Pete

No. I was brought up on it. Now it is just meaningless bronze age set of scripts with mythology and an ugly attitude. I don't read it anymore. Sick of all the mind games and bull. Well that's how I feel.

The last two quotes are very judgemental. They judge because they say someone does not believe. They haven't a clue about my deeds or indeed anyone else's. Pompous bigots.

I keep being told the wonders of nature prove a creature god. They then pick on those things that are amazing about nature but deselect much of what is not amazing and horrible. I call this the happy bunny argument. I say nature does not prove that there is any deity and its chaotic characteristics suggest it was not. Just for fun I give you Monty Python:- All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat, All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all. Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did! All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small, Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all. Amen.

There is so much doubt about religious books and so little actual history or evidence that I doubt all of them. You know what they say. "Beware the man with only one book". That is because the whole cornerstone of what they say relies on one book of mythology. So what is the point of debating further. However, boring that is I am sure you will Dan.

There is no evidence in Jewish history that Jesus existed. It is hard to say whether he did or not. The original Mark's gospel did not say he was resurrected and said the body was not there. They had to add a bit extra to include a resurrection. Then the synoptic gospels copied and elaborated on that one. There are people going around who think Robin hood and vampires existed but they were invented. Just because a 2,000 year old book says something that doesn't make it credible history or evidence. Did Jesus exist I don't know. Did he do the things told about him and again I don't know So why you think quoting this book enlarges on the debate, again I don't know. Strange you want to debate religion in a no religion section, but I am sure you will 😴😴😴. Our very own religious spin doctor.

It foretold squat. The gospels were choreographed to fit the OT because some wanted to make Jesus the Messiah. They bent many OT meanings to do so. The longer it went on the greater the claims. It is mythology and not evidence.

I mean, Jonathan, why the insistence that you have to believe if it was actually seen as self evident that a god had been revealed

The bible is not evidence. It is bronze age mythology Dan. You may believe something , but that is not evidence either. Your quotes are just pointless. God is not revealed because it was a differing time with differing beliefs that do not hold up as evidence today. In the past many saw mythology as fact. I don't see any evidence for a god because it is likely that it was not evidence back then unless you believed in that mythology.

Yet, in many films the devil appears in many forms. Because there is no recognizable evidence other than culture I guess that gives people artistic license. As there is no recognizable evidence other than culture then I am sure there is artistic license. Yet, artistic license is not evidence of an accurate description, so for me, until there are qualities to truly discuss then I suspend the knowing about a god or its qualities.

My position is how can we talk about the nature of a god when one has not established that there is one. Does Santa Claus really wear red and white or the older traditions of browns and greens?

That to me is a contradiction. To say god is unknowable is to put a qualification on something you don't even know exists or see any evidence for. Okay to say there is similarities to saying you have no evidence for a god and therefore that god is unknowable but that to me is like me saying that there is possibly creatures on the moon sipping tea at the moment but you cannot see them. Most accept the qualification that if something has no qualities then they don't exist and it is up to the believer to prove otherwise. Which I have not seen anyone do.

I am not sure of the definition of agnostics not knowing what to do with the information. For me I just don't see any of the religious beliefs as information or accessible In any conclusive evident form. For me there is no credible evidence and I therefore suspend my knowing to when I can see credible evidence. That maybe never and I am happy with that. One thing for sure for me is I don't feel obligated to anyone's idea of an unproven god. I may respect people have these beliefs but that is no onus for me to share them. In short, whatever rocks your boat, but until you can prove anything, don't come to me. I hope you all understand me. I am directing my comments at no one, but possibly Dan.

In fact God is not revealed full stop. If people have never heard of your religion they often invent another god or no god at all. That is because your god is not evident or revealed. Man kind has evolved to know that they eventually die. So they create myth to calm their fears of this. None of these myths are provable or evident. It is just a stop gap to them to balancing meaning in their life and the fact that they die. Jung called this process individuation. It is just a mental process. It has no place in scientific thought because you cannot prove the god, the spirit or indeed any life after death. All stories about the god are human inventions. So yes as Jonathan said it is more scientific to say you don't know than fill the gap with myth and psycho babble.

I also note Dan that you say that agnostics and atheists don't believe in nothing. If that was true science would be back in the dark ages. We believe what we see as evidence and as there is no evidence that you can produce other than your bronze age book then it is reasonable not to believe it. That said, both atheists and agnostics believe in life and caring for people along the way. We just don't ram religious dogma down their throats as we do it. If you can help someone then we believe that is the human thing to do. We don't need religious books to tell us what we should do.

Science theories start with demonstrable evidence and are built of further empirical study. All theories and understanding can change with further evidence. That is science. The bible is a bronze age book with nothing more than it's self to justify its nonsense. That is why religion is not science. It does does not change no matter what the evidence against it. It's a bit like other books like the Koran and the book of Morman in this.

Dan your reply shows you don't understand the big bang theory. You don't understand what an agnostic is. You would rather believe a fantasy than evidence. You know nothing of science. You just think there is your thought and imagination ( limited though it is) and all else is hate for your imaginary God. The fact you don't have one shred of demonstrable evidence does not even bother you. This is why your seen as an irritation than a credible debater and yes science can show evidence of the big bang and the building atomic bricks that created it by using the collider. You have not a shred of demonstrable evidence for your assumed God or your fantasy beliefs. It is not hate of your imagined God but a dismissal of the premise of believing in the assumption for which there is no evidence. 🙄🤪😴

Here you go with assumptions again. You have not dispelled anything. Prove to me that there is life after death, that there is a spirit, and that there is a God. I don't see the bible as a proof of anything. Can you provide demonstrable proof? No you can't and therefore your gun argument holds no more respect than me saying aliens will come and take you away to the planet teapot tonight. You won't believe that and I don't see anyone with a gun. I find it just a baseless proposition. In other words nonsense.

Got you now.

I am doubtful of the science and the history. I think that is giving it too much credit. I do not think many secular scientists or historians will find much there except psychologists and sociologists and anthropologists.

Dan talks of the body dying but the spirit lives on. That is assumption. God, Salvation, Heaven, Hell and even whether there is a Spirit is a belief but again there is no proof of any of these things. Even the resurrection of Jesus is a belief with no evidence other than your bronze age book of collected books which itself has no proof it is true or fact. You cannot justify an assumption by quoting another assumption. That is not a logical progressive argument. It is fantasy.

This is also the reason they want access to children. They know they are more impressionable and just learning about things. Filling their minds full of fears of damnation and fear and nonsense is basically psychologically child abuse (imo).

One trouble fundies make is these threats are from what they believe. The issue with that is they have no proof of what they are saying or actually know all this for definite. It's a belief from a bronze age book of fiction and superstition (imo). And no I do not feel threatened by them, just irritation.

Once brain cells die, they are dead. After 4 minutes of deprived oxygen brain cells die. This can be lengthened in cold temperatures but not indefinitely. Long term cold starts to form ice lumps and that destroys brain cells too. Under normal conditions no brain that has died has been resurrected. Is there a spirit - that again has little evidence but as Jonathan said "maybe " but where is the demonstratable evidence.

Bhuddism was also atheist based and believed in an after life.. Atheism has nothing to do beliefs about past and present or future it has to only to do with whether there is a God or not. As to your other point Jonathan, I agree preachers still use threats but they are baseless threats. Created by a bygone century in a corrupt religious organisation.