Atheism

As it has been pointed out to dozens of times already Frank and you pretend as if it was never mentioned is the fact that there is just as much a position where NO GOD exists as there is for suggesting that there COULD be a god that exists.

there could be a god = no god exists

They are equal. Neither one has any more credibility or evidence to say it is more likely. You want to completely ignore this fact. Part of your arrogance to claim you are something other than an atheist but you aren't a theist either. You are so great you are something that doesn't exist.

Not sure how you are reading it, Hinge...but...

...even if every god ever worshiped by humans never existed...

...that does not mean a god does not exist.

Frankly, I find the notion of "god needing to be worshiped" as absurd. There may simply be a god that doesn't have to be worshiped...or a god that has to be worshiped, but not yet discovered by humans.

In any case, I blindly guess that if there is a GOD...IT will not be anything like the gods humans have worshiped on Earth. They all seem to be constructs of fears early humans had...and which have been passed on to modern generations that have, so far, been unable to shed them.

What Frank tries to do is to pass off careful consideration of probabilities as a "blind guess." Frank was getting hammered about beliefs a few years ago, so now he claims he "doesn't do" belief and insists on the word "guess," which is not, of course, a cognate for belief. Frank's not too swift, but he certainly is nasty to people who don't his line of bullsh*t.

Oh, that was the missing non-sequitor.

Of course there is as much a position that no god exists as there is that god exists. I have never suggested otherwise.

Why do you make up straw men and fight them? Why not quote what I actually say rather than trying to paraphrase, Krumple, because you are woefully inadequate to that sort of thing.



I think they are equal...although almost no atheists in this forum agrees. Most think it is far from equal.




Thank you. You've got it. That is what I have been arguing for years here...and gotten much static from atheists on it.

The atheists here must be quaking right now!!!!





I have never ignored it...I have argued for it repeatedly over the years.





You are a gem, Krumple. If YOU didn't exist, I would try to invent you.

What say you atheists...do you agree with Krumple here????

C'mon, Setanta...don't let me drag you into this so easily.

I do not know if there are gods or not. You want to pretend you do.

YOU are guessing.

I don't see that it was missing...

...and I do not see it as a non-sequitor.

But no problem if you do.

Actually, my comments here about Portal Star and other agnostics (but not about you) drug you out from under your bridge pretty quickly.

I do not for a moment pretend to know if there are gods. As i have consistently said, i don't believe there are gods because the proposition is preposterous. So, i am neither "guessing" (to employ your idiotic abuse of language) that there are no gods, nor is my reasoning based on any blindness. I know of no evidence for anything supernatural ever having occurred or existed. On that entirely reasonable basis, i don't believe that anything supernatural does exist. That's belief, and reasoned belief, not blind faith, and not "guessing."

I know this will go right over your head, but you had to construct a straw man to knock down.

Yay. Good Friday Fuckwit spam.

This sort of thing only confirms my belief about one kind of person attracted to theism. Why spam nonsensical easily disproven trash? Beats me. Maybe this is the 21st century equivalent of a hail mary?

I replied to [email protected] thanking him for setting me straight - as I was toying with believing and was shopping for a god. Clearly I should steer clear of the ones who rely on spamming bullshit. That's one down.

INTERESTING QUESTION

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
By Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson 5/25/11

During a question and answer sessionat a recent speaking engagement,
a university student asked me, "Why do you believe that the Bible is
the inspired word of God?" Now this is a very interesting question;
and probably one of the most important questions any Christian could
ask himself. What is so special, so unique about the Bible that
Christians believe it is literally the inspired word of God?

In answering this student'squestion, I encouraged him to consider the
following facts about the Bible:
First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common
misconception than many people realize, especially with people who do
not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single
book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called
the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres:
history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic
just to name a few.

Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors.These
authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen,
doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never
knew one another personally.
Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet
again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew
or collaborated with one another in writing these books.
Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different
languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient
languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the
historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books
were written.

And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents:
Africa, Asia, and Europe . Once again, this isa testament to the
varied historical and cultural circumstances of God's people.

Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different
authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different
continents. What's more, this collection of books shares a common
storyline - the creation, fall, and redemption of God'speople; a
common theme - God's universal love for all of humanity; and a common
message - salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and
commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and
strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books
contain no historical errors or contradictions. God's word truly is an
amazing collection of writings!

After I had shared the above factswith this student, I offered him
the following challenge: I said to him, "If you do not believe that
the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not believe that the
Bible is of a supernatural origin, then I challenge you to a test." I
said to the student, "I challenge you to go to any library in the
world, you can choose any library you like, and find 66 books which
match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must
choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in
3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However,
they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common
message, with no historical errors or contradictions." I went on to
say, "If you can produce such a collection of books, I will admit that
the Bible is not the inspired word of God." The student's reply was
almost instantaneous, he emphatically stated, "But that'simpossible!"
It truly is impossible for any collection of writings.However,
the Bible passes this test. The Bible contains 66 books,written by 40
different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3
different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The
entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine
inspiration.

The next time you encounter someone who asks you why you believe the
Bible is the inspired word of God, try sharing this challenge with
them. Better yet, don't wait until you're asked, just go ahead and
share this challenge with a friend today... You don't even have to
mention the Bible up front, just ask them if they think it would be
realistic to assemble such a collection of books.

Nah...I was never under any bridge.



Yeah, Setanta, you do pretend to know there are no gods. You pretend that the notion itself is preposterous...and you pretend that you are not possessed of a belief system that asserts gods do not exist.

You are a pretense...but a delightful and enjoyable pretense.

By the way, it is okay with me if you stop pretending for a while that you are ignoring me. We have to have these little conversations once in a while...you and I. Let's get to it.





Oh...constantly!




Oh my goodness...was that a Freudian slip, Setanta?



Yeah, "reasoned." Setanta...come to grips with it! You will be the better for it if you do. YOU GUESS THAT NO GODS EXIST...and that is what I have been saying.





How could anything you are able to say go over my head????

You are just kidding here, right?

I've never pretended that i ignore you. When you try to drag my name into a discussion by lying about what i say, then i may respond. However, your entertainment value is limited. Bye bye, troll.

Fortunately, there are lots and lots of Chinese living in this city. There will be stores open all over town today.

By the way, there was a remarkably detailed image of Madalyn Murray O'Hair on my toast this morining! But i was really hungry, so i buttered it and ate it.

I'll be reading all you write...and laughing at the pomposity, Setanta. Keep at it.

I suspect I get a lot more enjoyment out of the exchanges than you...so it is a bit unfair.

Ta!

Freud used that gambit to assert that all men had a homosexual component. It is a gambit chosen because it can't be disproved. It's an ad hom to be frank about it. And it implies, as you intend, that you are getting a satisfying amount

What amount of sex do you consider adequate to avoid complaining about sexual morals?

It's a false argument Wilso because people complaining about sexual morals are talking about societies and communities and not about individuals.

What do you suggest in respect of our natural promiscuity? No inhibitions is one choice. Some inhibitions enforced by different degrees of control is another. As you are most unlikely to agree to no inhibitions perhaps you will tell us what inhibitions you recommend and why.

Many people of all persuasions think sex a disgusting and, if pursued properly, degrading activity.

How do you define sex? Anybody into bat on the science side has to start there.

Fortunately you have me on Ignore so you are unable to answer my questions. Which is mighty convenient for you I must say and your preemptive move is really, really clever and enables you to thrill your fans with loose talk about a matter you have not defined.

I will define it. Sex is the action of copulation between a male and a female from which is excluded anything imported in to the exchange from outside the two person's nature which is intended to prevent conception.

That has no spectrum whereas everything else is on a sliding scale down to a handshake. Mailer said it best but I had better not quote his words as I know what fine up-standing Christians the contributors to this thread are.

Why is it that everytime I have heard men discuss the matter they have agreed that Catholic girls are the best. I think it is because the thrill of the great lover's erection is reinforced by the thrill of sinning and the atheist girl has to be contented with just the thrill of the great lover's erection. Which Julie Burchill described on TV as a "little local irritation" with her ex sitting opposite her and a small studio audience.

From a lot of things Ms Burchill has said and written for the public it is reasonable to assume she is an atheist. Although with her having run off with another lady she has created options in view of the fact that the Church has never condemned girl on girl.

See how tolerant they are then. It is the modern religious viewpoint that atheists are harmless. That they stay away from the circles where the contracts get stitched up, and the most promising young ladies are to be found, is seen as a good thing because there is more to be shared out among those who network outside the church after the service. The Sunday morning handyman is thought of as a non-entity. And denying himself listening to a choir of virgins sing Ave Maria in order to enjoy a stiff brush and a shovel is, imo, a bit masochistic.

I think you are generalizing quite a bit here. Imposing your own ideas onto it probably. I think it has more to do with the uniform rather than them being catholic. But that would just be silly right? After all it has everything to do with them being catholic. Who would care about a stupid uniform?

You are definitely on to something here, Krumple.

Porn movies and porn sites (I love 'em still) abound with girls in Catholic School uniforms. You almost gotta wonder why Catholic Schools allow their female students to wear them. They have become the uniform of porn as much as the uniform of those schools.

No human can fathom the Big Picture mate, some snooty religionists liked to think they knew it all but Jesus called them "blind guides"-
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world..." (John 8:14/ 8:23)

Jesus was a Klaatu figure, and all he could do was give us a broad brush appraisal of things and give us free will to trust him-
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)


And like Klaatu, he got a hostile reception from the Establishment-

I agree. If you dig deeply enough, there are usually a few profiteers behind it all, but they very often rouse the will of the masses to fight by touching on their religious convictions. Without that manipulative tool, they would be less effective in waging war. Also, to say that there are many wars started for other reasons doesn't let religion off the hook. That would only work if someone were to claim that religions were the ONLY reason for war, which I don't think anybody is claiming.



I wouldn't begrudge that fact for a moment. However, that doesn't mean that without religions there would be no charity or even less of it. I'm pretty sure the compassion existed long before any particular extant religion and works in the human psyche independently of it. Also, think of all the money spent on immense and immensely expensive cathedrals, megachurches and mosques to glorify an imaginary diety that could have been used to eradicate hunger and poverty, put homes over people's heads, clothes on their backs, food in children's stomachs education in their heads. This is a very long list of secular charities, which, of course, don't waste donated money on such things: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities