....i'll wait. Ummm on second thought I won't because you have no idea what is or isn't necessary.
Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.

Speak for yourself.
Duh, what exactly do you think subjective means skept? I'm sure you can prove morality isn't subjective. Oh wait, let me save you the trouble, suffering is a good thing. Killing is also...there argument defeated.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.

The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination, I think they may have worked with Lucas Studios much later.

You don't understand the Bible, do you? You don't know why there is suffering, what the sacrifices were all about . . . all of that . . . when you think of the Bible you think of the baby Jesus playing in a field with the Easter bunny and then the apostle Paul and Moses goes in dressed like Rambo and they start blowing sh!t up and maybe Will Smith lands in a Jet surrounded by fireworks and the national anthem paying on loudspeakers? Or something like that. The NKJV-ish?
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:46:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 6:40:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At core, atheism is a position of theological rejection, David: namely that theological claims of metaphysical knowledge (gods, heaven etc...) are not to be believed: they're either outright false, highly improbable, invalid, irrelevant or what have you.

Ohhhhh, I see. So when the Jewish religious leaders were influenced by Greek Philosophy, like that of Plato and Socrates, for example, with the immortal soul, being some magical part of a person that lives on forever after death about the time of the conquest of Alexander the Great, the atheists know to dismiss that immediately and concentrate their criticism on the more practical Bible definition of a soul, as the blood or life of any breathing animal or person. The soul is mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)

But you might be interested to know that in its originally conceived form, agnosticism was the epistemological position that it is wrong to say you know God exists when you have no independent proof of that (please poke for a link if interested.) While that's something so-called "New Atheists" also say, it's not new and technically it's not even confined to atheism, since people like Thomas Henry Huxley who identified as agnostic but denied he was atheist, also said it.

Like the theory of Evolution, which was introduced by ancient Greek philosophers Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in turn influencing Aristotle, who influenced Thomas Aquinas, who influenced the Church during the time of Galileo, thus the confusion?

Another major thing New Atheists are credited with saying is that it's also immoral to pronounce traditional injustice and cruelty good just because it's traditional and attributed to gods -- which isn't new or confined to atheism either, since religious humanists have been saying that since the Enlightenment; so have many Deists; and you can find ancient moral philosophers both sectarian and secular arguing much the same too (again, please poke me for links if you'd like some.)

I think that you overestimate the young militant atheists you are likely to encounter on the World Wide Wasteland, this Superhighway of Misinformation, sir! This Internets! Web Thingy. And more grievously I suspect you haven't a clue what the Bible says about God and suffering.

Finally, a third major thing New Atheists point out is the corruption, cynicism and venality of religious institutions -- which the religious themselves have complained about since ancient times, and which concerns many faithful today.

Oh, yeah, well - everyone knows about that. Babylon the Great, and the Whore thereof...
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:57:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination
Exactly the same humans who invented the gods they assign those properties to.
Here ya go.........................here's a god and he's immortal and omnipotent but he is restricted by what humans think is possible.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:10:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:46:06 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 6:40:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At core, atheism is a position of theological rejection, David: namely that theological claims of metaphysical knowledge (gods, heaven etc...) are not to be believed: they're either outright false, highly improbable, invalid, irrelevant or what have you.

Ohhhhh, I see. So when the Jewish religious leaders were influenced by Greek Philosophy, like that of Plato and Socrates, for example, with the immortal soul, being some magical part of a person that lives on forever after death about the time of the conquest of Alexander the Great, the atheists know to dismiss that immediately and concentrate their criticism on the more practical Bible definition of a soul, as the blood or life of any breathing animal or person. The soul is mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)

But you might be interested to know that in its originally conceived form, agnosticism was the epistemological position that it is wrong to say you know God exists when you have no independent proof of that (please poke for a link if interested.) While that's something so-called "New Atheists" also say, it's not new and technically it's not even confined to atheism, since people like Thomas Henry Huxley who identified as agnostic but denied he was atheist, also said it.

Like the theory of Evolution, which was introduced by ancient Greek philosophers Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in turn influencing Aristotle, who influenced Thomas Aquinas, who influenced the Church during the time of Galileo, thus the confusion?

Another major thing New Atheists are credited with saying is that it's also immoral to pronounce traditional injustice and cruelty good just because it's traditional and attributed to gods -- which isn't new or confined to atheism either, since religious humanists have been saying that since the Enlightenment; so have many Deists; and you can find ancient moral philosophers both sectarian and secular arguing much the same too (again, please poke me for links if you'd like some.)

I think that you overestimate the young militant atheists you are likely to encounter on the World Wide Wasteland, this Superhighway of Misinformation, sir! This Internets! Web Thingy. And more grievously I suspect you haven't a clue what the Bible says about God and suffering.

Finally, a third major thing New Atheists point out is the corruption, cynicism and venality of religious institutions -- which the religious themselves have complained about since ancient times, and which concerns many faithful today.

Oh, yeah, well - everyone knows about that. Babylon the Great, and the Whore thereof...

Good grief, you take these things way too personally. The man had some relevant criticisms and offered links to the relevant references and you just ridicule him without any real rebuttal. If you want to prove your superiority then demonstrate why he's wrong, not just make invidious comments about his historical and biblical knowledge.

By the way:

Ezekiel 18:
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.

You said, "Bible definition of a soul, as the blood or life of any breathing animal or person. The soul is mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)" I don't see that anywhere in your verse. Care to elaborate a bit?
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:13:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:57:20 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination
Exactly the same humans who invented the gods they assign those properties to.
Here ya go.........................here's a god and he's immortal and omnipotent but he is restricted by what humans think is possible.

Nonsense. The Gods people invent have various animal heads and get drunk and frolic among the womenfolk.

The God of the Bible wasn't like them. He wasn't aware that Adam had sinned, he wasn't aware that those in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as people were saying.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:22:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:13:20 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:57:20 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination
Exactly the same humans who invented the gods they assign those properties to.
Here ya go.........................here's a god and he's immortal and omnipotent but he is restricted by what humans think is possible.

Nonsense. The Gods people invent have various animal heads and get drunk and frolic among the womenfolk.

The God of the Bible wasn't like them. He wasn't aware that Adam had sinned, he wasn't aware that those in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as people were saying.

You should really look into Zoroastrianism. It's remarkably similar to your Christianity and predates it by some time.

So, your God did not know Adam's heart, as the bible says he does? How, then, is he God and how, then, does he know who to save and who to condemn? You're getting rather self-contradictory here.
TRap
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:22:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:13:20 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:57:20 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination
Exactly the same humans who invented the gods they assign those properties to.
Here ya go.........................here's a god and he's immortal and omnipotent but he is restricted by what humans think is possible.

Nonsense. The Gods people invent have various animal heads and get drunk and frolic among the womenfolk.

example?
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:34:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:10:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
Good grief, you take these things way too personally. The man had some relevant criticisms and offered links to the relevant references and you just ridicule him without any real rebuttal. If you want to prove your superiority then demonstrate why he's wrong, not just make invidious comments about his historical and biblical knowledge.

I honestly didn't see him as saying anything. In fact, I thought I had seen that very post in another thread with another subject and assumed he had reposted it. I didn't see it as relevant criticisms, but rather, a sermon to atheism.

By the way:
You said, "Bible definition of a soul, as the blood or life of any breathing animal or person. The soul is mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)" I don't see that anywhere in your verse. Care to elaborate a bit?

You must be joking! I beginning to think all of youse guys are a bit off your rockers or joking.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Its mortal. It dies.

You want the Philosopher, animal, life, blood reference?

Plato, quotes Socrates as saying: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.: - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A

Lev. 24:17,"18: "In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, neR42;phesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, neR42;phesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul."

"The Hebrew term for "soul" (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses .".".", signifying an "animated being" and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. .".". New Testament usage of psychē ("soul") was comparable to nefesh.""The New Encyclop"dia Britannica (1976), Macrop"dia, Vol. 15, p. 152

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nepes [the Hebrew neR42;phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our "soul," signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man"man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,"17; 13.37)." - 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

"The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. .".". Following Alexander"s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts." - Dictionnaire Encyclop"dique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:36:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 7:20:22 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Darth Vader can't not exist and be a bad-*ss simultaneously. Oh wait..

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.
Unnecessary suffering...prove it. Need to see you actually prove it isn't necessary....i'll wait. Ummm on second thought I won't because you have no idea what is or isn't necessary.

Is it your position that starving children is necessary suffering? I could make a long list of things, but I'm actually more interested in your belief that all suffering is necessary. Maybe you could explain that?

Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.

Speak for yourself.
Duh, what exactly do you think subjective means skept? I'm sure you can prove morality isn't subjective. Oh wait, let me save you the trouble, suffering is a good thing. Killing is also...there argument defeated.

Yes, I agree subjective morality is problematic especially when it comes to morality mandated by various (alleged) gods.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:41:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:22:32 PM, TRap wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:13:20 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:57:20 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination
Exactly the same humans who invented the gods they assign those properties to.
Here ya go.........................here's a god and he's immortal and omnipotent but he is restricted by what humans think is possible.

Nonsense. The Gods people invent have various animal heads and get drunk and frolic among the womenfolk.

example?

https://www.google.com...
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:41:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

Morality is subjective and therefore not relevant.

If people believe in god that is a rotten sonofab*tch, then that model exists for them. In their life, in their mind, the most powerful thing imaginable is (or may be) a terrible force.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:42:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:34:47 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:10:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
Good grief, you take these things way too personally. The man had some relevant criticisms and offered links to the relevant references and you just ridicule him without any real rebuttal. If you want to prove your superiority then demonstrate why he's wrong, not just make invidious comments about his historical and biblical knowledge.

I honestly didn't see him as saying anything. In fact, I thought I had seen that very post in another thread with another subject and assumed he had reposted it. I didn't see it as relevant criticisms, but rather, a sermon to atheism.


By the way:
You said, "Bible definition of a soul, as the blood or life of any breathing animal or person. The soul is mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)" I don't see that anywhere in your verse. Care to elaborate a bit?

You must be joking! I beginning to think all of youse guys are a bit off your rockers or joking.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Its mortal. It dies.

Only if it sins. You skipped that part.

You want the Philosopher, animal, life, blood reference?

Plato, quotes Socrates as saying: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.: - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A

That totally contradicts your point. If it can depart dragging 'nothing of the body' it isn't blood, animal, or life.

Lev. 24:17,"18: "In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, neR42;phesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, neR42;phesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul."

Still doesn't support your assertion.

"The Hebrew term for "soul" (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses .".".", signifying an "animated being" and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. .".". New Testament usage of psychē ("soul") was comparable to nefesh.""The New Encyclop"dia Britannica (1976), Macrop"dia, Vol. 15, p. 152

Oblique reference at best.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nepes [the Hebrew neR42;phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our "soul," signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man"man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,"17; 13.37)." - 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

"The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. .".". Following Alexander"s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts." - Dictionnaire Encyclop"dique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

None of which clearly supports your statement. Too m any reference to simply breathing, consciousness, and 'departing the body pure'. You've not made a case that would stand up in any court of law or any real critique.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:46:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:19:46 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.

The omni this and omni that were made up by humans with very little imagination, I think they may have worked with Lucas Studios much later.

I don't define gods this way - believers do. If it is your position that the Christian god exists and the omni characteristics are inappropriately subscribed to him then that would be a much more believable deity. I would be interested in how you reconcile that with the Bible which explicitly states otherwise.

You don't understand the Bible, do you? You don't know why there is suffering, what the sacrifices were all about . . . all of that . . . when you think of the Bible you think of the baby Jesus playing in a field with the Easter bunny and then the apostle Paul and Moses goes in dressed like Rambo and they start blowing sh!t up and maybe Will Smith lands in a Jet surrounded by fireworks and the national anthem paying on loudspeakers? Or something like that. The NKJV-ish?

Thanks for that - you made me chuckle!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:51:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:22:08 PM, dhardage wrote:
You should really look into Zoroastrianism. It's remarkably similar to your Christianity and predates it by some time.

Like I don't know Yima, and Ahura Mazda of The Avesta may be similar to the oversimplified perspective of mainstream Christianity by the casual observer, but I'm talking about the Bible, which is somewhat different.

So, your God did not know Adam's heart, as the bible says he does? How, then, is he God and how, then, does he know who to save and who to condemn? You're getting rather self-contradictory here.

What does the word God mean?
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:03:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:41:51 PM, TBR wrote:
If people believe in god that is a rotten sonofab*tch, then that model exists for them. In their life, in their mind, the most powerful thing imaginable is (or may be) a terrible force.

I think that I have to be more articulate as I get back into this old habit of mine, forum discussion. My lazy in-articulation seems to be causing some confusion.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:18:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 3:03:35 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:41:51 PM, TBR wrote:
If people believe in god that is a rotten sonofab*tch, then that model exists for them. In their life, in their mind, the most powerful thing imaginable is (or may be) a terrible force.

I think that I have to be more articulate as I get back into this old habit of mine, forum discussion. My lazy in-articulation seems to be causing some confusion.

No problem.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:51:59 PM, DavidHenson wrote:

What does the word God mean?
Not much and certainly nothing that can be coherently defined.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:23:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 3:03:35 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:41:51 PM, TBR wrote:
If people believe in god that is a rotten sonofab*tch, then that model exists for them. In their life, in their mind, the most powerful thing imaginable is (or may be) a terrible force.

I think that I have to be more articulate as I get back into this old habit of mine, forum discussion. My lazy in-articulation seems to be causing some confusion.

Ditto for me. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
v3nesl
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:24:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Darth Vader can't not exist and be a bad-*ss simultaneously. Oh wait..

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.


It's also incoherent for an atheist to say how a potential God *should* be. Why shouldn't God be inconsistent or contradictory? On what basis do you make any judgments of reason whatsoever when you say there is no reason? You are using company stationary to tell the company why you don't need them.

There's this myth out there that atheists are deep thinkers. There may of course be deep thinking atheists, but I think a rejection of God is more often a sign of not being able to think abstractly. Atheists are often those who are simply not able to grasp the necessity for metaphysics. (And I'm not claiming the contrary, btw - I'm not claiming that being religious is a sign of critical thinking. Not at all. But critical thinking will strongly suggest a logical necessity for God, so a clear thinker will tend to be a theist of some sort).
This space for rent.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:30:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:46:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I don't define gods this way - believers do. If it is your position that the Christian god exists and the omni characteristics are inappropriately subscribed to him then that would be a much more believable deity. I would be interested in how you reconcile that with the Bible which explicitly states otherwise.

Okay. In the religious nonsensical application of the terms preceded by omni the terms are extended to their maximum. In other words, omnipotent means can do anything without limit. Omnipresence means can be everywhere at all times, and omniscient means knowing everything. Is this agreeable to believer and unbeliever alike?

Consider, though, the more scientific term omnivore. You wouldn't apply that term in application to an animal that eats everything in the strictest sense. For example, omnivore isn't an implication that the animal in question can eat universes, or time, or thermonuclear devises.

Take the Grand Creator of the Bible, Jehovah God and omnipresence. He is said to have a position fixed in heaven. At times he is said to be in one place or another. He can, in fact, be wherever he wants to be, but not literally in all places at once as the religious and exaggerated concept of omnipresence is generally applied.

He had a presence in the temple upon its first being completed. He was in a similar way on the mountain with Moses. More often than not he is represented by angels, rather than physically present throughout scripture, but never all places at once.

Does that make sense?
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:38:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
If God exists, when a christian becomes a Atheist, they should feel it.
And when a christian becomes a Atheist would you feel that special little " morality " crap they go on with simply dissappear. Or do you take it with you, and become a special atheists with the extra special powers of morality?
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:40:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:42:03 PM, dhardage wrote:
Only if it sins. You skipped that part.

But, then, what is sin and what soul doesn't sin?

That totally contradicts your point. If it can depart dragging 'nothing of the body' it isn't blood, animal, or life.

The point is that Socrates and Plato thought that the soul was immortal and through the conquest of Alexander the Great, influenced Jewish thinking to that effect, though the Bible doesn't teach that.

A great deal of the confusion also has to do with the Old English word soul not being a very good translation of the Hebrew Hebrew, nephesh [נפׁש] or the Greek psykhe [`8;`5;`7;^2;].

The Old English word soul implied the concept as Plato and Socrates saw it, they found it necessary to bind the dead in order to keep the soul, or the undead, from harming the living.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:41:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
If a christian had this morality , he would not be able to become a Atheist, because his got morality.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 4:24:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2016 6:05:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/4/2016 5:41:17 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
God can't not exist and be a rotten sonofab_tch simultaneously.

Darth Vader can't not exist and be a bad-*ss simultaneously. Oh wait..

God's are often created as monsters, so, really, the concept of one really existing isn't negated by his having condoned unpopular ideas like slavery, genocide and eternal torment.

No, but is is incoherent to claim such a being is omnibenevolent condoning unnecessary suffering, especially when omniscience allows knowledge of better morals codes and omnipotence allows for the ability to mitigate the suffering/deaths.


It's also incoherent for an atheist to say how a potential God *should* be. Why shouldn't God be inconsistent or contradictory? On what basis do you make any judgments of reason whatsoever when you say there is no reason? You are using company stationary to tell the company why you don't need them.

There's this myth out there that atheists are deep thinkers. There may of course be deep thinking atheists, but I think a rejection of God is more often a sign of not being able to think abstractly. Atheists are often those who are simply not able to grasp the necessity for metaphysics. (And I'm not claiming the contrary, btw - I'm not claiming that being religious is a sign of critical thinking. Not at all. But critical thinking will strongly suggest a logical necessity for God, so a clear thinker will tend to be a theist of some sort).

I don't see many atheists making up story's about how a god should be, but how a god is described by others. If you are speaking to statements like "a god should be a kind god" or "...forgiving god" there are many believers that SAY exactly that, while an atheists may point out hypocrisy or inconsistency with very religious text that the same believer points to.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:47:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 4:24:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
It's also incoherent for an atheist to say how a potential God *should* be. Why shouldn't God be inconsistent or contradictory? On what basis do you make any judgments of reason whatsoever when you say there is no reason? You are using company stationary to tell the company why you don't need them.

Exactly!

There's this myth out there that atheists are deep thinkers. There may of course be deep thinking atheists, but I think a rejection of God is more often a sign of not being able to think abstractly. Atheists are often those who are simply not able to grasp the necessity for metaphysics. (And I'm not claiming the contrary, btw - I'm not claiming that being religious is a sign of critical thinking. Not at all. But critical thinking will strongly suggest a logical necessity for God, so a clear thinker will tend to be a theist of some sort).

I would agree with most of that. For me, linguistics and terms changing, when it comes to an interpretation of the Bible, are crucial in an accurate understanding, especially when noting the adoption of all sorts of pagan meanings by the apostate church especially since the latter half of the fourth century C.E. Constantine and the Cross, Milton and Dante with hell, Socrates and Plato with the immortal soul and Trinity, Astarte and Easter, the winter solstice and Christmas. Darby and the rapture.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune