Jonathan H. B. Lobl

1. Of course, you prefer to think that. So? 2. Wait. That was your argument? 3. Of course. God hanging from a cross, is much better than an Egyptian statue.

I know. Just Sweet Old Dan, quoting Psalms. Nothing mean spirited or vicious in quoting Psalms. The words change, but it's always the same hateful music. The intent was clear enough. Don't let him get to you.

So close. Atheism is grounded in the lack of evidence. Much like your conclusions. Scripture is not evidence. How strange. If I say that there is no reason to believe in Sekhmet, the ancient Lion Headed Goddess of Egypt -- Nobody here would argue with me. It is only followers of your God -- who expect me to believe without good reason.

Yes. It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

That's no problem for me. Most of the people that I feel close to, have some kind of God belief. I don't need others to agree with me. The more so, considering how my own views have shifted over time. Some people on this board, will remember when I advocated for Pantheism.

There is legitimate confusion over not knowing and not believing. The more so, since living languages have words that shift meaning, over time. I can live with it. Thank you for your concern.

You have allowed Dan, to make things more complicated, than they are. Many gods could exist. A god could exist. The God could exist. At this time, there is inadequate reason, to think that such is the case. Pending further developments. A small point. Proving that A god exists, would take us to Deism. Advancing from Deism to Christianity is another leap. It is not enough to establish that A god exists. It would be necessary to advance, to proving that The God exists. Dan makes no distinction between A god and The God. At this point, I attribute this to his limitations. It takes brains to make certain distinctions. Since Dan operates by FAITH -- he will continue to miss the point. Still, thank you for the effort.

I think we have to be careful of how we interpret these results. To my understanding, it is not that brain damage leads to Fundamentalism. Rather, brain damage leads to rigid thinking. It is rigid thinking that leads to Fundamentalism. This can happen without brain damage. I expect that damage to the frontal lobes, does impair mental flexibility. In any event, I want to be cautious in my interpretation. This material feeds into my personal bias. I might not be fair in my understanding.

The perfect Word of God is that difficult to understand? If you say so. 😄

Including Hell Fire.

Wow. You're still getting it wrong. Brother Kaman. Yes. I know it's dead. I can see the flies and smell the rot. I couldn't help myself.

By conservative estimate, there are over 40,000 flavors of Christianity. If God did author the Scriptures, through "inspiration" -- then it follows that God is the "Author of Confusion". If God had chosen to produce the Scriptures directly, and preserve them, there would be one Christianity. A less confusing set of Books would also have helped. Or, I can look at the world as it is -- and conclude that this is how things would be, if God had nothing to do with it. If lots of people, over lots of time had written the Bible -- this is exactly the end result I would expect. So, maybe Dan has a point. God did not author Scripture. Alright. That was mean of me. I'm not in a charitable mood.

In fairness, it's only an association at this point. Not a causal relationship. Much like the early research, linking smoking and lung cancer. Still, it has to start somewhere. The topic has drifted. Still, let us remember that this thread began, as an attack against Agnostics.

In fairness, it's only an association at this point. Not a causal relationship. Much like the early research, linking smoking and lung cancer. Still, it has to start somewhere.

I won't be competing for the honor.

Alright, Dan. You want evidence? Be careful what you ask for. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2019/01/14/scientists-have-established-a-link-between-brain-damage-and-religious-fundamentalism-among-vietnam-vets/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=44

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2019/01/14/scientists-have-established-a-link-between-brain-damage-and-religious-fundamentalism-among-vietnam-vets/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=44

In every generation, there are skeptics who have standards for truth -- and the gullible hordes, who will believe anything. Also sensation mongers, gossips, frauds and humbugs, who will spread anything as being true. All the worse with religious movements and political parties. There are gurus and holy men, in India today, who are alleged to do all the miracles found in the Gospels. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was actually convicted, by the Courts of his day, of Criminal fraud. Some things don't change. It is not enough to have an ancient manuscript. It should still be fact checked. Unless of course, we are ready to accept any silly story, from any source, today. It is good to be open minded. Not so much that the brain falls out.

Yes. Just so. I lack sainthood.

Aside from the question of originality, is the question of content. Is the content true? In the modern world, we don't accept everything as true, just because it is printed. Likewise, the ancient world is full of manuscripts, that have no true content. How sad and suspicious, that God needed Human scribes. The mind that spoke all of existence into being -- needed help publishing The Books. How odd that the same God, needed the help of Humans, to create The Temple. It seems that the God who created trees and cats and all other wonders -- can't make anything that people can make. It's almost as though God had nothing to do with any of it. Or are we dealing with a trickster God -- who pretended to have nothing to do with anything? To test our Faith? Interesting thought. That means that Humanity has been set up, to be vulnerable to every con artist and swindler -- to the end of time. Since we can't trust evidence or reason. Only Faith. What kind of God makes gullibility our most treasured feature?

Maybe you're right. Maybe he is playing dumb. On reflection, I think he really is that limited.

You nailed it. Atheism is that simple. Due to inadequate evidence, belief in God is not justified. Pending further information. Nothing to do with any other issue. Not a system of thought, ethics, philosophy or anything else. Not a source of alternative answers. There are some standard arguing points, that believers insist on bringing up. "If there's no God, where did we come from?" I refuse to argue about evolution theory. The simple answer is -- I don't know. "If there's no God, where did everything come from?" I refuse to argue Cosmology. The simple answer is -- I don't know. While I am inclined to go along with mainstream science in these matters; they have nothing to do with Atheism. As to Dan's understanding: I am convinced that he is incapable of understanding any point of view, except his own -- in any area. To Dan, a person is either all right, or all wrong. Since God speaks through him, he is all right. That leaves me to be all wrong. That means his only answer, is to correct my error. We have been arguing for years. I'm tired of taking his crap -- and I don't have to. In particular, I'm tired of his pronouncements that I'm angry. Or that I hate God. For an Atheist, hating God is like being upset over Dracula. There are a lot of fictional characters that I don't like. None of it involves my hating them.

Sure he can. Dan has decided that he understands Atheism and Atheists. That's all there is to it. He's not about to let facts get in the way of his ideas. You know. Faith. His ideas about Atheism, are part of his belief structure. Think back on what he's told us. He has to have answers for everything. Not right answers. Not true answers. Just answers. Answers that don't change. I'm done with trying to correct him.