cuchulain

Yeah...I love zen. Which is also a contradiction.

awareness of zen seems almost to be a contradiction to me Maybe not, though.

The necessities of life are independent of what we think about life.

That makes sense. People have grown up with social conventions, things like saying please and thank you. The computer distances us from each other, and the consequences of failing to deliver on those simple conventions. I could in theory speak to anyone on this forum the way I chose, within the limits the mods set, and be very insulting. If I speak to someone in person in such a manner, the only mod available is police intervention, and if they aren't around...or the other person thinks it's worth it, they may moderate my speaking for me.

I relate religion and logic like this: Say you have no working understanding of higher mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry...say you walk into a class room for physics and there is a complex equation on the board. Being a physics equation, it has notations in higher mathematics, which you don't understand. Now, religion takes what is on the board and uses it as evidence for the existence of God having created everything. Logic takes what is on the board and says I cannot explain that at present.

It seems a rarity to me for other people to understand that the gospel simply fails for me. Is it such an aberration of modern psychology that a person can think logically about what they have been taught in the past, and reject what so many other people accept? Is Atheism in such a category that it is considered deviant still? My 18 year old son relates. A classmate of his went to school in an Atheist t shirt. All it said was Atheist, nothing on it other than that. 8 football players waited after school in an attempt to corner him. I am certain they had good intentions, being such fine upstanding Christian souls. Or as Dan would say...they aren't REALLY Christian, since they were planning something bad.

In reference to my wanting to believe. I do not want to believe in any old God, any old religion. I use what I know to compare with what I believe to be the truth. When the Christian book in particular is touted as the only truth and as infallible, I cannot reconcile. It is not a predetermined bias against the religion. I was brought up as Christian as a child. Childhood indoctrination has a tendency to stick, if you will reference modern psychology again. I fall into the category of wanting to believe something, of having used to believe something, and still rejecting the message on the basis that it fails.

One individual, or even a small percentage of the population, got something negative from the beetles. What percentage have done so based upon Christian doctrine? There is a significant difference, I think, when the numbers increase that dramatically.

Keep the old law. Christ said that. Keep it until all has been fulfilled. It hasn't. The old law is evil in many places. But of course, evil is a value judgment that we place on it which you reject.

Modern psychology suggests that if you already reject a position, sound arguments supporting it will seem full of errors to you. Also that if you already accept a position, error-filled arguments supporting it will seem sound to you. This would mean that when things seem wrong to us it might simply be because we dont want them to be true and, further, that we are ill-equipped to know when this is the case... modern psychology would also suggest that if a person wants to believe something they will find a way to do so. I want to believe in an afterlife, God, etc...I simply cannot find a way to do so that meshes logically.

You know not much about me. I would love to be able to believe that book. I just look at it and can't. It isn't that I reject the message. It's that it's fraught with error. It's clearly not infallible, despite religious claims. Killing without cause the innocent. Like...those kids...that God killed...because their friend called his prophet bald?

The book is infallible but the reader isn't. How about that. God made us both, right? And he made one part to deliver a message to us that he wants us to understand? Then why did he go about it so stupidly? Probably the answer you don't want to hear, Dan. He doesn't exist, he didn't write or inspire the book, it was really written by a bunch of superstitious middle easterners with a slant against women. And homosexuality issues. And really a lot of issues with anything that goes on in the bedroom, for that matter. Don't murder, but if it's in God's name it isn't murder. That's redefining to suit your purposes. It isn't killing if it's justified? Well, most killers probably feel justified. I think it's cherry picking, at best. The book is clearly delusional. It has many atrocities, as well as some few good points. So people say the good outweighs the bad. Well, a child molester might have some good points too, but that doesn't outweigh the bad for certain.

what makes the interpretation LESS trustworthy than another? If there are two options, and both seem viable, then the book is not being clear, is it? No...that couldn't be it...it's infallible. Now the next line of the debate from the Christian side: The book IS infallible, the person interpreting it isn't. My response? For the book to be infallible, it must not be misinterpretable. If it can be misinterpreted then it isn't doing it's job 100%(infallible). Some more spin...a little twist on some piece of the bible is referenced...it's called into question with another piece, probably someone uses something old testament, to which we argue a different old testament quote that contradicts it, and the Christian response becomes: that's the old testament...to which point we are back at the beginning, since that's circular reasoning mixed in with biased reasoning(cherry picking). Maybe someone claims that only PARTS of the old testament are still in effect...but then, how to define which parts? ughhh.... Barbarities within the bible? How about God killing 41 innocent kids because one kid in that village(who was also killed) called someone bald? But no...The argument then becomes nothing God does can be immoral and we just aren't capable of understanding it. So...ultimately my response is this: If we aren't capable of understanding it, then why continue trying to get us to understand it?

sometimes I think this is the truth. Then other times I think some people are victims of brainwashing. When a person grows up in a culture so inundated with such beliefs that are immoral, they do not realize they are immoral. A lot of people are sheep, and are unwilling to examine their beliefs, at least in any sort of meaningful manner. Such is my personal opinion, of course. I tend to view such victims with sympathy when I encounter them. They are so full of hate towards something that they cannot stop to see their beliefs are encouraging hate.

I must ask Dan. You say those who follow Jesus are true Christians. What about those who follow the words and teachings of Jesus...but not the rest of the bible? Care to cite the specific words of Jesus that condemn homosexuality? That is, if he isn't referencing a part of the rest of the book? Because, if he is referencing the rest of the book, saying we should follow the entire book...then all those bad parts that are brushed away by saying we should follow Jesus are NOT eliminated. If we toss the rest of the book...then why is it all still compiled in one document? If only the teachings of Christ matter, why have the rest?

There was a tree in our yard that was split in half and mostly rotten...every year it still produced an apple on that one branch that remained in tact.

I don't say we should attack the person, but the beliefs. If a person has a strong belief that the truth is important, let's say, shouldn't they put the truth as they see it forward? Especially when someone starts a topic that they disagree with? As I said, I respect Dan but I do not respect his beliefs. I was simply using that as an example, by the way Not trying to pick on Dan at this time in particular. Let's switch it to Brother Kaman. I disagree that reality is subjective. Maybe it's the term attack that is loaded. What I mean may be something different? I don't mean bash, disparage, etc...I mean point by point debating. Is there something wrong with telling a person who believes magic fairies created the world with special pixie dust that they are wrong, if you believe they are wrong, and why they are wrong? Mark45, I agree. I have seen threads shut down for far less than Gnostic Bishop has done. I don't agree with his personally attacking others, but I don't find fault in his attack of their beliefs. Attacking ideas, it isn't easy in some ways, and in others it's as simple as stating what you believe and that being in opposition of someone else's beliefs. I think some of it might boil down to intent, as well. If I disagree with Brother Kaman above, and I legitimately care about what I perceive to be the truth, then I might simply be holding it in my duty to reveal to him what I perceive as the truth. Or take the example of Dan. He tells us what he believes and why he thinks we are wrong, and I don't believe he does such out of spite but rather out of wanting us to accept the truth as he sees it, because it has real consequences in his ideology and he is trying to spare us those consequences. Anyway, I appreciate the comments. Keep em coming.

Why is the truth often perceived as politically incorrect? In terms of this topic, the truth is as I see it, or as you see it. Not worrying about how others see it. If you are Christian, like Dan, why should speaking his truth be viewed as disrespectful? If he says he believes I am going to hell because he honestly believes I am going to hell...why should I be offended by that? He is not being disrespectful to me, he is not respecting my lack of belief in God. Why should I require him to respect that I do not believe in God, if he believes in God and thinks he knows the truth? On the same note...if I call his religion a myth because I honestly believe it is a myth, why should he take offense? It is not an attack on Dan, just like it isn't disrespectful to me that he believes I am wrong. It is an attack on his opinion that he believes to be true. Gnostic Bishop is often seen as disrespectful. The thing is, he usually attacks people's beliefs. Why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to tell someone when you think they are wrong? I don't think it is disrespectful to the person in question, merely to the opinion they hold as truth. Sure, there are all sorts of reasons why people might get upset that you question their beliefs. But it really boils down to respecting the right to hold their position. I believe, truthfully, that Dan has a right to believe in God. I believe, truthfully, that I have a right to not believe. I don't see that as being hostile, attacking, or anything else. I think I am telling the truth as I see it, and that should not be seen as being wrong. Now, when someone attacks another person because of their beliefs, that might be crossing the line. But attacking the belief? Why is that wrong?

If God inspired such a work, and you consider it a success...then he doesn't love us all equally. He failed to equip those of us of the skeptical nature with the tools to accept a book which comes across(to me and other skeptics) as incomplete fiction. You have a burden of proof to show that your book is accurate, which you claim.

You are redefining proof now. The writings of those who witnessed it...I hope you aren't referring to Tacitus, the only contemporary writer outside the bible to be shown? Because...those were acknowledged by the church to be fraudulent. And if you are referencing the books included within the bible, as you said...the bible is proof of the bible, which is completely circular. I am sure you are aware of that, and are taking it on faith. I can acknowledge that, if you can acknowledge that I do not take it on faith. However, other contemporary writings, that is...books that were NOT included in the bible, disagree with the books in the bible on several points. Which becomes a problem for your argument. True, any past event can be questioned. This is along the lines of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. A book claiming that it is a true account is not sufficient proof for me to believe that it actually is a true account. After all, the National Enquirer claims the same, and I am sure you don't accept the claims presented within as true in all circumstances. The claim against Trump about molestation against women, for instance. There is circumstantial evidence, but no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in lay terms. Did you know that in the state of Illinois, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such a case is legally defined as the jury believing the testimony? Take a second and think that one through...there yet? Any female on the street that walks by you could call the cops, claim you flashed her, and you could be convicted strictly on her testimony alone, and that qualifies as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No, we don't know 100% for certain if Trump molested women or not, but he talks about it in a recording. A person could reasonably argue either way. In terms of the bible, this is supposed to be a book written or inspired at least, by God. Perfect beings should be very much more capable in their writings(as Jonathan pointed out above). The fact that the veracity of the bible is debatable becomes proof against the bible's infallibility. And as Pete said, there are specifics in the bible which have indeed been found to be inaccurate. But beyond all that...you still have burden of proof. Prove up that the bible is infallible, with something other than the bible(since that is circular, it shouldn't be usable). Or take the honorable path...the truth. Admit that you accept the bible fully on faith, that it is NOT a work of history, simply one of faith. There is nothing wrong with that for you, but I choose not to accept it in such a manner. Then we simply disagree for different reasons.

Dan, you have redefined history to meet YOUR parameters, I think. See, I don't view the bible as an actual, historical account. Neither do many atheists that I know personally, and I have never spoken with an atheist that views it as history. And as Jonathan alluded to...the burden of proof is not on us to show that the exodus did not happen, it is on the claimant(you) to show that it actually did. If you feel otherwise, I would like you to submit proof that Satan wasn't really pulling God's strings the whole time and that Satan isn't the author of the bible through God instead...of course, it's silly to ask for such proof, because you cannot prove that it didn't happen that way, can you?

The Gettysburg address was much more documented, and by contemporary writers. It needs no revision to be accurate, and the author certainly didn't claim omniscience.

History books do not claim infallibility, nor does the man who gets married knowing some women cheat. Nor do they claim omniscience. Not omnipotence. See, there's the difference you are lacking in all these analogies, Dan. It is claimed that God has the ability and simply chooses not to use it. It is never claimed, for example, that I as a father am all powerful and all knowing, especially when trying to raise my kids. No history book claims perfection that I am aware of, yet the bible makes such a claim and(for me) falls short.

Quite right, I stand corrected. God cannot exist as posited...that is, all knowing, all powerful, and all good at the same time. I should have been more specific, sometimes I fail at that.

God knew when he created Satan that Satan would choose to sin, and choose to lead mankind to sin. Thus, God knew as a direct result of his creation that Satan and Man would have the flaw of sin as a direct result. You use this as evidence of free will independent of God, I use it as evidence that we have free will because God does not exist. God cannot exist and be free from Sin if he created circumstances that he knew would lead to sin.