Atheism

You are obviously a poe. If you are not a poe, you are a complete dumb ****.

"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allen Poe

edited out text in respect of the thread

I have responded in the bible thread if you care to leave these people in peace and join me http://able2know.org/topic/216546-26#post-5629639

I can't help anything I miss. If I miss something there is nothing I can do about it. But I don't ignore things in the context.

I take it you consider religion a technology from your comparison of it to smoke signals and other technologies. With that I agree.

But your comparison breaks down because you are not proposing improving religion but rather abolishing it. Which is like proposing abolishing communication because smoke signals are out of date.

So I don't think I am ignoring logic or reasoning.

I don't think that the older a philosophy is the better it is. The first thread I started on A2K was concerned with abolishing philosophy.

Your assertion that we have transcended the need for religion has no value without a satisfactory explanation and it has nothing to do with logic or reason without an explanation.

As does the assertion that only those who have been indoctrinated or have a mental block of some kind, need or require a religious mind set to function. In fact that assertion is foam from the mouth.

Just as you laid claim to being rational previously you are now laying claim to not having been indoctrinated or having any mental blocks and being a logical and reasoning person. I assume you are also good looking, very intelligent and sought after by employers and alpha females and I admire your modesty in refraining from adding those qualities to your CV.

Just as I accept the need for logic, rationality and sound reasoning in order to prevent us being overwhelmed by mythological and superstitious hysterias I also accept that there is a danger of us being overwhelmed by reason, logic and rationality.

There is only one logical and rational solution to every problem isn't there?

So let us pursue the idea, which we share, that religion is a technology. That idea seems to have a mental block associated with it as is easily seen by the number of atheists who put me on Ignore every time I raise some aspect of it.

I'm agog with anticipation to read your up-to-date, new-fangled solution to the sexual problem. I have one. Anybody who thinks there is no sexual problem is hardly being rational or logical. Such a person has obviously been indoctrinated and sports a mental block of some size for the purpose of personal comfort.

You certainly were ill advised to study drama Germie. "Don't put your daughter on the stage Mrs Worthington."

What you have ignored are the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience which are required of workers in the genuine religious field. Other cults are essentially entertainment and your experience in drama is an advantage in such industries.

Your conflating of the genuine with the fake is merely a conceit you have adopted in order not to be obliged to consider the former and to bespatter the genuine with the faults of the fake. Just as the expenses fiddling of a female cabinet minister here is being used to discredit the Conservative Party.

You have also ignored what the donors of the $75 million get out of it. Pretending that their donations are of no use to them is a bit of a stretch in a society noted for its business acumen.

Did you just call her Germie?

I know you theists would prefer that we non-faithful would just go back to being the silently oppressed, but I don't think that's going to happen.

But FBM-- why did the King and Parliament approve the version?

It is a form of insanity to me that such a matter is not given its due weight.

And there were a lot more than 8 "members of the Church of England engaged on the project. And not one a dim-wit as is proved by the book still being bought, sold, read and argued over 500 years later.

You might apply your too severe ideas to Homer. Or Ovid. Or Shakespeare.

The Ages of Man can easily be shown to bear signs of contradickshun.

You're not doing anything to explain the contradictions or the history. Biblical scholars say the books of the Bible we know today were chosen selectively from thousands of extant texts for the purpose of strengthening the compilers' political powers, particularly in Rome. There's the Q-source from textual analysis, too. It's a cobbled-together mess of myths. Get over it. And get over yourself. You are not among the chosen because there are no chosen, and nobody to do the choosing in the first place. It's a long self-aggrandizing fable compiled mostly in the Bronze Age. Join us in the current century. Please. You'll be glad you did.

Edit: OK, rhetoric aside. Specifically, can you explain, for example, exactly why Ephesians 2:8-9 says one thing and James 2:24 says PRECISELY the opposite?

There was a good one in a blog post which someone posted here years ago in a political threadd--to the effect that whenever you see a christian in the United States complainng about being persecuted, right then and there you know you are dealing with a moron.

Good one. Precisely how things are.

Read vs 25 and 26

Philosophy:Questions that may never be answered.
Religion: Answers that may never be questioned
Bible: "Make sure of all things. . ." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

FBM mate, your pictures illustrate just one thing, namely how confused non-christians are about the Bible..
The fact remains, Christianity is the biggest game on the park because Christians don't do "confused"..

A priest a Rabbi and Joel Osteen were discussing how they divide their collection plate money.

The priest said he drew a circle on the floor then tossed the money in the air. what landed inside the circle was for the church and he kept what fell outside.

The Rabi said that was amazing he did the same only he kept the money that landed inside and what landed out side the circle was for the temple.

Joel laughed and said he threw the money in the air what god caught was gods and what hit the floor he kept for himself.

It would be the same in the modern age with the Prtotestant work ethic and welfare. It would depend upon who was in power. Whether the spiritual or the worldly. The question here is whether the worldly alone is sufficient to our need unto the umpteenth generation.

You need the historical contexts. Possibly the geographical as well.

The Bible is a record of various times and places. Confusing it with those who thump on it is an elementary error but one of great consequence for those who fall into it. Which is easy to do when listening only to one's dick.

Nobody, yes nobody, can read the Bible convinced that it's a load of ****.