Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Would you choose heaven or hell?

ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

And can you give me an example of who you believe will be in "heaven" and who will be in "hell" besides your examples below?

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Why would you assume Stephen and Carlin are in hell?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

And are we to go by your perceptions that has no idea of what is going on? no thanks....
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Phase
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Phase
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 5:57:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Please keep your lies and rambling for other atheists. I reject your whole life.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.
By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 5:57:33 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Please keep your lies and rambling for other atheists. I reject your whole life.

LOL!!! Lies and rambling, huh? Your Dumb-Fu is almost as strong as the thang...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:09:05 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:57:33 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Please keep your lies and rambling for other atheists. I reject your whole life.

LOL!!! Lies and rambling, huh? Your Dumb-Fu is almost as strong as the thang...

Your bigotry is like Trump.
Phase
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:33:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:20:35 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:09:05 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:57:33 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Please keep your lies and rambling for other atheists. I reject your whole life.

LOL!!! Lies and rambling, huh? Your Dumb-Fu is almost as strong as the thang...

Your bigotry is like Trump.

Trump is a christian. I am NOTHING like Trump. His resemblance to you, however, is most evident in his "fake news" proclamations...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:09:05 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:57:33 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:14:41 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:51:36 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:46:18 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

Poor stupid atheists. Always going on about religion and hell when only one religion even has hell. Morons.

ROFL!!! Only one religion, huh? Also, I'm not an atheist... I'm an anti-theocratic agnostic. I would explain the difference to you, but you don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the separation. And you call us "stupid?" "Morons?" Perhaps it would be soothing to be sufficiently diminished to embrace religiosity as a shield or buffer against the fear of death. I'd rather not be swathed by ignorance, thank you...

Agnostic is wussy atheism.

Believe that, if you wish. It must make you feel better about "picking a side." It's so very strong of you to actually "have a conviction," one way or another. Agnostic, however, is the only honest answer... It's the admission that I don't know, and the conviction that you don't, either.

Face it:

YOU
DON'T
KNOW

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Please keep your lies and rambling for other atheists. I reject your whole life.

LOL!!! Lies and rambling, huh? Your Dumb-Fu is almost as strong as the thang...

Your bigotry is like Trump.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.

Intended or not, it is...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Knowledgeable
Posts: 207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 6:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

LMAO. Are you on the same drugs as Christians? Where in the world do you get the idea that there is a literal place called hell underneath the earth? LOL.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 7:03:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

Actually, as a fellow agnostic and anti-theist, i disagree in part. Religion in the hands of powerful people was manipulated to be what you say, but that wasn't the intention. The people that get spiritual revelations in fact most likely did. I believe we are all born... or grow to be spiritual. We all suspect that there is something more. Some people have experiences pointing towards these feelings. So, i think religion is an attempt to define this internal spirituality. However, then i would agree that organized religion / the writing of likely honest people... was twisted bc the powerful noticed the profound effect it has in controlling and bringing people to heel. Therefore, what it was written for was honest... it's human's greed and thirst for power that corrupted it. Any theist that doesn't see that is blind.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Phase
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 7:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

What do you mean by "unquestionable"?
Then at least Christianity should have failed to spread, and last this long if all we're after is an emotional attachment, censored by fear and superstition. The authors would be perhaps the biggest hypocrites to ever have lived while ushering in, if the stories contained therein were false, an even greater miracle than the resurrection of Jesus.

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.

Intended or not, it is...

The way you want a god to be demonstrated would be more magical than what would be necessary.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 8:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 6:59:49 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

LMAO. Are you on the same drugs as Christians? Where in the world do you get the idea that there is a literal place called hell underneath the earth? LOL.

I don't. I don't believe that there is a "literal place" or an "allegorical place" called hell, anywhere. I don't believe in hell any more than I do heaven, or the christian gawd or devil, or the babyjeebus "son of gawd." If, indeed, there was a jeebus, it was an human elevated to his current status by the recanting and embellishment of TALES of great deeds. I place him on about the same level of believable as Hercules.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 8:32:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally i would choose heaven for i am a bit of an anti-social loner and i got a feeling that heaven is going to be a very very empty place.
Knowledgeable
Posts: 207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2018 10:48:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 8:10:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:59:49 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

LMAO. Are you on the same drugs as Christians? Where in the world do you get the idea that there is a literal place called hell underneath the earth? LOL.

I don't. I don't believe that there is a "literal place" or an "allegorical place" called hell, anywhere. I don't believe in hell any more than I do heaven, or the christian gawd or devil, or the babyjeebus "son of gawd." If, indeed, there was a jeebus, it was an human elevated to his current status by the recanting and embellishment of TALES of great deeds. I place him on about the same level of believable as Hercules.

Ummm, hell is a state of mind or a condition. Seems like religion has destroyed your perception of reality. By reality, I do not mean that you are religious. I mean that you do not believe that inequality exists, struggles exist, rulers, so on and so forth.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 3:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 7:03:30 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

Actually, as a fellow agnostic and anti-theist, i disagree in part. Religion in the hands of powerful people was manipulated to be what you say, but that wasn't the intention.

You are far too kind to people who heap accolades upon the atrocities found in the bible (child torture, child rape, adult rape, human trafficking, slavery, etc.). I can't bring myself to give them that kind of credit. How anyone can assume that these stories were born of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent entity (deity or not) is beyond reasoning.

The people that get spiritual revelations in fact most likely did. I believe we are all born... or grow to be spiritual.

This is quite possible, but not all of us do this. Especially given the difference between the way you and I perceive the term, "spiritual." As you and I have previously discussed, you and I approach "spirituality" from very different angles.

We all suspect that there is something more. Some people have experiences pointing towards these feelings. So, i think religion is an attempt to define this internal spirituality. However, then i would agree that organized religion / the writing of likely honest people... was twisted bc the powerful noticed the profound effect it has in controlling and bringing people to heel. Therefore, what it was written for was honest... it's human's greed and thirst for power that corrupted it. Any theist that doesn't see that is blind.

Please don't speak on my behalf, this way. I don't suspect there is anything more than what I see. It never takes long for dishonest "leaders" take advantage of the trust of the laity. Religion, specifically, has ALWAYS been very adept, at this. From human sacrifice to financial fleecing, religions around the world have always been there to make sure the clergy lives at the expense of the laity...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 3:43:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 7:17:24 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

What do you mean by "unquestionable"?
Then at least Christianity should have failed to spread, and last this long if all we're after is an emotional attachment, censored by fear and superstition. The authors would be perhaps the biggest hypocrites to ever have lived while ushering in, if the stories contained therein were false, an even greater miracle than the resurrection of Jesus.

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.

Intended or not, it is...

The way you want a god to be demonstrated would be more magical than what would be necessary.

Not really. Anything "undeniable," as defined by theists is usually along the lines of "the evidence is all around you..." What, specifically, that might be is never defined. MCB is ALWAYS good for that. That which theists are willing to accept as "self-evident" is never anything more than confirmation bias. I have no problem with the existence of a deity. NONE of the religious definitions, so far, have ever even come close.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 4:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2018 10:48:25 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 8:10:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:59:49 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

LMAO. Are you on the same drugs as Christians? Where in the world do you get the idea that there is a literal place called hell underneath the earth? LOL.

I don't. I don't believe that there is a "literal place" or an "allegorical place" called hell, anywhere. I don't believe in hell any more than I do heaven, or the christian gawd or devil, or the babyjeebus "son of gawd." If, indeed, there was a jeebus, it was an human elevated to his current status by the recanting and embellishment of TALES of great deeds. I place him on about the same level of believable as Hercules.

Ummm, hell is a state of mind or a condition. Seems like religion has destroyed your perception of reality. By reality, I do not mean that you are religious. I mean that you do not believe that inequality exists, struggles exist, rulers, so on and so forth.

Denomination 1: Hell is X.
Denomination 2: Hell is Y.
Denomination 2: Hell is Z.
.
.
.
Denomination 38,512: Hell is ... (blahblahblah).

Religion has not destroyed my "perception of reality." Religion has destroyed my belief in ANYONE that claims to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have. I'm fully aware of the fact that inequality exists. I'm also fully aware of struggle, rulers, and "so forth." Even making such a statement is either arrogant or completely naive. That statement infers that you have access to some form of "knowledge" that is unique to people that believe as you do, and is unbelievably pompous. In short, hell is whatever happens to be convenient to the context in which a believer wishes to couch whatever assertion they are making, at the time. Please don't try to make vague statements that sound "deep," but have no substance.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Phase
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 5:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2018 3:43:27 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 7:17:24 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

What do you mean by "unquestionable"?
Then at least Christianity should have failed to spread, and last this long if all we're after is an emotional attachment, censored by fear and superstition. The authors would be perhaps the biggest hypocrites to ever have lived while ushering in, if the stories contained therein were false, an even greater miracle than the resurrection of Jesus.

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.

Intended or not, it is...

The way you want a god to be demonstrated would be more magical than what would be necessary.

Not really. Anything "undeniable," as defined by theists is usually along the lines of "the evidence is all around you..." What, specifically, that might be is never defined. MCB is ALWAYS good for that. That which theists are willing to accept as "self-evident" is never anything more than confirmation bias. I have no problem with the existence of a deity. NONE of the religious definitions, so far, have ever even come close.

Then by confirmation bias shall it be confirmed to the believer:
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Believers have the mind of Christ within them, through the Spirit. But just because believers have the Spirit, and therefore, the mind of God within them, there is still responsibility on the believer's part to bring that which is of truth out - confirmed by the Word.
Knowledgeable
Posts: 207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 5:25:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2018 4:26:05 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 10:48:25 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 8:10:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:59:49 PM, Knowledgeable wrote:
At 3/22/2018 4:36:52 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
It would seem that hell will be filled with people with sufficient intellect and confidence to reject all that religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

It was equally seem that heaven will be filled with all the people that have accepted that which religitardation has chosen to impose on the world.

Which of the two would would actually provide more "torture?" Hanging out with Stephen Hawking, Carlin and company, or an eternity with the likes of Jimmy Graham and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Which one is more likely to have beer and bacon?

LMAO. Are you on the same drugs as Christians? Where in the world do you get the idea that there is a literal place called hell underneath the earth? LOL.

I don't. I don't believe that there is a "literal place" or an "allegorical place" called hell, anywhere. I don't believe in hell any more than I do heaven, or the christian gawd or devil, or the babyjeebus "son of gawd." If, indeed, there was a jeebus, it was an human elevated to his current status by the recanting and embellishment of TALES of great deeds. I place him on about the same level of believable as Hercules.

Ummm, hell is a state of mind or a condition. Seems like religion has destroyed your perception of reality. By reality, I do not mean that you are religious. I mean that you do not believe that inequality exists, struggles exist, rulers, so on and so forth.

Denomination 1: Hell is X.
Denomination 2: Hell is Y.
Denomination 2: Hell is Z.
.
.
.
Denomination 38,512: Hell is ... (blahblahblah).

Religion has not destroyed my "perception of reality." Religion has destroyed my belief in ANYONE that claims to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have. I'm fully aware of the fact that inequality exists. I'm also fully aware of struggle, rulers, and "so forth." Even making such a statement is either arrogant or completely naive. That statement infers that you have access to some form of "knowledge" that is unique to people that believe as you do, and is unbelievably pompous. In short, hell is whatever happens to be convenient to the context in which a believer wishes to couch whatever assertion they are making, at the time. Please don't try to make vague statements that sound "deep," but have no substance.

This is my point exactly. People that think they know the Bible (religion) have destroyed peoples minds. They use certain words that are convenient to the context that they are using. How can you discredit something you have no understanding about? Don't forget, your books were written by man as well.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 6:30:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2018 3:00:57 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 7:03:30 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

Actually, as a fellow agnostic and anti-theist, i disagree in part. Religion in the hands of powerful people was manipulated to be what you say, but that wasn't the intention.

You are far too kind to people who heap accolades upon the atrocities found in the bible (child torture, child rape, adult rape, human trafficking, slavery, etc.). I can't bring myself to give them that kind of credit. How anyone can assume that these stories were born of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent entity (deity or not) is beyond reasoning.

See... here's the thing... i agree here and on the last paragraph. My point is the origins of religion, not what it is or has become, bc i agree it's trash. But, there is a good amount of it that isn't either. There is some kindness to be found.

The people that get spiritual revelations in fact most likely did. I believe we are all born... or grow to be spiritual.

This is quite possible, but not all of us do this. Especially given the difference between the way you and I perceive the term, "spiritual." As you and I have previously discussed, you and I approach "spirituality" from very different angles.

I don't remember... i thought we were in agreement in the broader definition. Basically, a kid that believes he/she is a super hero is spiritual in my opinion. I am pretty sure every human is spiritual, in that sense, in their early years. It's that feeling that there must be another realm where all your supernatural type thoughts are actually true. I believe we all have that feeling in us at one time or another.

We all suspect that there is something more. Some people have experiences pointing towards these feelings. So, i think religion is an attempt to define this internal spirituality. However, then i would agree that organized religion / the writing of likely honest people... was twisted bc the powerful noticed the profound effect it has in controlling and bringing people to heel. Therefore, what it was written for was honest... it's human's greed and thirst for power that corrupted it. Any theist that doesn't see that is blind.

Please don't speak on my behalf, this way. I don't suspect there is anything more than what I see. It never takes long for dishonest "leaders" take advantage of the trust of the laity. Religion, specifically, has ALWAYS been very adept, at this. From human sacrifice to financial fleecing, religions around the world have always been there to make sure the clergy lives at the expense of the laity...

I didn't think i was speaking on your behalf, especially since i agree with the gist of what you are saying. I'm just trying to point out the origins may not have been as dark as you think... but, it def. is people that made it into a killing and immoral machine.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2018 7:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2018 5:22:32 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/23/2018 3:43:27 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 7:17:24 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:36:50 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:30:29 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 6:06:49 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:42:18 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:36:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:29:22 PM, Phase wrote:
At 3/22/2018 5:25:14 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

None of us do. Just because I've rejected your definitions and assertions doesn't mean that I reject the POSSIBILITY of some form of deity. However, until I come in contact with one, I will not assert its existence. Further, until I've become familiar with every cubic inch of this universe and learned all that there is available to know, I won't assert its non-existence, either. You may assert all the knowledge you wish. Until you can demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence beyond the anecdotal and the "inductive," I will continue to reject your definitions and assertions.

Are claims and assertions meant to be tested and approved, or analyzed and hypothesized?

Claims and assertions should always FOLLOW hypothesis, analysis, and testing. Until then, they are meaningless.

Okay. So why not adhere to those who have tested their expectations accordingly to each religion? Anecdotal would fall under testing, would it not? If holy books yield pretty much a way of living, but we are ignoring those who've tested, then what do you mean by demonstration?

Tested their expectations? What does that mean, and how does it apply? Anecdotal would not fall under testing. It would fall under claims and assertions. Holy books do not yield a way of living, it yields a study in futility. Very few of the claims of the holy books can even be tied to reality and, of those that can, tied only loosely (with LOTS and LOTS of "interpretation"). Who has "tested?" I'm not "ignoring" them; I simply disbelieve much of what they say, and doubt the rest.

Well, you are looking at how religion is portrayed now than how the people who authored the books intended it to be. They lived their beliefs, today we just have mostly an agreement to what we think is right or what sounds good. Yeah we are drawing up feign imaginations based on agreement alone rather than living that agreement.

I don't believe "religion" was ever intended to be anything more than a means to unite people, and control them at an emotional level. The people that wrote these manuscripts knew that people could be controlled through their fears, superstitions, and emotional attachments. What better way to do this, than to introduce an UNQUESTIONABLE "authority," and set oneself up as the spokesperson for that authority?

What do you mean by "unquestionable"?
Then at least Christianity should have failed to spread, and last this long if all we're after is an emotional attachment, censored by fear and superstition. The authors would be perhaps the biggest hypocrites to ever have lived while ushering in, if the stories contained therein were false, an even greater miracle than the resurrection of Jesus.

By 'demonstration,' I mean that the gawds of these 'holy' manuscripts must FIRST be demonstrated to EXIST. Then, it must be demonstrated that the properties, qualities, and desires/intentions/commandments are actually attributable to said deity. There is so much that must be accepted on the word of those that claim to speak on behalf of any deity, that one is no worse off inventing a deity of their own than accepting the invention of another... There is so much within your post that isn't even coherent that I'm not even sure I addressed what you were trying to say. To the best of my understanding (of your post), I need to stop there. The religious crazy is simply too deep to keep swimming in this swamp...

This isn't supposed to be overly religious.

Intended or not, it is...

The way you want a god to be demonstrated would be more magical than what would be necessary.

Not really. Anything "undeniable," as defined by theists is usually along the lines of "the evidence is all around you..." What, specifically, that might be is never defined. MCB is ALWAYS good for that. That which theists are willing to accept as "self-evident" is never anything more than confirmation bias. I have no problem with the existence of a deity. NONE of the religious definitions, so far, have ever even come close.

Then by confirmation bias shall it be confirmed to the believer:
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Biblical scripture is meaningless, to me.

Believers have the mind of Christ within them, through the Spirit. But just because believers have the Spirit, and therefore, the mind of God within them, there is still responsibility on the believer's part to bring that which is of truth out - confirmed by the Word.

There is no "mind of christ" and the mind of one cannot exist "within" another. When you start with a premise as ridiculous as this, anything that follows is bound to be hilariously ignorant.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.