what if God could be proven?
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
Climate change is obviously a material problem. Stop producing CO[sup]2[/sup]. Problem solved.
Lightgigantic writes;
Similarly plenty of explanations given by science have been debunked and shown to lack facts (IOW the core discipline of anything is subject to analysis)
Plenty? Within around 600 years of modern science [less than a third of that time occupied by the modern most widespread religions] millions of facts and truths have been established upon which you and civilisation rely for existence. By comparison with biblical, doctrinal and dogmatic truths and facts that have been established, religious faith emerges as a very distant last.
Fraud and error, inconsistencies and contradictions in science have been revealed due specifically to the scientific method. In religious faith, no such self-correction is allowed for, even though it is demonstrable that religious faith is riddled with these exemplars of human intellectual frailty and dishonesty .
Even the core discipline at the very foundations of theology and theism is subject to analysis. Here is its vulnerability revealed, but being immunised against self-correction by the faithful, its 2000-year history remains as bankrupt today as in the day that saw its birth.
Original Biggles, Prime
Similarly plenty of explanations given by science have been debunked and shown to lack facts (IOW the core discipline of anything is subject to analysis)
Plenty? Within around 600 years of modern science [less than a third of that time occupied by the modern most widespread religions] millions of facts and truths have been established upon which you and civilisation rely for existence. By comparison with biblical, doctrinal and dogmatic truths and facts that have been established, religious faith emerges as a very distant last.
Fraud and error, inconsistencies and contradictions in science have been revealed due specifically to the scientific method. In religious faith, no such self-correction is allowed for, even though it is demonstrable that religious faith is riddled with these exemplars of human intellectual frailty and dishonesty .
Even the core discipline at the very foundations of theology and theism is subject to analysis. Here is its vulnerability revealed, but being immunised against self-correction by the faithful, its 2000-year history remains as bankrupt today as in the day that saw its birth.
Original Biggles, Prime
i think that god is real, coz facts of all the stories in the bible, has been proven by geological findings, and even science has proven it, ok how about the mere fact that the most of the historical events that took place in the bible all make cense, the predicton of this date and time, which in the bible talks of the four horsemen, which we must take into acount, to think about it, everyone is entittle to his or her own opinion, but facts r facts
Lightgigantic #388 writes,
yet for some reason, harnessing the atom can not move us one inch on our sojourn to death via old age and disease on the road of three fold sufferings (sufferings caused by ourselves, others and the environment)
You berate science with straw-man arguments yet hide from the fact that religious faith has accomplished infinitely less despite its declared promises and assurances.
Atomic science was never touted as cure-all nor an elixir of life. Quantum science, nanotechnology and stem-cell research however, are showing great promise as preservers and extenders of life. The science is very young but is still light-years ahead of that aspect of religious faith that has the same purpose and expectation. In pursuance of doctrinal integrity and in complete disregard of human suffering, religious faith would move heaven and Earth to disallow some of this science.
Giving every man the vote has no more made them wise and free than christianity has made them good.........H.L.Mencken
OriginalBiggles, Prime
yet for some reason, harnessing the atom can not move us one inch on our sojourn to death via old age and disease on the road of three fold sufferings (sufferings caused by ourselves, others and the environment)
You berate science with straw-man arguments yet hide from the fact that religious faith has accomplished infinitely less despite its declared promises and assurances.
Atomic science was never touted as cure-all nor an elixir of life. Quantum science, nanotechnology and stem-cell research however, are showing great promise as preservers and extenders of life. The science is very young but is still light-years ahead of that aspect of religious faith that has the same purpose and expectation. In pursuance of doctrinal integrity and in complete disregard of human suffering, religious faith would move heaven and Earth to disallow some of this science.
Giving every man the vote has no more made them wise and free than christianity has made them good.........H.L.Mencken
OriginalBiggles, Prime
so saying that science is superior 2 christianity, might be a posibility, but what we dont have is the evidance to prove it , and neither the facts that say so, but if we study the science and christianity togather, then we could really cum to terms with the pure facts, like sherlock holms said let pure logic be the judge
Lightgigantic #388 writes;
actually you can't go on and on about it since its the nature of a metonymic world view that it is curbed at one point at the macrocosm and at the other at the microcosm[/QUOTE]
If you could present credible evidence for a superior view that sees beyond the microcosmic and the macrocosmic then you could engage in serious argument.
But all you can present are excuses why you can't and ad hominem against the perceived shortcomings of your interlocutor for his unreasonably not being able to accord you undeserved credibility.
Outstanding characteristics of your messages are the expressions of personal incredulity and a juvenile impatience with scientific advancement. This intellectual immaturity is expressed as a resort to the supernatural to fill the perceived gap.
Right here, in your posts, we discover the quintessential characteristic in metonymy. Since you haven't been provided with a complete knowledge of the natural world, a god must be keeping some of that to himself. But as we do have much knowledge already of the natural world then god knows it all and must be and embody nature itself.
God being nature is, ergo and ipso facto, the ultimate in metonymy as practised by those of religious faith. Et quod erat demonstrandum.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
actually you can't go on and on about it since its the nature of a metonymic world view that it is curbed at one point at the macrocosm and at the other at the microcosm[/QUOTE]
If you could present credible evidence for a superior view that sees beyond the microcosmic and the macrocosmic then you could engage in serious argument.
But all you can present are excuses why you can't and ad hominem against the perceived shortcomings of your interlocutor for his unreasonably not being able to accord you undeserved credibility.
Outstanding characteristics of your messages are the expressions of personal incredulity and a juvenile impatience with scientific advancement. This intellectual immaturity is expressed as a resort to the supernatural to fill the perceived gap.
Right here, in your posts, we discover the quintessential characteristic in metonymy. Since you haven't been provided with a complete knowledge of the natural world, a god must be keeping some of that to himself. But as we do have much knowledge already of the natural world then god knows it all and must be and embody nature itself.
God being nature is, ergo and ipso facto, the ultimate in metonymy as practised by those of religious faith. Et quod erat demonstrandum.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
huh?
Given that issues of suffering in the material world remains infinitely unchallenged by material science, I think its you who is overlooking something
post dated rain cheques and empiricism make for bad companions
On the contrary, I think you would have a more difficult time trying to explain how nanotechnology et al has some sort of integrity and obligation for removing human distress.
Actually the notion of negotiating a distress free material world with material advancement is the very crux of material distress
I've often marveled at how atheists can entertain a notion of goodness that isn't in any way a derivative of social constructs well embedded in theism.
Its almost like a type of amnesia or something.
Depressing, isn't in?
Fancythat eh?
Scientific means are used to validate scientific terms ... yet for some reason you can't fathom that theism also sports its own disciplines for spotting inconsistencies etc
Never encountered a scriptural commentary I take it ...
Lightgigantic #409 writes.
Given that issues of suffering in the material world remains infinitely unchallenged by material science, I think its you who is overlooking something
The hyperbole of "infinitely unchallenged" has the same incongruity and superfluity as something being "very unique". It's an indication that verbiage and not substance comprises your argument.
Nevertheless, going directly to an example, I'm on fairly solid ground when I point out that Haitians are at present far more materially minded and their suffering is being alleviated in a grandly material manner by food, medicine, shelter and clothing. It hasn't escaped me that claims of god expediting the material aid is at your disposal. Then here the metonym of SAVIOUR raises the issue of how riddled with metonymy is religious faith.
They may give thanks to their deity for their deliverance but it is religious faith that blinds them to the fact that said deity killed, or at least chose not to save, over a hundred thousand of their family and friends. Doubtless each of those dead was deserving of their fate in some way. That's the way the stupidity is rationalised by the faithful.
Quoted as above, it's obvious you are bereft of pointed, relevant argument and will soon be resorting to the scintillating OH YEAH? and the crushing SEZ YOU!
post dated rain cheques and empiricism make for bad companions
You love grammatical howlers don't you? All rain checks are assumed to be post dated. I haven't encountered this tautology in a while. You haven't been listening with your ears and seeing with your eyes. The homily about bad companions and post date-ism does raise a laugh when we bring to mind Jesus's 2000-year old promise to return.
Anyone who believes in a 2000-year old rain check really shouldn't make silly remarks about other people's rain checks, especially when there's such a tenuous connection with the inexorable, implacable and inevitable advances of science. Science will continue advancing regardless and you'll be holding tight to the ticket for Jesus's Big Opening Night for a long time yet.
On the contrary, I think you would have a more difficult time trying to explain how nanotechnology et al has some sort of integrity and obligation for removing human distress.
Integrity and obligation are human qualities, not qualities of science. Humans applying the science, just like surgeons using the tools of their trade. The tools don't have integrity and obligations. Attempts at obliquity are another indication of a poverty of reasoned argument and so it's rather ingenuous of you to allow yourself this childish digression.
Actually the notion of negotiating a distress free material world with material advancement is the very crux of material distress
There's a certain connecting thread in your assertion with third world nations being devoutly theistic that I'm sure you'll grasp.............given time, that is.
I've often marveled at how atheists can entertain a notion of goodness that isn't in any way a derivative of social constructs well embedded in theism.
Your marvel is grounded in ignorance, if you'll forgive my bluntness. To be even more to the point, you are once again implying that your personal incredulity counts for something. I assure you it counts only for you and not any other human. Accounting for your PI is no one's responsibility but yours. To believe otherwise is the height of pomposity. The Golden Rule is found in religious texts a thousand years older than christianity. Reciprocity in its application is all an atheist/prime needs. It's all any human needs. Mencken's observation is as true today as it ever was.
Scientific means are used to validate scientific terms ... yet for some reason you can't fathom that theism also sports its own disciplines for spotting inconsistencies etc
It is quite evident you don't feel obliged to apply said disciplines in commentaries and scripture. The bible is a tome replete with all four faults.........fraud, error, contradictions and inconsistencies. If one were inclined to be absolutely forthright, lies could be added to this list.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
Given that issues of suffering in the material world remains infinitely unchallenged by material science, I think its you who is overlooking something
The hyperbole of "infinitely unchallenged" has the same incongruity and superfluity as something being "very unique". It's an indication that verbiage and not substance comprises your argument.
Nevertheless, going directly to an example, I'm on fairly solid ground when I point out that Haitians are at present far more materially minded and their suffering is being alleviated in a grandly material manner by food, medicine, shelter and clothing. It hasn't escaped me that claims of god expediting the material aid is at your disposal. Then here the metonym of SAVIOUR raises the issue of how riddled with metonymy is religious faith.
They may give thanks to their deity for their deliverance but it is religious faith that blinds them to the fact that said deity killed, or at least chose not to save, over a hundred thousand of their family and friends. Doubtless each of those dead was deserving of their fate in some way. That's the way the stupidity is rationalised by the faithful.
Quoted as above, it's obvious you are bereft of pointed, relevant argument and will soon be resorting to the scintillating OH YEAH? and the crushing SEZ YOU!
post dated rain cheques and empiricism make for bad companions
You love grammatical howlers don't you? All rain checks are assumed to be post dated. I haven't encountered this tautology in a while. You haven't been listening with your ears and seeing with your eyes. The homily about bad companions and post date-ism does raise a laugh when we bring to mind Jesus's 2000-year old promise to return.
Anyone who believes in a 2000-year old rain check really shouldn't make silly remarks about other people's rain checks, especially when there's such a tenuous connection with the inexorable, implacable and inevitable advances of science. Science will continue advancing regardless and you'll be holding tight to the ticket for Jesus's Big Opening Night for a long time yet.
On the contrary, I think you would have a more difficult time trying to explain how nanotechnology et al has some sort of integrity and obligation for removing human distress.
Integrity and obligation are human qualities, not qualities of science. Humans applying the science, just like surgeons using the tools of their trade. The tools don't have integrity and obligations. Attempts at obliquity are another indication of a poverty of reasoned argument and so it's rather ingenuous of you to allow yourself this childish digression.
Actually the notion of negotiating a distress free material world with material advancement is the very crux of material distress
There's a certain connecting thread in your assertion with third world nations being devoutly theistic that I'm sure you'll grasp.............given time, that is.
I've often marveled at how atheists can entertain a notion of goodness that isn't in any way a derivative of social constructs well embedded in theism.
Your marvel is grounded in ignorance, if you'll forgive my bluntness. To be even more to the point, you are once again implying that your personal incredulity counts for something. I assure you it counts only for you and not any other human. Accounting for your PI is no one's responsibility but yours. To believe otherwise is the height of pomposity. The Golden Rule is found in religious texts a thousand years older than christianity. Reciprocity in its application is all an atheist/prime needs. It's all any human needs. Mencken's observation is as true today as it ever was.
Scientific means are used to validate scientific terms ... yet for some reason you can't fathom that theism also sports its own disciplines for spotting inconsistencies etc
It is quite evident you don't feel obliged to apply said disciplines in commentaries and scripture. The bible is a tome replete with all four faults.........fraud, error, contradictions and inconsistencies. If one were inclined to be absolutely forthright, lies could be added to this list.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
I can only assume that there is sort of infinitely in-congruent reasoning that makes "infinitely less" acceptable and "infinitely unchallenged" not.
(BTW given that mortality rates still remain at exactly 100%, it certainly does appear infinitely unchallenged)
Given that the very persons providing the aid are besieged by the before mentioned sufferings, I don't see how you can cite that as a success story
well to say the least, the issue is not so out right ridiculous to expect something, whether it be god or some star trek version of science, to act as some sort of vending machine for insignificant desire in a medium that can not possibly house it.
If you've never approached theistic philosophy outside of colouring in and pop-up books, it will probably prove a difficult subject to discuss.
I mean you can even encounter hefty rebuttals of the notion that its all about "god's choice" or even that damnation is simply to be slapped with material existence ... never mind if you happen to be a homeless Haitian or a merchant banker.
We don't require an atheist with a chip on their shoulder to lend weight to such things.
meh
I'm just reflecting the tentative issues of your accusation back at you
You've said nothing other than sez you (and a little bit of sez Mencken)
even assuming that you were mindful enough to be capable of determining the validity of theistic claims, it still remains a fact that empiricism has no use for assertions for what its going to do in the future.
I mean a person usually gets a nobel prize after they achieve something
You will probably be dead in less than 50 years
Your inability to understand that there is more to theistic ideas than caricatured renditions of christianity leaves little to be desired.
You might also be surprised to note that they share a proportionately higher standard of happiness, as determined by WHO surveys
well you simply rely in your own personal incredulity to label it ignorance,
.... rather than actually begin a discussion on these things, you simply drive home your own values, artificially borrowed from the authority of science.
It wouldn't take much to turn your world view in to an up turned piss pot.
A few detonated nuclear warheads, radical climate change that displaces large human populations or even something as simple as waking up tomorrow with an empty fuel bowser can undo your ideas of progress.
Ok
So you agree with Mencken and no other human doesn't?
I mean any idiot can argue that the entire world is deluded except for them (and a few of their friends)
An absence of knowledge also grants the same perspective.
Once again, its clear that you have never encountered a scriptural commentary.
Jeez, you can't even discuss theism outside of christianity.
Are you a christian atheist?
I hate to break your bubbles, but there is actual proof of G-d!
This seems like a good thread!
So let me chime in... There is ACTUAL PROOF of G-d’s existence through the Hebrew letters. These letters (22 alphabetical letters) that were given to Moses by G-d on Mount Sinai (recorded in Exodus 18:31 to have been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself) have been found to be of a Divine origin since they are formed from "one prototype form" that bares natures mathematical unit of growth - if some of you are familiar with Phi/Pi, Golden Mean Spiral and Fibonacci sequence.
I have a new book out that reveals this. The Book is called: The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator by Anita Meyer
Author Anita Meyer
anitameyer1@hotmail.com
This seems like a good thread!
So let me chime in... There is ACTUAL PROOF of G-d’s existence through the Hebrew letters. These letters (22 alphabetical letters) that were given to Moses by G-d on Mount Sinai (recorded in Exodus 18:31 to have been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself) have been found to be of a Divine origin since they are formed from "one prototype form" that bares natures mathematical unit of growth - if some of you are familiar with Phi/Pi, Golden Mean Spiral and Fibonacci sequence.
I have a new book out that reveals this. The Book is called: The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator by Anita Meyer
Author Anita Meyer
anitameyer1@hotmail.com
Does that mean that Greek Architecture is also divinely inspired? They were aware of these mathematical concepts, and they were pagans.
negative climate change would occure weather we were here or not there is evidence of this in ice/ earth core samples from hundreds of millions of ears ago to hundreds of thousands of years ago, so stoping co2 wouldnt do anything but slow the process way down
This seems like a good thread!
So let me chime in... There is ACTUAL PROOF of G-d’s existence through the Hebrew letters. These letters (22 alphabetical letters) that were given to Moses by G-d on Mount Sinai (recorded in Exodus 18:31 to have been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself) have been found to be of a Divine origin since they are formed from "one prototype form" that bares natures mathematical unit of growth - if some of you are familiar with Phi/Pi, Golden Mean Spiral and Fibonacci sequence.
I have a new book out that reveals this. The Book is called: The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator by Anita Meyer
Author Anita Meyer
anitameyer1@hotmail.com
there is proof of ufos too, tons of evidance and pictures too ! bible is open to interpritation
Materialism (inspired by the spirit of the Earth)
Yes; it's a process that's being allowed by the God who brings about order to His Earth through things, such as climate change.
Yes; it's a process that's being allowed by the God who brings about order to His Earth through things, such as climate change.
*************
M*W: You said it all in your first two words, "I think." What geological findings are you talking about? Just because historical "facts" are intertwined in fictional stories does not make the true.
I hate to tell you, but all the predictions named in any bible never came to pass and they never will. All Jesus' prophecies fail, and all those prophecies before his time (not saying that Jesus even existed) have failed.
You don't have a clue to what are facts and what are not. You believe what you do, because you've been told it is true, and you've been brainwashed to believe it is true. Why don't you try thinking for yourself for once. You might realize that all this religious crap you think you know to be true is just a heaping pile of bullshit.
*************
M*W: Puh-leeze! Science provides evidence. Religion provides nothing but false hope.
Lightgigantic writes,
I can only assume that there is sort of infinitely in-congruent reasoning that makes "infinitely less" acceptable and "infinitely unchallenged" not.
Assumptions notwithstanding, your lamentable level of education is of concern to me only when it affects the quality of your argument.
(BTW given that mortality rates still remain at exactly 100%, it certainly does appear infinitely unchallenged)
You berate science for not already eradicating death from humankind? What grotesque cerebral pathology prompts you to expect that science is responsible for alleviating all the death, pain and suffering that a god visited on his beloved creation? You seem to forget it was a vainglorious immaterial god which imposed that suffering and death. You seem to forget, given his infinite prescience, he doomed them to fail. Only amother fundie would unquestioningly accept your toadying obsequiousness.
Nevertheless, going directly to an example, I'm on fairly solid ground when I point out that Haitians are at present far more materially minded and their suffering is being alleviated in a grandly material manner by food, medicine, shelter and clothing.
Given that the very persons providing the aid are besieged by the before mentioned sufferings, I don't see how you can cite that as a success story
The circumstances of this issue was not concerned with a measure of success but whether material science was offering a better alleviation of Haitian suffering. Given the sacerdotal ditherings of local clergy and the extensive infrastructure destruction, the providers of material aid seem to be filling their duties under very difficult conditions. Your self-serving contempt for their efforts is noted by each reader.
well to say the least, the issue is not so out right ridiculous to expect something, whether it be god or some star trek version of science, to act as some sort of vending machine for insignificant desire in a medium that can not possibly house it.
Is there some sense to be gleaned from this impenetrable verbiage or are you dyslexic?
If you've never approached theistic philosophy outside of colouring in and pop-up books, it will probably prove a difficult subject to discuss.
I've never encountered colouring-in or pop-up books in the field of atheist philosophy, so they appear to be solely a theist requirement. As for being a full bottle on theist philosophy, sadly, my proclivity for reason, rationality and logic directs me away from such pursuits.
These qualities though do stand me in excellent stead when a theist assails me with his clamorous drivel. Most frequently their eyes glaze over, the jaw juts and lips become a thin red line as I respond with a polite, genteel withering barrage of atheist philosophy. I've seen them fall trembling to their knees outside my front gate, lips agitatedly and fervently uttering prayers and imprecations............whether for themselves or me, I've never discovered.
We don't require an atheist with a chip on their shoulder to lend weight to such things.
Far be it that you should be burdened by an atheist with a chip on his shoulder. I've encountered many a theist who became mired in the endless catechism, commentary and concordances.........the fiats, the bulls and the rescripts. Burdened as well by such weight as this, it is no wonder that the theist frequently seeks to share with the wretched atheist his burden of faith, of worship, etc only to be sneered at by an ungrateful atheist.
Anyone who believes in a 2000-year old rain check really shouldn't make silly remarks about other people's rain checks, especially when there's such a tenuous connection with the inexorable, implacable and inevitable advances of science. Science will continue advancing regardless and you'll be holding tight to the ticket for Jesus's Big Opening Night for a long time yet.
You will probably be dead in less than 50 years
If this isn't an OH YEAH? or a SEZ YOU! then I don't know what is.
You might also be surprised to note that they share a proportionately higher standard of happiness, as determined by WHO surveys
If, as you assert, greater happiness can be equated with poverty, then I feel certain the churches will ensure poverty reigns by selling happiness at a price adjusted for inflation and the cost of living index.
A link to those WHO surveys is required if you want credibility. It's your responsibility to confirm what you assert, particularly when it comes to others' data.
.... rather than actually begin a discussion on these things, you simply drive home your own values, artificially borrowed from the authority of science.
Now where could I have gained the impression, then, that your idea of a discussion is the theist evangelising in the face a respectful and attentive atheist seated agape and hanging on every word?
Over 15 years' engagement in discussion groups there's not much I haven't encountered from the theist bretheren. Inevitably their arguments fail before a rational assault. Their penultimate resort is to ad hominem, straw-man, personal incredulity and attempts to lay some of their cumbersome philosophical baggage off onto atheists. The ultimate is obfuscation, prevarication and dismissive avoidance.
Artificially borrowed? There's nought artificial about my borrowing. It's real, dyed-in-the-wool borrowing that is!
To the best of my recollection, I've never encountered a theist who, without being asked, was prepared to accord to the atheist the same degree of respect, tolerance and appreciation that he, the theist, demanded and expected from the atheist. Even asking was greeted with dumb insolence and/or irate special pleading for rights they denied others.
Ok, So you agree with Mencken and no other human doesn't? I mean any idiot can argue that the entire world is deluded except for them (and a few of their friends)
It's a positive passion for theists. How many sects and gods are there to date? Robert Greene Ingersoll had a pertinent observation to make about this. I'll present it here shortly
Once again, its clear that you have never encountered a scriptural commentary.
Whose scripture?
Jeez, you can't even discuss theism outside of christianity. Are you a christian atheist?
A christian atheist has that definite oxymoronic ring about it. No doubt you can legitimate such an incongruous title being steeped in the traditions of manoeuverable interpretation as you seem to be.
If you are not christian, then whose commentary have I not read and whose god do you worship? Assuming, that is, you interpret THEIST as a GOD-BELIEVER/WORSHIPPER
OriginalBiggles, Prime
I can only assume that there is sort of infinitely in-congruent reasoning that makes "infinitely less" acceptable and "infinitely unchallenged" not.
Assumptions notwithstanding, your lamentable level of education is of concern to me only when it affects the quality of your argument.
(BTW given that mortality rates still remain at exactly 100%, it certainly does appear infinitely unchallenged)
You berate science for not already eradicating death from humankind? What grotesque cerebral pathology prompts you to expect that science is responsible for alleviating all the death, pain and suffering that a god visited on his beloved creation? You seem to forget it was a vainglorious immaterial god which imposed that suffering and death. You seem to forget, given his infinite prescience, he doomed them to fail. Only amother fundie would unquestioningly accept your toadying obsequiousness.
Nevertheless, going directly to an example, I'm on fairly solid ground when I point out that Haitians are at present far more materially minded and their suffering is being alleviated in a grandly material manner by food, medicine, shelter and clothing.
Given that the very persons providing the aid are besieged by the before mentioned sufferings, I don't see how you can cite that as a success story
The circumstances of this issue was not concerned with a measure of success but whether material science was offering a better alleviation of Haitian suffering. Given the sacerdotal ditherings of local clergy and the extensive infrastructure destruction, the providers of material aid seem to be filling their duties under very difficult conditions. Your self-serving contempt for their efforts is noted by each reader.
well to say the least, the issue is not so out right ridiculous to expect something, whether it be god or some star trek version of science, to act as some sort of vending machine for insignificant desire in a medium that can not possibly house it.
Is there some sense to be gleaned from this impenetrable verbiage or are you dyslexic?
If you've never approached theistic philosophy outside of colouring in and pop-up books, it will probably prove a difficult subject to discuss.
I've never encountered colouring-in or pop-up books in the field of atheist philosophy, so they appear to be solely a theist requirement. As for being a full bottle on theist philosophy, sadly, my proclivity for reason, rationality and logic directs me away from such pursuits.
These qualities though do stand me in excellent stead when a theist assails me with his clamorous drivel. Most frequently their eyes glaze over, the jaw juts and lips become a thin red line as I respond with a polite, genteel withering barrage of atheist philosophy. I've seen them fall trembling to their knees outside my front gate, lips agitatedly and fervently uttering prayers and imprecations............whether for themselves or me, I've never discovered.
We don't require an atheist with a chip on their shoulder to lend weight to such things.
Far be it that you should be burdened by an atheist with a chip on his shoulder. I've encountered many a theist who became mired in the endless catechism, commentary and concordances.........the fiats, the bulls and the rescripts. Burdened as well by such weight as this, it is no wonder that the theist frequently seeks to share with the wretched atheist his burden of faith, of worship, etc only to be sneered at by an ungrateful atheist.
Anyone who believes in a 2000-year old rain check really shouldn't make silly remarks about other people's rain checks, especially when there's such a tenuous connection with the inexorable, implacable and inevitable advances of science. Science will continue advancing regardless and you'll be holding tight to the ticket for Jesus's Big Opening Night for a long time yet.
You will probably be dead in less than 50 years
If this isn't an OH YEAH? or a SEZ YOU! then I don't know what is.
You might also be surprised to note that they share a proportionately higher standard of happiness, as determined by WHO surveys
If, as you assert, greater happiness can be equated with poverty, then I feel certain the churches will ensure poverty reigns by selling happiness at a price adjusted for inflation and the cost of living index.
A link to those WHO surveys is required if you want credibility. It's your responsibility to confirm what you assert, particularly when it comes to others' data.
.... rather than actually begin a discussion on these things, you simply drive home your own values, artificially borrowed from the authority of science.
Now where could I have gained the impression, then, that your idea of a discussion is the theist evangelising in the face a respectful and attentive atheist seated agape and hanging on every word?
Over 15 years' engagement in discussion groups there's not much I haven't encountered from the theist bretheren. Inevitably their arguments fail before a rational assault. Their penultimate resort is to ad hominem, straw-man, personal incredulity and attempts to lay some of their cumbersome philosophical baggage off onto atheists. The ultimate is obfuscation, prevarication and dismissive avoidance.
Artificially borrowed? There's nought artificial about my borrowing. It's real, dyed-in-the-wool borrowing that is!
To the best of my recollection, I've never encountered a theist who, without being asked, was prepared to accord to the atheist the same degree of respect, tolerance and appreciation that he, the theist, demanded and expected from the atheist. Even asking was greeted with dumb insolence and/or irate special pleading for rights they denied others.
Ok, So you agree with Mencken and no other human doesn't? I mean any idiot can argue that the entire world is deluded except for them (and a few of their friends)
It's a positive passion for theists. How many sects and gods are there to date? Robert Greene Ingersoll had a pertinent observation to make about this. I'll present it here shortly
Once again, its clear that you have never encountered a scriptural commentary.
Whose scripture?
Jeez, you can't even discuss theism outside of christianity. Are you a christian atheist?
A christian atheist has that definite oxymoronic ring about it. No doubt you can legitimate such an incongruous title being steeped in the traditions of manoeuverable interpretation as you seem to be.
If you are not christian, then whose commentary have I not read and whose god do you worship? Assuming, that is, you interpret THEIST as a GOD-BELIEVER/WORSHIPPER
OriginalBiggles, Prime
scroll down a bit and you can see that its an argument offerred by one of your fellow god-haters
You seem to forget that all living entity is attributed with a quality of eternality.
And its clear that all it offers is a small bubble of apparent pleasure in an ultimate context of the sufferings mentioned.
Nothing wrong with material aid ... only when it is attributed as the ultimate panacea for human suffering that it becomes foolishness.
I think in your eagerness to vex us with your cerebral polysyllabic delight you overlooked the original context in which I brought up the topic of material advancement as an ultimate waste of time.
I do ... all the time ..... even in your arguments
You can find a host of it at web sites like evilbible.com
errr ... reason, rationality and logic functions after one feeds values into it
You?
Polite?
meh
as if the goal of theism is simply to haul your ass in particular ....
um hullo?
Are we having the same conversation?
I simply stated that your attempts to problematize theism are already encountered within theism, so in essence, you bring nothing (except your chip onyour shoulder of course)
Your inevitable demise before the turn of the next century has nothing to do with my opinion
try google
might be a reflection of your own gross hatred that you are picking up.
I mean I've only ever had about 6 exchanges with you and practically every sentence of yours drips with sarcasm, name calling and innuendo.
You been so involved with your little spiel its like I am only here to make up the numbers as you drive home your rhetoric about what a drag the bible is.
You're not even aware that I am not a christian.
somehow I am not surprised that you in particular have never had that experience
There's more to character than words alone
And how many different medical applications are there to date?
Some guy wants to operate, another give a needle, another wants to change your diet, and yet another a massage.
Geez
When will these bozoes get their act together and come forward with just one size fits all for everyone?
any
since christianity is obviously the thing that floats your boat, why don't you tell us any scriptural commentaries you are familiar with