Reason To be athiest?

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Of course you do, just in this post, you did it again.

...

But to make matters worse, many theists don't seem to care about that, and instead pressure the other party and accuse them of lowly intentions and mental and moral deficiency.

Nonsense.
You don't listen, and you infer, and go off on tangents. I've called you on it, but you ignore it and carry on regardless.

Is this an example of me refusing to give clarifiction?
If you think it is, then I think you should point it out.

As far as I'm concerned this is an acurate descritpion of your character from our past communications.

It's called "teaching by example" or "modeling; being a role model."

Why should I be an example or role model to anyone?
You're the one who makes these imaginary attachments to a person who simply believes in God.
And further more, upon the revelation that such attachments don't occurr because one may believe, you
still go on and on about it. That's why I say ''it's all in head'' and ''you don't listen''.

Yes.

More imaginary attachments.
Why don't you save these inputs for someone who agrees with you, because you're getting no joy in bringing
it up, to me?

You are jumping to conclusions again.

No I'm not. You kill a discussion by creating imaginary attachments to the term 'theist', thereby dictating
what a theist should be, I end up spending time creating posts, explaining (as a theist) that's not how it goes.
We go back and forth on the same old nonsense just wasting time. You do it all the time.

And yet your manner of communication continues to prove our assumption.

Did you comprehend what I said?
Can't you respond to that rather than go off on a different tangent.

You mean I refuse to simply subject myself to your judgments of me?
You mean I refuse to simply introject the things you project onto and into me?

:wallbang:

So you are actually ready to believe that people are simply lying, pretending and denying when they say they can't relate to something you've said?

Another of example of how misquoteing is dangerous.
I know that people will pretend to be unaware of something. Are they ''liars'', I don't know. Is a good poker player
a liar, or does he creating false scenarios to give a certain impression which may be favourable to him? You decide.

Then accept, deny, or wait till the answer becomes clear.

No, that won't do:

because the whole communication on theistic topics depends on one's stance toward this assumption, and one cannot but make it one way or another.

No it doesn't. Again you're making assumptions based on what's in your head.
A theist simply believes in God, there's nothing more. No angels, harps, special powers, tickets to goody-two-shoes land, nothing.

I keep telling you that I think that you do not care about the people you are actually talking to.

Whether or not I care isn't the issue. I like to discuss these types of subects, I happen to believe in God. Why do you think I have to care about you or anyone else I talk to in these forums?

You have a completely different conversation going on than they. You are not actually talking to them. You repeatedly ignore and dismiss, and also ridicule their fears and concerns.
(This is actually typical for theists in general - they tend to have a monologue.)

Even if that was true, it works both ways.

But since you are the one talking about "God," thus you are the one coming across as knowing better, the greater onus is on you.

We're all talking about God, sweetheart, that's what's so brilliant.
When somebody declares that ''God does not exist'', or ''God is meaningless'', or ''God is evil'', or ''God is a ficticious character'', and all the other things people say, isn't the onus on them? Don't you think there position is one of ''knowing better''?

I am expressing my concerns. Which you repeatedly ignore and dismiss. As if I don't matter.

You are the one who carries on regardless.

You express them, I explain to you I'm not Jesus Christ, or even close, but you still insist on all this ''theists are supposed to be this and that. LEAVE IT OUT! I'm a normal guy who believes in God, as opposed to a normal guy who doesn't. I come on here to talk about God from the perspective of these forums. If peeps are talking about evolution providing evidence of no God, or God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and other such topics, I'm interested and want to put my two cents in. THAT'S ALL.

To have a meaningful communication: ie. where you feel you are understood, and where the other party feels you understand them, and where you both care about understanding eachother and being understood.

The person/people in question understand me alright, they just don't like what I'm saying.
Maybe if I came across as a christian evangelist, they would feel more comfortable, even though it's
potentially more aggressive than my actual input.

For one, most people have fears and concerns anyway, so this is something to always consider.

For two, people also often state their fears and concerns.
Which, however, you often simply write off as "tangents" and "distractions" and such.

I write off ''tangents and distraction'', not fears and concerns.
You've shown that you only loosely understand what I say, and you inferr the rest, then you stick to
that, and I have to spend time going and explaining what I meant, only to realise my explanations don't
mean anything to you

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Evidence isn't the key issue here, because there is no way of objectively knowing (through the senses) whether or not a transcendental, Supreme Being exists. By stating that one has to physically show God, lest God does not exist, is jiggery-pokery.

If an interventionist God exists, then we should see the effects of his actions in the world. If God answered prayers, for example, then we'd see statistical evidence of that when we go looking for it. And yet, whenever such things have been tested, no effect larger than chance has ever shown up.

Well, you might reply, maybe God works in such a subtle way that his actions are indistinguishable from living in a world where there is no God at all. If so, what difference does it make to anybody whether God exists or not?

Secondly, the job of modern scientists is to understand the physical world, not God, or spirituality.

Scientists are, in the end, truthseekers. They follow where the evidence leads. So far, God has not proven to be a necessary hypothesis to explain the natural world.

Oh, and there's no evidence of a supernatural world, either. Or, at least, not one that has any effects on the real world.

It may be possible to conclude that the earth is round, especially now. But one could have been forgiven for thinking that the earth was flat, before technology was able to clarify, or if they'd never studied the Bhagavat Purana.

Yes, and one could be forgiven for thinking there is a God, too.

Lots of wrong thinking is understandable and forgivable.

Why would you ''believe in Venus'' in the first place?

We're talking about the question of existence and non-existence here. Don't tell me you don't have a belief either way about the existence of the planet Venus, Jan. You've already told me you believe in fairies in your garden, so is Venus really a big stretch?

People don't believe in God, because they read it in a book, although that may confirm notions.
Most people believe in God because they instinctively know they are connected to something,
more that the sum total of their physical body.

I agree that feeling that one is connected to something larger than oneself and ascribing the properties of a personal being to that feeling may very well be a common human trait. But it's a big step from that to claiming that your imaginary friends are real.

I hear what you're saying, but you're treating this ''belief in God'' on the same level as believing in happy endings, fairies at the bottom of the garden. I'd go as far as to say you've been conditioned to think like that, because you don't seem able to get away from that mindset. If God exists, then we have a connection to Him.

How is belief in God different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden? Is it that "feeling of connectedness" thing again? Some people feel they are connected to Intergalactic Warlord Xenu. Some people feel a connectedness to trees and forest spirits. Some people feel connected to their dead ancestors. Are all of these the same "God", according to you? Is any feeling of connection evidence of God for you?

How do you know this connectedness of yours is not a trick of your own mind?

Turning to my "conditioning", it is interesting that you assume that I have somehow been indoctrinated into atheism - especially when I have told you that I arrived there via a process of reasoning. Are you questioning my ability to think for myself? Do you think that all atheists have fallen under an evil spell cast by Richard Dawkins or somebody similar? Or is it more general than that? Is it the scientific mindset that is the problem? All scientific training is bad, because it blinds us to our "connection" with God?

And what if I don't feel the connection you speak of? What if I told you I used to feel it, just the same as you do, but then I realised that it was an illusion? Am I deceiving myself? Or could it be that you are deceiving yourself?

What are you basing the standard of evidence on, science?
The science dictated by modern atheism? It's little wonder you see no convincing evidence, and I doubt you ever will, while under it's totalitarien spell.

This is interesting. Do you think that Science is political and religious? Who is the dictator pulling the strings to indoctrinate the atheist scientists? How, exactly, does "modern atheism" dictate anything about Science?

I can see why you don't believe in God, and I can see how you validate that position.

Yes, and I can see why you do believe in God and how you validate that position.

For me belief in God is something that one awakens within themselves, not something one learns about.
Those, like alot of former theists, never actually awakened that side to their humanity, and their belief was superficial.

Interesting, again.

Do you really believe that anybody who has believed in God and then become an atheist didn't really have a true or deep belief in the first place? What of the hundreds of former priests or other religious leaders who have become atheists? When they were "called" to the service of God, was that superficial and not a "true" call?

How do you tell the difference between a "true" connection to God and a "superficial" one, Jan? Is it that the "true" one is the one you have, and the belief that other people have is the superficial one - especially if they don't believe the same things you do? Remind me who the totalitarians are again, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

Not just atheism, but knowledge in general. A pov that's consistent with the body of human understanding about the world is being attempted by schooling, don't you think?

Knowledge doesn't dictate, people do.
I believe ''human understanding'' goes further than what can be gained through school.
I have no problem learning things I don't agree with, because that particular system is geared that way.
But there is another kind of learning, a kind which can never be taught by a schooling system.

The other pov says: unless there's evidence of something, why propose it?

So there is more than one pov. So what?

However, once the evidence exists that wipes out the prevailing superstitions, there needs to be reconciliation.

Wishful thinking by way of degrading religion, and worship of God.

Have you stopped beating next doors 2 year old kid?

It isn't just the evidence of physics involved here, but the evidence of history, literature, culture, and how and why people created gods to explain the phenomena for which they had no science.

People always have science, as long as they're human.
People don't believe in God to explain phenomena.
And it is the evidence of people that is important, and how to discriminate, when God, or anything spiritual is involved, because science doesn't deal with that side of life.

that's examined, the premise for the word "God" and the concept "God", which are tied to the ancient superstitions, becomes understood, within the realm of science, as a proliferation, by tradition, of a cultural fabrication.

The word God, may be a historically new word, and as such could mean anything. But we both know what we're talking about when we use the word.
Why do you call ''religion'' ''superstition?

I wonder if that was conceived at a high elevation. It's hard to imagine that the world is flat when you can see for miles and a slight curvature seems evident. Nevertheless, the Bhagavata don't really supplement science, do they?

Still, why would you think the world was round? If your mind was induced to ponder about the shape of the world
you live in, you could just as easily assume the world was flat with gigantic lump coming offa it.

You're right it isn't a modern science book, and the point of saying the world is a globe, was to explain something spiritual. The shape of the world was merely part of the explanation. IOW it's not really important for the soul to know the shape of the world, but if they want to, there is a body of knowledge dedicated to matter.

Because its visible, and so it can't be denied.

So your idea of ''believing in something'' boils down to whether you can see it or not?
Doesn't that seem a little limited to you?

I don't know how to characterize all believers, but among typical Americans--who are 50% Protestant and 25% Catholic--they would necessarily have a book definition in mind.

I have a book definition in mind, just like if you ask me to define love, I could give you a host of book definitions.
But while I am experiencing in the world, book definitions don't cut it.

I would imagine you see this in England and Western Europe as well. In fact "God" is a word so tightly connected to the majority religious view of the Western World, that I doubt any of them would think you meant anything different, unless you were to qualify your remarks.

Different people say different things at different times, under different circumstances. You can't possibly know what people really thing, as you would have to know everybody. To me, this is the problem with your type of thinking. You pick and choose what is important, what is to detailed, and discard things you deem unimportant, relegating it to polls, and averages.

I think we wonder about the intangible mind, but I'm not sure what the average Western religious believers would have to say about it without the tradition and writing to steer their thinking.

You mean mainstream thinking. What people say when they are trying to say the right thing, and not be ridiculed for something that is out of the mainstream ordinary. It's like when you see someone we may say hello and ask them if they're okay, and usually reply ''yes, and you?'' To which we reply ''yes''. There are different sides to us, and some of those sides are very personal.

To wonder how the mind works can be the end of the line for the atheists. They don't have to tunnel through into the ideation that hinges on a connectedness like you speak of it. One question is: what is the likelihood that that idea would even come up, in a world in which there was no religion at all.

I don't have to tunnel through it, it seem completely natural to me, to the point when I'm with others to whom this is a natural thing, we don't even discuss it. The thing is, I think that you feel the same way, that is conected to something greater than yourself, but you don't believe in God, so you cling to atheism, and darwinism to give you a sense of conectedness. To me, you're no different than a theist, other than the object of your beliefs.

There's no point is wondering what it would be like in a religion-less world, because it's never happened as far as we know. Maybe there's a message in there somewhere.

It's hard to describe a person without conditioning. Education is conditioning. But education is also the growth in basic skills for dealing with all kinds of ideation, internal and external.

Also, there are lots of different types and ways of education.

Thus the association of "bad ideation" or "good ideation" based on whether the needle points to "fairy tale" or to "documented proof" isn't exactly conditioning as you mean it. It's the deconditioning, from some culturally-influenced norm, one which inhibits or reacts to such questions, to a more neutral position, one free of cultural baggage.

Whose to say that the so-called ''freeing of cultural baggage'' isn't conditioning one away from reality?

But God probably doesn't exist, for the reasons given above.

And that's as far as atheism can go.

Science is dictated by Nature. Scientists are the ones taking the dictation. We can't reject science without rejecting Nature, which gets pretty dicey (like hallucinating).

Some scientists have a vested interest in fraud, and have succeeded in pulling the wool over peoples eyes
for decades at a time, probably doing a lot damage. So if the science is overseen by modern atheists, which it seems to be, I cannot trust everything they say, regarding evidence of things I have no way of knowing as to whether or not they are true. Of course if one or two are being fraudulent, then I dare say they will be found out in the course of time. But decades are too long.

As long as we're grounded in reality, we turn to Nature for its own definitions of how it works.

You mean as long as we're grounded in ''modern atheist'' reality.
You'll excuse me if I don't partake.

Then we have science to help us make sense of it when complexity or extenuating circumstances require.

It can't help us when it comes to God or spirituality. To surrender yourself to it in that way, is to say ''there is nothing more than what modern-atheist science has to offer. That is so unattractive.

Atheism is on the sidelines, unaffected by any of science.

I'm not talking about ''atheism'', I'm talking about ''modern atheism'', there is a big difference, although I don't expect you to accept that.

It's religion that clashes with science, and the atheist sees this go down as a slaughter from their vantage point in the bleachers. The scoreboard is constantly increasing for the scientists, while the believers are unable to score a single point.

Religion doesn't clash with science, and modern atheism clashes with everything. Probably because we can see that it wants to control. It's slaughtered ''institutional christianity'', not religion. Then again that's not such a hard task if the institute has elements of atheistic ideology, when scrutinised against the scripture it used to proclaim itself representatives of God, or other scriptures for that matter.

That's of course one of the problems atheists have with religions--that they tamper with the minds of the young and impressionable to the point of totalitarianism.

I also have that problem with some religions, and other problems as well. So you don't have to be atheist to see that. But I'm not really talking about ''religions''.

For science or education in general, you can't expect democracy or individual freedom. We are not free to deny what Nature is telling us. There's plenty of freedom in designing experiments and creating hypotheses, etc., but not in dealing with nature. We can't force Nature to be the way we want it to be. Thus, you may conclude that the laws of Nature are irreversible, but it would be wrong to call them totalitarian without saying it strictly poetically.

It's modern atheism that's totalitarian, not science.
I have no problem with science or nature. I just don't think modern atheism is interested in science,
more than it is interested in taking over the world with it's ideals using science as a reason. The institute of christianity did the same thing with Jesus. Same type of people, different time.

I think one would need to be raised by dogs in the wilderness to have anything awaken within oneself that is not culturally introduced.

That would be a culture. Or don't you see it as such.

Earlier I referred to tunneling through a normative ideation, into one you might call transcendental. It may appear to be an awakening, but if you could sit on the sidelines within your own mind, as it went down, and simply observe, you might just as well characterize it as something else--like "tripping" or "trancing out".

I find that, not only really patronising, but narrow-minded.

At some point we need to draw a boundary around the "sane" kinds of ideation and the ones that are insane, or, at least, so extremely likely and/or contradictory as to justify thinking it's insane, rather than "awakened".

At some point we need to grow up, and understand we don't know everything, and accept that others may have a point even though it's not in agreement with our own.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I'm curious about a few things:

What is "modern atheism" and how does it differ from the older atheism? When did modern atheism start?

How did "modern atheism" come to control Science?

Why is it that modern atheists, who make up 4% of the US population (or, at most, about 20%, if you speculate about "closet" atheists), have such control over schooling and thinking?

People don't believe in God to explain phenomena.

Actually, that's one of the primary drivers of belief in God.

The thing is, I think that you feel the same way, that is conected to something greater than yourself, but you don't believe in God, so you cling to atheism, and darwinism to give you a sense of conectedness. To me, you're no different than a theist, other than the object of your beliefs.

What does atheism connect one to, Jan?

And what has "darwinism" got to do with atheism?

Do you feel that the theory of evolution threatens your religious beliefs?

[As a side issue, would you like to have Formal Debate on the falsity of or flaws in the theory of evolution? Because it sounds to me like you think the theory is false. If that is the case, what is your preferred theory of how life on earth developed? Creationism?]

Some scientists have a vested interest in fraud, and have succeeded in pulling the wool over peoples eyes
for decades at a time, probably doing a lot damage. So if the science is overseen by modern atheists, which it seems to be, I cannot trust everything they say, regarding evidence of things I have no way of knowing as to whether or not they are true.

Equally, some religious people have a vested interest in fraud. Take any organised Church, for example. If the leaders secretly suspect that God doesn't exist, then the whole enterprise is a fraud. Collecting money from parishioners is a fraud. Promising that people will live on after death is fraud. And so on and so on.

That some people are fraudulent does not seem to me to be a good reason to give up on a whole field of inquiry.

It can't help us when it comes to God or spirituality. To surrender yourself to it in that way, is to say ''there is nothing more than what modern-atheist science has to offer. That is so unattractive.

Maybe the world isn't made to be attractive. Do you prefer happiness over truth?

Religion doesn't clash with science, and modern atheism clashes with everything. Probably because we can see that it wants to control. It's slaughtered ''institutional christianity'', not religion. Then again that's not such a hard task if the institute has elements of atheistic ideology, when scrutinised against the scripture it used to proclaim itself representatives of God, or other scriptures for that matter.

Religion does clash with science, clearly. Whenever religion makes claims about the physical world that are not in accordance with scientific fact, there is a clash.

It's hard to comment on your "modern atheism", because you haven't said what that is yet.

I have no problem with science or nature. I just don't think modern atheism is interested in science,
more than it is interested in taking over the world with it's ideals using science as a reason. The institute of christianity did the same thing with Jesus. Same type of people, different time.

Are you saying that you think that people put their faith in Science, and if "modern atheism" can control that then it will control people? This raises a number of questions:

Why do you think people trust Science so much?

How does "modern atheism" control Science? [Yes, I asked this one earlier.]

What are the "ideals" of "modern atheism"?

Who would benefit from a takeover by "modern atheism"? What would the end scenario of such a takeover look like? Witch burnings of theists, perhaps? Like back when the Catholic Church controlled things in Europe?

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena:

People don't believe in God to explain phenomena.

People INVENTED gods to explain phenomena they did not understand. But Thor's hammer turns out not to cause thunder, and Odin is not the source of lightning.

Religion doesn't clash with science, and modern atheism clashes with everything.

Religion and superstition absolutely clash with science and reality. Atheism is simply the rejection(as truth) of theist claims and superstitious clap-trap. Believe anything you like, it makes no difference to me unless you start asserting that your superstitious non-sense has any bearing on reality.

I'm not talking about ''atheism'', I'm talking about ''modern atheism'', there is a big difference, although I don't expect you to accept that.

The only difference is that modern atheists do not give deference to superstitious non-sense anymore, treating religious belief as the abomination of unreason it has always been instead of remaining silent(sometimes on pain of death)or giving lip service to the idea that religious belief is a sane and reasoned viewpoint. Atheism hasn't changed, it has just spoken up.

atheistic ideology

Name one tenant of Atheism other than non-belief in religious non-sense. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a stance on religious ideology(rejection). Even the reasons for rejecting theism differs from one Atheist to another(we have whole threads on this).

Grumpy

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

If an interventionist God exists, then we should see the effects of his actions in the world.

If God exists the world is an effect of His actions, whether we believed it or not.

If God answered prayers, for example, then we'd see statistical evidence of that when we go looking for it. And yet, whenever such things have been tested, no effect larger than chance has ever shown up.

How do you know God doesn't answer prayers?
And because we don't see ''statistical evidence'', we deem God doesn't exist?

Well, you might reply, maybe God works in such a subtle way that his actions are indistinguishable from living in a world where there is no God at all. If so, what difference does it make to anybody whether God exists or not?

Because our essence is ''sprit'', the same as Gods'.
Because this lifetime could well be less than a portion of a nano-second, to God.
Because we may have been through this innumerable times, in different bodies.
Because the correct protocol (as in Gods' law), is to let the living entity experience what it is
supposed to experience.......

There is no such thing as a world with no God at all, not for us humans anyway.
The only way would be to condition humans that there is no God, generation after generation, replacing
the notion with something else. And even then it wouldn't be long before somebody decides there's more to life
than meat, IMO.

Scientists are, in the end, truthseekers.

They're no more truth seekers than any other human being.
What great truth as scientists given us?

They follow where the evidence leads. So far, God has not proven to be a necessary hypothesis to explain the natural world.

It depends what you regard as evidence.
Don't be coy, what would you regard as evidence for God?

Oh, and there's no evidence of a supernatural world, either. Or, at least, not one that has any effects on the real world.

Oh! So they've looked for it, and haven't found it have they?

Yes, and one could be forgiven for thinking there is a God, too.

Exactly, which is what is known as ''atheism'', but that's as far as it goes, lack of belief.
All the other stuff is validation of that belief.

Lots of wrong thinking is understandable and forgivable.

It's not exactly ''wrong thinking'' is it?
They say what they see, but things aren't always as they seem.
If they learn that there's more to life than what their senses percieve, they stand a chance of being
open-minded, failure to do so and you get closed-mindedness. People who want to take over the world
are close minded.

We're talking about the question of existence and non-existence here. Don't tell me you don't have a belief either way about the existence of the planet Venus, Jan.

Well, we're talking about theism, which is ''believing IN something'.
As one can not believe in something, but believe it exists, it means your understanding of theism is dodgy.
Yes! Then planet Venus is there, but I don't believe in it.

You've already told me you believe in fairies in your garden, so is Venus really a big stretch?

Who else is prepared to shave the corners of the hexagonal earth? Duh!

I agree that feeling that one is connected to something larger than oneself and ascribing the properties of a personal being to that feeling may very well be a common human trait. But it's a big step from that to claiming that your imaginary friends are real.

Or that nature popped into existence via nature?

How is belief in God different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I've explained this to you for years now, but no more.
My response is simply: this is why you are an atheist.

Is it that "feeling of connectedness" thing again? Some people feel they are connected to Intergalactic Warlord Xenu.

And what's wrong with feeling conected to Lord Xenu, Lord of War?

Some people feel a connectedness to trees and forest spirits.

You just gotta love the trees and the forest spirits.

Some people feel connected to their dead ancestors.

That they do lad, that they do.

Are all of these the same "God", according to you? Is any feeling of connection evidence of God for you?

No.

No, it's just a natural feeling to me.

How do you know this connectedness of yours is not a trick of your own mind?

I don't.
Why do you ask?

Turning to my "conditioning", it is interesting that you assume that I have somehow been indoctrinated into atheism - especially when I have told you that I arrived there via a process of reasoning.

You and I have also reasoned, and I have noticed a consistency in your reasoning, that refuses to see things any other way, while at the same time asking for physical evidence. You've backed yourself into a corner where you cannot accept God. You're not prepared to go down the road of understanding why people believe in God. You're not prepared to read the scriptures objectively, and if you have read the bible, since your declaration, chances are it was only to find more reasons to validate your position.

Are you questioning my ability to think for myself?

No. I'm question what and how you have to think.
Conditioning doesn't mean we walk around like robots.

Do you think that all atheists have fallen under an evil spell cast by Richard Dawkins or somebody similar?

No. I've met some intelligent atheists who think he's a twat.
Some modern atheists pretend to think that, but then you find them using his idiotic arguments, then they
justify it by saying he's a twat but he makes some good point.

Or is it more general than that? Is it the scientific mindset that is the problem? All scientific training is bad, because it blinds us to our "connection" with God?

I don't put ''modern atheism'' and ''science'' in the same camp.
Science has nothing to do with God or spirituality, that is to say, it wouldn't occurr to me to talk
about God at a science convention, anymore than talking about science at the annual basket-weavers asociation dinner and dance. The two just don't go together.

And what if I don't feel the connection you speak of? What if I told you I used to feel it, just the same as you do, but then I realised that it was an illusion?

I would say good on ya mate!

But how does that relate to othere individuals?

Am I deceiving myself? Or could it be that you are deceiving yourself?

It could be anything. Do we really exist?
Are we just part of micro organism in someones leg?
I'm just living my life, which will be over soon, and I can't be arsed to think about things of no consequence.
Or IOW, I'm choosing what is and is not important.

This is interesting. Do you think that Science is political and religious?

No. But I think ''modern atheism'' is.
Is that clear enough, or do you want me to spell it out?

Who is the dictator pulling the strings to indoctrinate the atheist scientists?

Atheist science?
What is atheist science?

How, exactly, does "modern atheism" dictate anything about Science?

The same roundabout way as the western christian institute dictated about christ, and God.

Yes, and I can see why you do believe in God and how you validate that position.

Good.

Interesting, again.

Do you really believe that anybody who has believed in God and then become an atheist didn't really have a true or deep belief in the first place?

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

What of the hundreds of former priests or other religious leaders who have become atheists? When they were "called" to the service of God, was that superficial and not a "true" call?

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

How do you tell the difference between a "true" connection to God and a "superficial" one, Jan?

One's true, and the other one is superficial.
Pretty simple really.

Is it that the "true" one is the one you have, and the belief that other people have is the superficial one - especially if they don't believe the same things you do? Remind me who the totalitarians are again, Jan.

I've answered your question regarding ''conectedness'', please what your problem is with my response.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

My point was that people sometimes say they believe or disbelieve on the grounds of evidence, but that this isn't necessarily all that goes on for them.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "all that goes on." I think for someone to believe in the "evidence" for God, they need to have either a witting or unwitting ignorance of the facts. So yes, there would be more going on than simply a belief based on evidence.

I refuse to believe that humans are essentially idiots and simpletons.

How is that implied by the alternative?

 

[gmilam]

Exactly, which is what is known as ''atheism'', but that's as far as it goes, lack of belief.
All the other stuff is validation of that belief.

So, lack of belief is now a belief...

 

[kx000]

So, lack of belief is now a belief...

You lack belief of God? God who?

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Exactly, which is what is known as ''atheism'', but that's as far as it goes, lack of belief.
All the other stuff is validation of that belief.

Actually, you have it backwards, everything we discover is the BASIS for lack of belief. And on this question, that is all.

And because we don't see ''statistical evidence'', we deem God doesn't exist?

No, statistical evidence does, however, show that the claimed efficacy of prayer is not supported by the evidence available, quite the opposite in some cases.

Because our essence is ''sprit'', the same as Gods'.

Another claim of existence with no supporting evidence. Our essence, going by the evidence, is chemistry. No "spirit" in evidence.

Because this lifetime could well be less than a portion of a nano-second, to God.

Irrelevant speculation on par with most theistic thought.

Because we may have been through this innumerable times, in different bodies.

Irrelevant speculation akin to reincarnation theologies.

Because the correct protocol (as in Gods' law), is to let the living entity experience what it is
supposed to experience.......

Gibberish.

There is no such thing as a world with no God at all, not for us humans anyway.

There is no evidence of a world with a god in it, though some believe that there are gods.

The only way would be to condition humans that there is no God, generation after generation, replacing
the notion with something else.

Yes, reason.

And even then it wouldn't be long before somebody decides there's more to life
than meat, IMO.

Implying you think Atheists think all there is to life is meat. That is far from true. There's also vegetables.

What great truth as scientists given us?

That we are not the center of the Universe, that we are unlikely to be alone in the Universe and that we can understand the Universe. Great truths that actually have a firm basis in fact, not belief.

Don't be coy, what would you regard as evidence for God?

Violation of the laws of physics by the act of an intelligence. Since we have yet to find anything violating those laws, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

Oh! So they've looked for it, and haven't found it have they?

No, but they have studied the Universe and have found no evidence that any of it needs a non-natural explanation.

If they learn that there's more to life than what their senses percieve, they stand a chance of being
open-minded, failure to do so and you get closed-mindedness. People who want to take over the world
are close minded.

And if there is not and they believe it anyway? That is close mindedness and has led theists to rule for most of man's history, based on nothing but opinion.

Or that nature popped into existence via nature?

Whatever existed "prior" to the Universe cannot currently be known, but it was that which created Nature, not Nature itself.

And what's wrong with feeling conected to Lord Xenu, Lord of War?

Nothing if you do not make decisions based on that belief. But we've seen the evil belief in unevidenced supernatural beings brings. The whole history of man is painted red by the conflicts between believers.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

Why should I be an example or role model to anyone?
You're the one who makes these imaginary attachments to a person who simply believes in God.
And further more, upon the revelation that such attachments don't occurr because one may believe, you
still go on and on about it. That's why I say ''it's all in head'' and ''you don't listen''.

Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.



Talking about God should not be yet another topic that people happen to talk about. Instead, it should count for something, it should mean something - it should not be done lightly.

You seem to want to make talking about God into such "yet another topic," something that can be talked about without emotion, without attachment, without really putting your life on the line.
Basically, you seem to want to remain comfortably philosophical about it, in your armchair. "Just a normal guy who happens to believe in God. Just a normal guy, nobody special, no role model or genius."

And it is precisely such an attitude that is so conducive to atheism.

That is just not good enough for me. I'm not going to be like you. And if this means earning your disdain, so be it.



Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.

Remember this.

 

[Balerion]

Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.

Why is your notion of God so Judeo-Christian?

Talking about God should not be yet another topic that people happen to talk about. Instead, it should count for something, it should mean something - it should not be done lightly.

You seem to want to make talking about God into such "yet another topic," something that can be talked about without emotion, without attachment, without really putting your life on the line.

Basically, you seem to want to remain comfortably philosophical about it, in your armchair. "Just a normal guy who happens to believe in God. Just a normal guy, nobody special, no role model or genius."

The reason Jan gets so casual and dismissive about religion is because his understanding of it is entirely superficial. He can rattle off vague assertions like the one found in this thread, but he becomes hostile when pressed because his knowledge has no strategic depth. He's not here to discuss, he's here to proclaim and walk away. You're asking him to take the conversation seriously, but this is beyond his means. I suggest you stop wasting your time.

Though I am curious, how does one put their life on the line in a discussion about God?

And it is precisely such an attitude that is so conducive to atheism.

What is this even supposed to mean? What attitude? Jan doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about; it has nothing to do with attitude. And certainly nothing to do with atheism.

That is just not good enough for me. I'm not going to be like you. And if this means earning your disdain, so be it.

In many ways, you're exactly like him. I can't think of a discussion you've participated in that didn't end with you acting exactly as Jan is acting now.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.

This doesn't mean what it seems you think it means. The merchant who puts Christian symbols on his advertising is taking the Lord's name in vain. The preacher who preaches hatred(Phelps, for example)or promotes his own ideas as if they were God's(Pat Robertson)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The Politician who wraps himself in his religion but promotes things Christ would not(Santorum)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The priest who molests children is taking the Lord's name in vain. The athlete who prays publicly so that he may be seen by all doing so(Tebow)is taking the Lord's name in vain. Taking the Lord's name in vain is using God's name(authority)for your own purposes or your own vainglorious benefit.

I do know my Bible and what it says, even if I don't accept the superstitious non-sense it contains. And Jesus had much to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. And I do recognize the hypocracy of those like Phelps, Robertson, Tebow and Santorum, judging by what they claim to believe and what they actually do.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

I think Phelps is the only one who is not a hypocrite.

 

[Balerion]

wynn



This doesn't mean what it seems you think it means. The merchant who puts Christian symbols on his advertising is taking the Lord's name in vain. The preacher who preaches hatred(Phelps, for example)or promotes his own ideas as if they were God's(Pat Robertson)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The Politician who wraps himself in his religion but promotes things Christ would not(Santorum)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The priest who molests children is taking the Lord's name in vain. The athlete who prays publicly so that he may be seen by all doing so(Tebow)is taking the Lord's name in vain. Taking the Lord's name in vain is using God's name(authority)for your own purposes or your own vainglorious benefit.

I do know my Bible and what it says, even if I don't accept the superstitious non-sense it contains. And Jesus had much to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. And I do recognize the hypocracy of those like Phelps, Robertson, Tebow and Santorum, judging by what they claim to believe and what they actually do.

Grumpy

Jesus had nothing to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. The philosophy behind his teachings was one of fear and submission, and his moral righteousness entirely predicated on him being the son of God. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you or I'll kill you" is not a philosophically reasonable injunction, let alone a moral one.

There have been many others who reached better conclusions while actually providing an understanding as to why we should do what it is we do. And most of them did it before Jesus was ever conceptualized (or plagiarized).

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

If God answered prayers, for example, then we'd see statistical evidence of that when we go looking for it. And yet, whenever such things have been tested, no effect larger than chance has ever shown up.

How do you know God doesn't answer prayers?

I don't. But if he does, then it is in a way that is statistically indistinguishable from him not answering prayers. It is possible, of course, that he chooses to ignore exactly half the prayers sent to him and to act on the other half, but if that is the case then we need to ask questions such as: on what basis does he let one cancer patient who prays for remission die a horrible death, while he grants remission to another - and remember that this must be a 50/50 proposition, according to the evidence.

And because we don't see ''statistical evidence'', we deem God doesn't exist?

No. We deem God to be an unnecessary hypothesis for explaining the observations.

Well, you might reply, maybe God works in such a subtle way that his actions are indistinguishable from living in a world where there is no God at all. If so, what difference does it make to anybody whether God exists or not?

Because our essence is ''sprit'', the same as Gods'.
Because this lifetime could well be less than a portion of a nano-second, to God.
Because we may have been through this innumerable times, in different bodies.
Because the correct protocol (as in Gods' law), is to let the living entity experience what it is
supposed to experience.......

None of this seems to make a jot of practical difference to anybody's life. No effects of these things are visible in the real world.

There is no such thing as a world with no God at all, not for us humans anyway.

I already said that it could well be a human trait to imagine Gods. There is a lot of scientific literature on why that might be, by the way. The human mind has evolved to model other minds. Sometimes it models imaginary ones.

[Scientists are] no more truth seekers than any other human being.
What great truth as scientists given us?

Can you really not think of anything?

What great truth has religion given us?

Don't be coy, what would you regard as evidence for God?

For example:

If God has a Message for humanity, I'd like to see it in clear, unambiguous terms, not in some ancient book that looks exactly like what we would expect if it were written by ancient human beings. Such a message could easily include something that human beings don't know and can't understand now about the physical world, for example, but will come to comprehend in future.

Or, God could appear and speak clearly and unambiguously to a large number of people. Maybe he could do a TV spot, broadcast internationally. He could easily demonstrate his power as an omnipotent deity.

But assuming God is reticent and wants us to be uncertain of his existence (for whatever reason), then I fall back on the kind of evidence I talked about before. Any action that God takes in the world cannot remain hidden from appropriate analysis, provided that it is truly "supernatural". Anything that breaks the known laws of nature will show up in statistical tests of large numbers of incidents.

The problem of evil is a major issue that speaks against the existence of any kind of "omnibenevolent" God, too.

Oh, and there's no evidence of a supernatural world, either. Or, at least, not one that has any effects on the real world.

Oh! So they've looked for it, and haven't found it have they?

Yes. Every claim made for supernatural effects turns out to be either natural or else remains an open question due to lack of sufficient high-quality data for examination.

Tell me, Jan: why does your God make it look as if he doesn't exist?

They say what they see, but things aren't always as they seem.
If they learn that there's more to life than what their senses percieve, they stand a chance of being
open-minded, failure to do so and you get closed-mindedness. People who want to take over the world
are close minded.

Science has discovered all kinds of unseen things that are nonetheless real. Think the Higgs boson, as a recent example. There's something that is completely beyond inaccessible to unassisted human senses, yet it is objectively verifiable by anybody with access to the right equipment. For another (easier) example, consider radio waves. You could build a radio receiver yourself without too much trouble.

Well, we're talking about theism, which is ''believing IN something'.
As one can not believe in something, but believe it exists, it means your understanding of theism is dodgy.
Yes! Then planet Venus is there, but I don't believe in it.

This sounds like self-contradictory gibberish to me. Want to try again?

I agree that feeling that one is connected to something larger than oneself and ascribing the properties of a personal being to that feeling may very well be a common human trait. But it's a big step from that to claiming that your imaginary friends are real.

Or that nature popped into existence via nature?

Nice attempt at a diversion, Jan.

And what's wrong with feeling conected to Lord Xenu, Lord of War?

Nothing, if you don't care about the fact that he doesn't exist. See my point yet?

How do you know this connectedness of yours is not a trick of your own mind?

I don't.
Why do you ask?

I ask because I'm trying to find out whether you care about what is true, as opposed to what makes you content.

It seems, from your response, that what makes you content takes precedence for you.

You and I have also reasoned, and I have noticed a consistency in your reasoning, that refuses to see things any other way, while at the same time asking for physical evidence.

Does your God have any physical influence on the world, Jan? Yes or no?

If he does, then there must be physical evidence of that. If not, what is his relevance to human life?

You've backed yourself into a corner where you cannot accept God. You're not prepared to go down the road of understanding why people believe in God. You're not prepared to read the scriptures objectively, and if you have read the bible, since your declaration, chances are it was only to find more reasons to validate your position.

I have already been down the road of understanding why people believe in God. In fact, I have a fair-sized personal library concerning that topic.

I have read various "scriptures" from different belief systems and faiths, too, including the Bible and the Qu'ran, both of which I have read cover to cover more than once. Your assumption that I did not do this "objectively" is just hot air on your part.

I don't put ''modern atheism'' and ''science'' in the same camp.
Science has nothing to do with God or spirituality, that is to say, it wouldn't occurr to me to talk
about God at a science convention, anymore than talking about science at the annual basket-weavers asociation dinner and dance. The two just don't go together.

This comes back to my previous point. If your God has real effects in the world, then they can be investigated using science. You can't simply claim that science is not applicable to such investigations. That's a cop out.

And what if I don't feel the connection you speak of? What if I told you I used to feel it, just the same as you do, but then I realised that it was an illusion?

I would say good on ya mate!

But how does that relate to othere individuals?

Well, to get an objective view on this thing it is important that we look at many people, is it not? And what do we find when we do that? We find a lot of people who feel no "connection" to any God. We find other people who feel connections to all kinds of different and mutually incompatible gods. And we find yet other people who feel connections to imaginary entities that you wouldn't even give the label "god".

Of course, you can probably gloss over this by suggesting that those who feel no connection at all are deluded or "turning away", while all the contradictory "connections" that believers feel are really different manifestations of the same thing. Regarding those believers, though, I would venture that you have no idea just how incompatible various religious beliefs are with one another.

It could be anything. Do we really exist?
Are we just part of micro organism in someones leg?
I'm just living my life, which will be over soon, and I can't be arsed to think about things of no consequence.
Or IOW, I'm choosing what is and is not important.

Again, I must ask: is the truth not important to you? Or, at least, less important that what makes you feel happy?

Who is the dictator pulling the strings to indoctrinate the atheist scientists?

Atheist science?
What is atheist science?

The science that is controlled by "modern atheists", that you mentioned above. Try to keep up.

How, exactly, does "modern atheism" dictate anything about Science?

The same roundabout way as the western christian institute dictated about christ, and God.

And that way is... what?

Do you really believe that anybody who has believed in God and then become an atheist didn't really have a true or deep belief in the first place?

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

What of the hundreds of former priests or other religious leaders who have become atheists? When they were "called" to the service of God, was that superficial and not a "true" call?

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

Have you considered option B: the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Rather than assuming that every human being is an idiot if they don't believe exactly what you believe, why don't you credit people with some intelligence and take seriously that they might have a point?

How do you tell the difference between a "true" connection to God and a "superficial" one, Jan?

One's true, and the other one is superficial.
Pretty simple really.

Once again, you tried to dodge the question. Should we start keeping a tally of your evasive tactics?

I've answered your question regarding ''conectedness'', please what your problem is with my response.

The problem is that I value truth over comfort, so I have trouble getting into the mindset of person whose values apparently work the other way around. I also have a problem with such a person then trying to have an intellectual argument about the supposed truth of his personal beliefs. Your "objective" argument immediately collapses once it is found that the best - possibly only - evidence you can provide for your God is your personal "gut feeling" that he exists.

 

[SciWriter]

People can fully fall for their thoughts feelings, and sensationd, hook, line, and sinker, if that's only what informs them; however, that is a common plight, and so it can be expected.

 

[Grumpy]

Balerion

Jesus had nothing to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. The philosophy behind his teachings was one of fear and submission, and his moral righteousness entirely predicated on him being the son of God. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you or I'll kill you" is not a philosophically reasonable injunction, let alone a moral one.

There have been many others who reached better conclusions while actually providing an understanding as to why we should do what it is we do. And most of them did it before Jesus was ever conceptualized (or plagiarized).

We've been through this in the forum and in messaging, and your opinion on this is shit, in my opinion. "Do unto others" is not a threat, it is a wise precept. Don't confuse the religion(which is a threat)with the precept(which is not). In fact today we still have it as the Golden Rule. "As ye have done to the least of these" is a very good measure of personal responsibility. "Turn the other cheek" is non-violence thousands of years before Ghandi. That he was claimed to be the son of god is irrelevant to those precepts, they stand as wisdom all on their own, NO MATTER WHO SAID THEM OR WHEN. There are others. There is certainly a lot of crap in the Bible, even about Jesus himself. And not everything Jesus said(or is SAID to have said)is wise. But you are tossing the baby out with the bathwater and if you can't post to me without foaming at the mouth about Jesus, don't bother posting at all. I decide what I consider wisdom, and your opinion on the matter is your own problem.

Grumpy

 

[Balerion]

We've been through this in the forum and in messaging, and your opinion on this is shit, in my opinion.

We've been through this in messaging because you refused to have the conversation in public. You don't like losing, apparently.

"Do unto others" is not a threat, it is a wise precept. Don't confuse the religion(which is a threat)with the precept(which is not).

Of course it's a threat. The chapter begins with "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you," and ends with "12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." It's not a suggestion, and it doesn't give you sound reasoning for why this action is good. It tells you "Do this or suffer the wrath of God."

You want to separate the words from their meaning, which is pointless considering that the Golden Rule is nearly universal, and there are far better examples of it that don't use fear as a motivator.

In fact today we still have it as the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule has existed in some form in every civilization, including those to come before Jesus supposedly lived.

"As ye have done to the least of these" is a very good measure of personal responsibility.

Not in the slightest. Do you know what happens to those who don't "do unto the least of these?" They go to hell. Literally. "46 'Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.'" Where's the philosophy in that? "Do this or die." While we can agree on the idea of helping the needy is generally a good one, to say it is always good is wrong, and certainly to command it under penalty of burning eternally is barbaric. You call that wisdom?

"Turn the other cheek" is non-violence thousands of years before Ghandi.

Allowing your enemies to destroy you is immoral, and not an idea Jesus himself seemed to subscribe to. (The parable of the Ten Minas comes to mind). Finding a non-violent solution is preferable, but only up to the point where there is no other reasonable choice. Allowing your enemy to strike you is wrong at any level of extrapolation--from the kid who allows himself to be bullied at school, to the nation that allows another to invade it. In both cases, all that awaits the cheek-turner is annihilation. But here's the secret--that's the whole point! Jesus believed the end of the world was at hand, and he preached like it. He even said, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." So go ahead, give no thought to the morrow. Go ahead, turn the other cheek. It doesn't matter, because this shindig's about to end anyway.

And again, the philosophy behind this injunction was that God commanded it, and you're his sheep so you had better do as he says or you'll spend your eternity in Hell. There's nothing wise about that.

That he was claimed to be the son of god is irrelevant to those precepts, they stand as wisdom all on their own, NO MATTER WHO SAID THEM OR WHEN.

No. That's your mistake. Of course it mattered that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. His injunctions completely relied upon his authority. There was no philosophical discussion, no meeting of minds or exchange of ideas. He never even said "Do this so you guys will get along better, so that life will be easier on you." Why not? Because Christianity is a death cult, and the whole purpose of it was to ready its followers for the promised afterlife. That's not moral teaching.

There are others. There is certainly a lot of crap in the Bible, even about Jesus himself. And not everything Jesus said(or is SAID to have said)is wise. But you are tossing the baby out with the bathwater and if you can't post to me without foaming at the mouth about Jesus, don't bother posting at all. I decide what I consider wisdom, and your opinion on the matter is your own problem.

Look, I think it's noble that you're trying to spin Christianity into some areligious morality guide, but what Jesus actually said wasn't moral. You can take "soundbites" and breathe your own philosophy into them, but there are better sources for those ideas than the Bible, and they come ready-made without the need to gut the original message.

 

[Grumpy]

Balerion

We've been through this in messaging because you refused to have the conversation in public. You don't like losing, apparently.

As I said to you then and in my last post, your opinion is shit on this subject.

Of course it's a threat. The chapter begins with "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you," and ends with "12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." It's not a suggestion, and it doesn't give you sound reasoning for why this action is good. It tells you "Do this or suffer the wrath of God."

You want to separate the words from their meaning, which is pointless considering that the Golden Rule is nearly universal, and there are far better examples of it that don't use fear as a motivator.

I really don't care what else is in that passage or what motivation it has "Love thy neighbor as thyself, that is the sum of the law" is the same thought in different words, and there is no separation of meaning, it is easily understood. It is wise. Even if the next verse is not wise or is full of religious non-sense. As I said, you throw wisdom out with the crap, that's your problem, not mine. Jesus seems to give you rabies, for some personal reason. Your hatred of Christianity is no more rational than Phelps' hatred of gays and just as dogmatic.

The Golden Rule has existed in some form in every civilization, including those to come before Jesus supposedly lived.

So Jesus' repetition is just as valid as any other, and he said it in several different ways. Take the parable of the Good Samaritan, it teaches the principle of the Golden Rule without the least mention of godly wrath or soul destroying judgement. Is it too not wise? We filter everything through our intellect based on our experience and I want to be like the Good Samaritan because it is the moral thing to do, not because I buy the "Fire and Brimstone if you don't" that is all you seem to see.

Do you know what happens to those who don't "do unto the least of these?"

Yes, but I don't ascribe to that non-sense. But it sure makes a good club to wield around the head regions of so-called Christian politicians who think the poor should just die. I ascribe to the thought, though. If you believe in Christianity you really can't be a Republican in this day and age. And you can't be a moral person without following the thought for it's own sake, no matter what motivations the religious claptrap assigns to it.

Allowing your enemies to destroy you is immoral, and not an idea Jesus himself seemed to subscribe to.

So, slapping you is to destroy you? Ghandi defeated the whole British army using this philosophical position without once raising a hand(much less a weapon)in return. Seems to work rather well. "A kind word turneth away wrath" is the same thought. "Cooler heads" is too. It seems to me to be wise. I don't care what you think of it.

Of course it mattered that Jesus claimed to be the son of God.

Only to those who think there is a god to be the son of. I don't, so it does not matter what he claimed or what is claimed he claimed(remember, his words were recorded at least two generations after he lived, generations who created the religion and religious non-sense associated with him).

He never even said "Do this so you guys will get along better, so that life will be easier on you." Why not? Because Christianity is a death cult, and the whole purpose of it was to ready its followers for the promised afterlife. That's not moral teaching.

Your rabid hatred of Christianity is not reasonable and clouds your view. I reject the supernatural while seeking wisdom and I do not excuse the evil that religion does or did. But to each according to their discernement.

Look, I think it's noble that you're trying to spin Christianity into some areligious morality guide

Not Christianity, just the wisdom of some of what the man, Jesus, said. I don't hold Christianity in ANY regard, it is an evil and dangerous load of hooiee. I also loath most of what Ronald Reagan said and did to this country, but when he said that a bus driver shouldn't pay more in taxes than a millionaire I thought that was wise. Separating the wheat from the chaff is most of what being wise is all about. Take the good you find everywhere, even if it is embedded in a big pile of crap.

but what Jesus actually said wasn't moral. You can take "soundbites" and breathe your own philosophy into them, but there are better sources for those ideas than the Bible, and they come ready-made without the need to gut the original message.

Some of what Jesus is claimed to have said is immoral, some is religious, but some is wise. And I will take the wise, even if I have to gut the Bible to do it. Jefferson had the same attitude and took a razor to his Bible. And who said the only source I use is the Bible? Not me. There are OTHER sources, and I treat them the same way. ALL religious texts are huge piles of crap, but most have pearls of wisdom embedded in them that do not depend on accepting the religious non-sense to accept the wisdom. And it is MY philosophy, I will base it on what I feel is wise from many different sources. Isaac Asimov is one of the wisest men who ever lived, you really need to read his commentary on the Bible(hint, he agrees with me, or rather, vice versa about how to extract wisdom from piles of religious dreck), though just reading his Science Fiction will give you the same info, minus the thees and thous.

We've discussed this to death, I find your attitude unreasonable, you seem to feel the same about mine. You will not convince me that wisdom cannot be found in Jesus' words for discerning readers, you will never be able to see that wisdom due to your reaction to the religious crap it is mixed in. Let's leave it at that.

Grumpy