Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Splarnst · 11-14-2012, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

jesus was a catholic, how can catholicism be a lie?

Several options:
(1) Jesus didn't exist at all.
(2) Jesus did exist, but he was not a Catholic.
(3) Jesus did exist, but he was not divine.
(4) We don't understand what a divine Jesus said.
(5) Divine Jesus intentionally mislead us for reasons we cannot understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

yhwh was also a catholic.

:wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

catholics believe that pope john paul is their intermediary before god.

Did you write this post more than seven years ago?

WVIncagold · 11-14-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

[
That's the question for the author of the 'blackboard' message in #6 (perhaps after he's humbly corrected his English).

No that is the question I am asking you to answer.

Quote:

In either case, the author apparently believes in the supernatural. Which is very counter-productive, surely. To say nothing of the self-contradiction. It's not the sort of thing that is fit to be read in this forum. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Actually the author find the supernatural to be as vapid stupid as most atheist do. There is no self contradiction, Is Jesus a Zombie or a God? And just because you cannot seam to answer the question does not make it unfit, nice try to suppress a question you obviously have trouble answering.

Quote:

Here is a brief statement that covers the same ground, but reflects the content of the Bible, presented objectively; imv. If any wish to dispute any of it, of course there is opportunity.

Oh goody objective rationalization how long will it take to go off the rails?

Quote:

Christianity: the belief that supernal deity

6 words and we are already off the rails of objectivity.

Quote:

temporarily became a man in order to make it possible for humanity to live forever. Those who appropriate this life are those who, out of gratitude, live for that deity, a process they describe as 'eating his body'. They are grateful for the clearing of conscience achieved by atonement, bad conscience being otherwise the permanent possession of all people, represented by the Adam and Eve allegory.

So Jesus was a god? So he did not make any sacrifice. Even if he assumed human form he would still be that supernatural entity. So he took a nap for three days and no sacrifice. All the rest of your expressed magic thinking is also not objective.

Quote:

They believe that this deity witnesses all human thoughts as well as actions, and nothing can be hid from him.

Right so he is a god. No sacrifice. Christianity is a lie,based on a fraud perpetrated by a lesser god.

Quote:

All of this the author of the message probably knew, with much pain, as we know from the obvious misrepresentation.

There is no representation that was false. If jesus was a man and arose through magical means then he is a zombie. However you have chosen the he is a god and therefore rendered your belief rather unremarkable. When Odin crucified himself he also released himself and then was able to get immediately back to doing god stuff and did not need to take a nap for three days.

Quote:

He or she is not alone, evidently.

Ahh I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning.

Perspicuo · 11-14-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Because secularists privilege their beliefs on the public square, they often don’t understand the deep offensiveness of their ridicule of religious belief.

Well in fact we do. We know that certain people will think, and others, who choose not to, will feel offended.

We do? How do we know this? Or is it merely hoped that people will be offended?

Quote:

The implication is simple, straightforward, immediate. The idea is absurd. But instead of doing the reasonable thing, which is admit it is absurd, the person feels the pain of ridicule... but nothing happens, from the cognitive standpoint. Only affect.

Exactly who is dreaming, here? The heavily loaded language of the definition is enough to convince anyone that its author believes in Christ, and finds that belief a great irritation.

Let's analyse it. Just four words let the reader know he's wasting his time reading further.

'some cosmic Jewish Zombie'

First, 'some'. Pejorative, without justification. Suicidal, already! 'Some cosmic Jewish Zombie'; like you meet them every day. It's not like, 'some rowdy drunk kept us awake'. The claim is for a unique agent. Just perverse and childish, this.

Next, 'cosmic'. Circularity, here. The supernatural is irrationally bellowed out of existence by people terrified of it!

'Jewish'. Is there something wrong with being Jewish? Is there anti-Semitism here? :constern01:

'Zombie'. Note the capitalisation, that demonstrates the mendacity of the author, who needs to bolster his false argument with a capital. But note that he/she is cheating. If the person described is a zombie, he cannot be cosmic. And if cosmic, cannot be a zombie.

It's so pathetic that you are not surprised by 'telepathic' and the fundie lunacy that follows.

Some people shoot themselves in the foot. Others have a higher aim.

:huh:

Pretty much the sort of thoughtless affective reflex I was referring to. Thank you for the colorful illustration.

What else can be said?

Thank you for the conspicuous white flag.

White flag indeed. One can't give rebuttals to non-thoughts.

There's no need to respond to non-thoughts, is there. But you responded, meaning that the thoughts were genuine. And you responded irrationally, with low insult and not a shred of evidence for your opinion, indicating that the thoughts were genuine and apposite. If that is all we can do, we have nothing to contribute here; except reluctant conviction that Jesus exists, which is of limited value, and is not a substrate for sensible discussion. As with the author of that believer with the blackboard. That he believes in Jesus is not usable evidence that Jesus existed.

What is of interest here is not what Thompson said, but the fact that he said it, and its context; that would seem very strange to UK citizens, were it to be reported in the UK. It's disappointing that the usual knee-jerk, supposedly atheist reactions were set off here in lieu of sensible discussion.

Sensible discussion? My friend, sensible discussion does not emerge by spontaneous generation. If you only tried to be sensible, but you don't even try.

Take this gem:

Quote:

'Zombie'. Note the capitalisation, that demonstrates the mendacity of the author, who needs to bolster his false argument with a capital.

It's too stupid to rebut. It cannot have a rebuttal. You derive a conclusion because someone spelled zombie with a capital letter. Zombie is capitalized and suddenly that makes the writer a liar. Gee fuckin' whiz.

And the rest of the post revolves approximately around the same level of vacuousness. Why don't you actually begin sensible discussion some time? I bet you could if you wanted to.

Your strategy is basically writing the most inane thing imaginable and then challenging people to answer. Why should I go down to the mud and rebut a long string of thoughtless babble so elementarily wrong? I've already wasted my time enough. You are a waste of time. Everyone's time. Some here choose to play around. But it's their choice.

sotto voce · 11-14-2012, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

someone spelled zombie with a capital letter.

Note, dear reader, that the content that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the capital was no solecism is completely ignored.

But let's suppose that this is actually a weird ignorance on the part of the blackboard poster. Perhaps Perspicuo is preparing a comprehensive rebuttal, that will silence any doubting posters, of all of that evidence that shows complete inability to approach Christianity without hormonal reaction. But perhaps not. If you are naive or careless enough to post material from an incompetent, Perspicuo, expect it to get short shrift. We were not born yesterday.

Snakes don't really talk, either. Except in Alabama, of course.

But at least we at last got a relevant comment out of you!! Just a shame it was garbage, eh. Now how about dealing with the rest? Or would that be disastrous, too?

Quote:

I've already wasted my time enough.

Oh, you won't be dealing with the rest. We may suppose that it would be disastrous, too, if you did.

You have indeed wasted your time. Everyone's time.

sotto voce · 11-14-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splarnst

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Why are those claims incoherent and contradictory, and why do they lack sufficient evidence?

Well, some of its incoherent aspects: non-physical mental phenomena, contra-causal free will, ability of omnimax deity to suffer, ability of omnimax to desire anything. Some of its contradictory aspects: God's omniscience vs. our free well, God's desire for our happiness vs. eternal hell, expectation that fallible human can recognize infallible authority, myriad biblical contradictions. And I don't know how to document lack of sufficient evidence other than to say that everything offered for, say, the resurrection falls short by a mile.

Here's the missing bit you started with:

'Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims.'

But Christianity isn't, as Thompson knows. So why are you now attempting to refute the non-objective claims of Christianity? :constern01:

MrMacSon · 11-14-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

jesus was a catholic, how can catholicism be a lie? yhwh was also a catholic.

both jesus and yhwh believed that mary was thier mother and daughter
jesus believed that yhwh required blood and flesh as an intermediary between himself (yhwh) and humanity

Nobody knows what 'jesus' believed - nobody know if the jesus of the gospels was a single person, or whether that character is partially or mostly a fictional one, or not.

Quote:

catholics believe that pope john paul is their intermediary before god.

there are too many things in common. yhwh uses his deeds in human flesh to make himself happy and catholics use the deeds of pope john to make yhwh happy

How can one know these things really happen, other than proposing them?
.

Splarnst · 11-14-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Here's the missing bit you started with:

'Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims.'

But Christianity isn't, as Thompson knows. So why are you now attempting to refute the non-objective claims of Christianity? :constern01:

Christianity does make objective claims: God exists. God created the universe. Jesus existed. Jesus is God. Jesus performed miracles. Jesus was raised from the dead. Etc. None of that is subjective; it doesn't rely on any subjective experience.

You're not reading what I'm writing and you're misconstruing what I'm saying. OK, I'm done. I think I'd have more luck talking with a fern.

TedM · 11-14-2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

the belief that supernal deity temporarily became a man in order to make it possible for humanity to live forever.

your diety , like pagan gods, had to hide behind flesh to do deeds?

My wonder is why he/she/it--without gonads I doubt that gods can be gender specific--would have bothered with all this flesh stuff at all. Obviously unbecoming for any self-respectful deity.

If you're going to create something, why not something more to your level, rather than all this fleshy stuff that at best can only grovel before you? It might be fine for a few thousand years, but it's going to get awfully boring awfully quickly. What are you going to do on those long eternal nights for intellectual stimulation? Watch reruns of WWII? Just a bunch of bellicose ants on a lump of dirt circling an insignificant point of light on a spiral arm of one of the myriad of galaxies in your creation. That's as stimulating as contemplating the action of the motile cilia in one of the cells in your trachea for entertainment. Not that gods need, or even have, trachea. It's that for something that can create a universe humanity with all its inanities is so small time. Stupid, stupid creatures. Why bother? I'm sure a little divine mitosis would have brought a more fruitful result... without all the mess.

So many assumptions. Who is man to question God? Now, I've done that probably more than most, but as I get older I question the wisdom in doing so..

Toto · 11-14-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....

So many assumptions. Who is man to question God?

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Thomas Jefferson

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...eff101717.html

TedM · 11-14-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....

So many assumptions. Who is man to question God?

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Thomas Jefferson

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...eff101717.html

Question his existence? Ok. But judge him? On what basis? We don't really know much in comparison to someone able to create us. "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" If he exists, who can dispute that without simply sounding like a fool?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.