Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

I'll think about the "no folding" commandment in the bath.

I might be able to come up with a plausible explanation although at first glance it looks a tall order.

Thats been theproblem with a lot of popes, hasnt it?

I wondered if that was deliberate.

Sorry, but I am not gonna go back and forth on such huge posts when we ultimately just do not agree...

And none the less, you did not seem to take my advice about "hand selecting me" and voicing your displeasure with me...at least 3 times...and not any other theist.... And from your 2 posts that you just made, You wanted to just basically slam and put down, since about half of your posts are doing just that...I do not even feel compelled to explain my side to you....

One more question before I go...Why do you call me out? And from what I have seen only me? (in terms of a theist) (or at least most of your philosophical debates include me)

Does this mean that (from your posts above) I am SO COMPLETELY DUMB, that it is easy for you to pick on me? Or does it mean you find certain things I say of interest, and therefor, wish to talk with me about them?? (if it is the latter) Then most of what you said about me being significantly dumber than most on here, and having my head up my ass is all bullshit...and it is courtesy of your own posts that show this...UNLESS you really enjoy debating with someone who offers NOTHING valid to the table...Like you "think" by your explanations....If that is the case, that is just plain flat out wrong....If I am so dumb...Move on to bigger and better things people say...and stop picking on me, and challenge yourself, and let me wallow in my delusion...I seem to be happy right? Just like you are without a God...But Like I said, I find what you have said, about being significantly dumber, and nothing but my own tastes, and my head up my ass etc...Was just some kind of way to try to get under my skin...If not, then move on, I clearly am not worth wasting your time, On such insignificant ****....Go talk to someone who can arouse your intellect, that I am not able to do!

Lastly, I can not help you if you find that scientific studies I have done to be so outrageous, you believe I am a bold faced Liar trying to brainwash people...

I am not going to publish my personal information on this forum...If you can not get yourself to take a leap of faith into believing another human is being truthful with you, and would have no reason to proport such an extreme idea, if not true...

Then "chose" to believe it is all bullshit...

One more thing...About the God not being needed...OK, So you can live your life without God's morality...(even though I would say you do Good, it is God that you reject that speaks to you, telling you to do these acts)

Why would anyone out there that is living "feel the NEED" to have any decent kind of morality? If it is such bullshit, that almost every theism talks about the importance of...How does science, and math or a rejection of a God "get you" or others to observe the fact that having good morality is a good thing?

One more thing again sorry...But apparently, I am not the only one with my head up my ass...You said I am not willing to admit I am wrong...But always say others must be...Do you really believe this is the case?? Have you been away that long??? I can link 15 posts where I have said I could be wrong, or I am sorry...Go back up this page about 7 posts ago, or last page, it was my last reply to Farmerman, in which I retracted what I stated earlier....

Where you think, I think I can't be wrong, I don't know...It says even in my scriptures, I embrace, Prophets are wrong as well...

Yes--but it is inconsistent to refer to the past in relation to Popes and then talk about 600F. for a process which was going on before thermometers were invented. Or any specific temperature in case 600 was a misprint. It's incoherent actually.

The Church is in 2012 just as the Kosher Matzoh bakery is.

When the commandment of no folding of the dough came in the bakeries were themselves ovens and the bakers went naked in order to allow the male body's most efficient cooling system to operate efficiently. With large batches folding the rolled out dough would produce at the fold something of a graven image consisting of voluptuous fleshy tones with dark creases and that would be impermissible under all the circumstances as it might easily lead to pollutions being injected into the dough.

But it is worth noting that the invention of the thermometer by science and the fixing of a specific temperature because of it renders the skills of each baker less important than when the temperature had to be gauged by "rack ot een". So individual differences between master bakers disappeared and there's a tendency towards all Kosher Matzoh bread being standardised and all the same.

Which might be a general characteristic of science.

Why would anyone out there that is living "feel the NEED" to have any decent kind of morality? If it is such bullshit, that almost every theism talks about the importance of...How does science, and math or a rejection of a God "get you" or others to observe the fact that having good morality is a good thing? How is "using a code" of God, a crutch in this case? that makes people incapable of making good choices???

What would truly stop you from doing wicked if you chose to do so? (Like all of us do from time to time)

If not a conscience, and interpretations of God?? Or at least Good morality, apposed to bad....That atheists call these inner voices we hear bullshit?

No morality come from worshiping a god that was supported to had drown almost every human on the planet including children and infants along with the others animals life on the planet.

Without this mass murdering god to fear no one would be decent or moral to other humans.

So then God's carefully orchestrated plan worked then? Did it not?? Reread what you typed above! And just because it says he killed the world by flood does not mean it happened...He could have said that...and repented, yet the moral still stuck in...because people learned he could have killed them if he wanted too...= humans valuing morality...

But once again, you only see things from the glass you look thru, and seem to think you even understand, and can explain theism's better than a theist...

I find this despicable....

When I start giving you "lessons" about your personal lack of belief...it's errors, and you accept it...I will gladly accept your glass viewing perspective about my "personal beliefs"

Let see getting humans to behavior by mass murdering humans infants and children included yes that is a god that anyone would be proud to worshiped out of fear!!!!!!!!

Sorry but I for one do not value life so high that I would worship such a monster god/devil if this being was real.

With such a god I could understand half his angels rebelling as this god make a human type Hitler look like a nice guy.

Such a being is far less equip to teach morals to humans then Hitler or Stalin would be.

woud someone who is of the Jewish persuasion or someone who actually knows please help me??

I'm not sure why I call you out. Several ideas come to mind but don't quite describe it. I like that our discussions continue on while others would soon just give up and go their way, it's as if you are a limitless pool of enjoyment. I don't mean to put you down, thats just the way that I learn and I sometimes forget that others may draw offense to that. I learn brutally, I like to really feel when I'm mistaken. For example when I spar with my brother in law, if I make a mistake I get clocked in the head, bashed in the ribs, or slammed to the ground, all of which are painful and displeasing but valuable tools so that I might more quickly learn the errors of my ways. When I say those thing I am not malicious with my attempt, I'm simply using it as a learning tool. The same has been done to me plenty of times here and other places to the point where I try to be very cautious of my posts and learn to double check my facts. Do you remember when I posted this: http://able2know.org/topic/17906-16#post-4872169 and the responses that followed? I was clearly and (to be honest) ignorantly wrong all because I didn't double check my sources and I suffered for it and was treated as an ignorant fool because I acted like one in that instances.

I apologize if I don't just accept every single word that people say as truth. I've learned well over the years that people regardless of religion, race, class, or anything can and most of the time, will lie for personal gain. Parents will actually teach their children that it is a good thing when it's not. I give trust where trust is earned, you have earned little trust from me (at no fault to your own, it's just hard to earn trust through online discussions), and because you have earned so little trust, your trust doesn't extend to the height of this claim. So without proof, I cannot outright call you a liar, but you are no better than one. You will be forever stuck in the limbo of lies and truth until your claims can be proven, or until a time comes to where you have earned enough trust where I would believe such an outrageous claim...or enough time passes where we forget such conversations or die.

If you think about it, this question isn't a very good one. What is the need for people to not rape other people, what need is there to assist others around you, what need is there not to kill another person. If you think about this hard enough you will find perfectly secular explainations to all of them and not have to say, because God said so.

I was specifically referring to how you refuse to admit that you truly may be wrong in the existence of your god while always pointing out how we could be wrong in his non-existence. You basically stated that there is nothing that could disprove the existence of your god, regardless if it was able to perfectly explain everything that you think is supernatural and show you that it's just a natural process...

on this video, start at 4:05 and there are other speakers you can listen to as well.

It's a bit odd Bill that you are constrained to believe in the Flood in order to attack God.

Setanta and fm don't believe in the Flood and if they are right your argument is nonsensical. You can't blame God for something He didn't do.

Was there a Flood or not? If there wasn't then God did not indulge in the "mass murdering humans infants and children" and your position has had its legs sawn off.

Would you submit to circumcision in order to be CEO of a Kosher Matzoh bakery chain with a worldwide franchise?

The problem is an anachronism because we now have local anaesthetics.

AS a forensic statement, the CEO of the Manaschewitz company is a BAPTIST who is married to a ROMAN CATHOLIC.

Then the bread in not Kosher at all. It's faking it.

Sam is one smart man. I think that he is talking to you, me and others like us at 10 minutes into the video.

.


Of course I do not believe in the flood any more the rest of the nonsense in the bible but to those who take every word in the bible as fact the flood story is a good way to pointed out to them that they are worshiping an evil being in any possible human term of the word evil.

Can you picture the pain and terror of having the whole world drowning and not just humans but all the other land animals beside?

With supreme power, god could just had wave a hand and have all the humans he did not care for disappearing from existence but by the story he instead subjected them to hours/days of terror.

Even as a child as I watched the children TV Sunday shows showing all the cute animals marching up the ramp into the Ark I wonder why the killings of all the other animals and humans is an event we should celebrate.

To sum up the flood story is a great way to point out how evil such a god would in fact be if in fact he did exist.

Disagree with Harris, scientifically.

Would you agree that morality is immaterial, just as a suggested omnibenevolent God?

They are ad hoc hypothesis, being empirically uncertain.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem suggests an omnibenevolent God, flourishing/suffering suggests objective moral values, be it hominens, mammals or the animal kingdom when sensation is of relative attribution.

However, why is the unmoved mover an omnibenevolent God, why not deist God?

Why is suffering a pejorative property (IS-OUGHT/Humes Law), why deny evolutionary pressures, would natural exceptions (i.e. wrong/bad) not be of supernatural ontology?

These arguements appear to be normative, which in fact appears to be the basis of all moralistic arguementation.

Example:

-Suffering OUGHT TO be wrong.

-The unmoved mover OUGHT TO be an omnibenevolent deity.

The first proposition may also be naturalistic, however arguing strict, natural science (by Harris conditions), he must have consistency of evolution and these objective moral values, this does NOT appear to be possible by derriving values to fact, there is a distinction, or this would entail a consistency of all contemporary life, this includes the RELATIVE implications of disease and trauma (that define cell programmed death) of acidophiles and alkaliphiles, consciousness has no suggested physical quantity (i.e. neural correlate).

Furthermore, the scientific method is of empirical suggestion, a positive analysis, it does NOT cogent empirical facts, such as humans OUGHT TO not kill because of the suggested implications, these are 'rational' assumptions of morality, not naturalism.

Naturalism is as 'rational' as the methodological applications that it is subjected to, consistency of newtonian mechanics would be an example.

Amen brother. If we ever start up an atheist church you need to be one of our preachers.

Are you suggesting there can be no moral constructs that we all can agree upon?

Do you think that it would be a moral truth that rape is wrong or can you find a case where rape is good?

No one wants to be raped and if they do it is not rape.