The God Delusion

MisterEpicurus

Eramen wrote: »

Yes, I didn't want to get into the Rig Veda. Better to stick what we ' all know ' (not directed at you)

It's the ideas behind the morality that are absolute, not the morality itself, as stated in the 11th commandment. Words, things, objects, morality.. are not absolute, this is the nature of the material. God, form of the Good is the origin of true morality for Christians. Absolutism comes from the intrinsic ideal value.

Also the Law was "Do not Murder", which is a lot different !

I hope I'm not the only one, but, I'm not exactly sure how ideas hide behind morality. Morality is a term for our ethical actions and whether these are moral or not. The 10 Commandments suggest I should not murder. Assuming the Bible to be true, then the moral idea behind this is pretty clear in my view, or else the Bible wouldn't have been written down. A lot of your response is nebulous in the sense it employs poetic talk without delving into any substance with the argument. Using vague phrases only clouds discussion and does not clarify anything.

10 Commandments say 'Do Not Murder'

We must return to our hypothetical scenario - if I have the opportunity to murder Hitler and this will invariably save 10 million lives, should I murder Hitler? We all have to have an answer to this question. If we follow the 10 Commandments, I should not murder Hitler. Hell, if I follow Jesus 'love your neighbour as yourself' maxim then I should doubly not do this. But if I don't have the 10 Commandments, I know how I would act, and it would be in direct contravention of the 10 Commandments.

The very mysterious and unclarifying aspect of so-called 'moral laws' makes me highly suspicious they are divinely inspired.

Would you kill Hitler to save the 10 million civilians and be in direct contravention of the Christian Holy texts? If yes, where did you get your moral decision from because it's not from the Bible.

PurpleSt4in

tony007 wrote: »

I think he doesn't mean children literally, more creations.

Yes, and evolution can debunk that. I just find organised religions so ridiculous.

philologos

Eramen wrote: »

This thread is a total joke. Discuss much? Obviously not.

Most Irish (and Britons/Amerikhanz) fall into two distinct categories on religion/irreligion:

1) Those who believe nearly exactly what they were taught as kids without really questioning.

2) Those who, in typical 'rebel without a cause' fashion, react violently to nearly everything they were taught as kids and reject it.

I disagree.

There's also people who never really cared growing up irrespective of what their parents believed and then thought about it for themselves at a later stage. That's where I fall in. In the last 5 and a bit years since I decided to follow Jesus Christ and people I've met through churches, through Christian Unions at universities in Ireland and in the UK I've noticed that a lot of people are like me also. They've looked to the accounts that we have of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and as a result of mulling these over and thinking it through and as a result of this God has shown them who He is.

As far as my current perspective concerning the Gospel goes, I'd have a number of disagreements with friends and family on this issue, and with those who would have a much more liberal outlook in respect to the full authority of Scripture than I would.

philologos

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I was arguing against prevous poster saying that god sent his only son to earth or whatever. If we are all children of god that cant be true.

Biblically we are not children of God by nature. The Bible says that we are by nature "children of wrath":

Ephesians 2:1-10 wrote:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with Him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

In reality, before I knew Christ, I was spiritually dead. I am a child of wrath and I deserved no part or seal in God's blessing because I had utterly rejected Him by turning my back on Him (Romans 3:23)

The Bible is also clear that Jesus is His only begotten son. The point is that if you have decided to repent of your sin put your full faith and trust in Jesus alone for salvation, you are adopted as a child of God. You don't have this right naturally:

John 1:12-13 wrote:

But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 8:14-17 backs this view up as does Galatians 4:1-6.

Let me know if you've got any questions on the Christian understanding of this.

hyperborean

philologos wrote: »

Biblically we are not children of God by nature. The Bible says that we are by nature "children of wrath":


In reality, before I knew Christ, I was spiritually dead. I am a child of wrath and I deserved no part or seal in God's blessing because I had utterly rejected Him by turning my back on Him (Romans 3:23)

The Bible is also clear that Jesus is His only begotten son. The point is that if you have decided to repent of your sin put your full faith and trust in Jesus alone for salvation, you are adopted as a child of God. You don't have this right naturally:


Romans 8:14-17 backs this view up as does Galatians 4:1-6.

Let me know if you've got any questions on the Christian understanding of this.

What do you fear?

philologos

hyperborean wrote: »

What do you fear?

Many things often unjustifiably. I trust in God however.

nozzferrahhtoo

tony007 wrote: »

You haven't read much philosophy, have you?

False. See where assumption gets you?

bnt

It struck me that The God Delusion was Dawkins' retirement plan: it came out around the time he turned 65, retiring from his Oxford professorship. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I get the impression he was liberated to say what he really thought about religion, when his previous focus was on evolutionary theory and science education.

What I have noticed is a lot of cherry-picking, and others who have clearly read only parts of the book. The negative bits about religion are in the 1st half, in the 2nd half the tone is more positive and humanistic. You can tell who's missed the plot by the language they use. If someone starts on about Dawkins as a "high priest of atheism" with "acolytes" or "followers", I know I can stop reading them, because they haven't bothered to read Dawkins before having a go at him.

crazy cabbage

philologos wrote: »

Biblically we are not children of God by nature. The Bible says that we are by nature "children of wrath":

Let me know if you've got any questions on the Christian understanding of this.

Paul (or whoever did write Ephesians, becsoue there is series douth that paul did) may have siad that we are children of wrath butJesus apparently thought us to pray 'Our father, who art....'. I will place more weight on what jesus himself thought us. Wasn't the our father the only prayer he actully thought us? See the our? I honestly cant see how he can not have ment that we are all sons and daughters of god? Otherwise why the our?

philologos

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Paul (or whoever did write Ephesians, becsoue there is series douth that paul did) may have siad that we are children of wrath butJesus apparently thought us to pray 'Our father, who art....'. I will place more weight on what jesus himself thought us. Wasn't the our father the only prayer he actully thought us? See the our? I honestly cant see how he can not have ment that we are all sons and daughters of god? Otherwise why the our?

Christians, the ones who have been adopted as children of God. God is our adoptive Father if we repent and believe in Jesus.

the culture of deference

philologos wrote: »

Explain what you mean by money hoarding for example?

philologos wrote: »

Christians, the ones who have been adopted as children of God. God is our adoptive Father if we repent and believe in Jesus.

35,000 different sects of christians, each sect with all their own rules.

do you really believe that god has spent 4 billion years getting our solar system ready for us alone?

does it not seem preposterous

the culture of deference

philologos wrote: »

Explain what you mean by money hoarding for example?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcaeekwZXY1qh6cyho1_500.jpg

philologos wrote: »

Christians, the ones who have been adopted as children of God. God is our adoptive Father if we repent and believe in Jesus.

35,000 different sects of christians, each sect with all their own rules.

do you really believe that god has spent 4 billion years getting our solar system ready for us alone?

does it not seem preposterous

Doc Ruby

philologos wrote: »

Christians, the ones who have been adopted as children of God. God is our adoptive Father if we repent and believe in Jesus.

And if we don't he'll send bears to eat us, especially if we mock his bald patch. Seriously, 2 Kings 2, forty two children dead or maimed by wild animals for vanity. Looks like god's no stranger to the oul wrath himself when it suits him, so much for 'thou shalt not murder' and the moral high ground.

housetypeb

philologos wrote: »

Christians, the ones who have been adopted as children of God. God is our adoptive Father if we repent and believe in Jesus.

What a bad daddy this God fellow is, making the adopted kids look up to his REAL child.

philologos

OK let's walk through this stuff.

the culture of deference wrote: »

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcaeekwZXY1qh6cyho1_500.jpg

Coming from a more Reformed tradition, I wouldn't have a great issue with churches just using buildings for worship without a lot of stained glass windows or anything else. However, if churches are used actively for worship and do have these things, and frescoes and other things that bring glory to Jesus Christ why is that a bad thing exactly? Or are you saying that churches should sell property that they actively use to meet in?

the culture of deference wrote: »

35,000 different sects of christians, each sect with all their own rules.

I think the argument is a great deal exaggerated. I'm a Christian simple as, I've read the Bible with Anglicans, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Brethren, Pentecostals (inc Redeemed Christian Church of God), non-denominational Christians, free-church / Evangelical.

Very rarely has there been disagreements concerning the nature of Jesus and what He came to do when examining Scripture. The context that I'm discussing is Christian Union at my alma matter (NUI Maynooth) and the Christian fellowship at my current workplace in London. Both obviously multi-denominational settings.

The argument of there being huge disputes between Christians isn't necessarily true.

Yes, there are clearly heretical groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists (not all, but certainly the legalistic trend in the SDA is of concern), but amongst orthodox Christians there's very little disagreement on primary issues.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And if we don't he'll send bears to eat us, especially if we mock his bald patch. Seriously, 2 Kings 2, forty two children dead or maimed by wild animals for vanity. Looks like god's no stranger to the oul wrath himself when it suits him, so much for 'thou shalt not murder' and the moral high ground.

The word in Hebrew isn't "children" it is youths. It also doesn't refer to what happens if people reject Jesus as Lord.

Let me know if you are interested in discussing it properly. Also, I've discussed this on boards.ie before and here's a link to a previous post where I discussed it.

housetypeb wrote: »

What a bad daddy this God fellow is, making the adopted kids look up to his REAL child.

This shows a misunderstanding of the Christian belief. Christians believe that the Trinity existed from the beginning Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Jesus was born, it was God coming into the world in human flesh. This is what Christians find hugely significant about Jesus' birth and it is what we will be thinking about in a mere few days time when we consider the fact that God humbled Himself in human flesh to rescue us from our sin (Philippians 2:1-11, Matthew 1:21)

Christians aren't God so of course we look up to Him. It's silly to suggest rivalry when we are the ones who needed to be saved.

DublinWriter

philologos wrote: »

Christians believe that the Trinity existed from the beginning Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Jesus was born, it was God coming into the world in human flesh.

No no no no no. The main schism was always the debate over the 'divinity' of Christ.

What ever you intend your imaginary friend-in-the-sky to be, the historical fact of the argument and it's political locus was over this very much debated fact.

philologos

DublinWriter wrote: »

No no no no no. The main schism was always the debate over the 'divinity' of Christ.

What ever you intend your imaginary friend-in-the-sky to be, the historical fact of the argument and it's political locus was over this very much debated fact.

You mean that orthodox Christians who accepted the Biblical point of view concerning Jesus versus the Arians? Yes, that's true. There's been heretics time and time again. The point that was raised to me wasn't about Arianism, but about differences in modern Christian denominations.

KamiKazi

philologos wrote: »

You mean that orthodox Christians who accepted the Biblical point of view concerning Jesus versus the Arians? Yes, that's true. There's been heretics time and time again. The point that was raised to me wasn't about Arianism, but about differences in modern Christian denominations.

Still pretending you haven't seen my posts?

Sham faith

Doc Ruby

philologos wrote: »

The word in Hebrew isn't "children" it is youths. It also doesn't refer to what happens if people reject Jesus as Lord.

It would appear to be preferable to eternal hellfire alright. With that said you can split hairs however you like, some kids/youths/young people/minors called the guy baldy and got torn limb from limb by bears, there is no other reason unless you're inventing one from whole cloth, because it sure isn't in the book in any language. And aren't there some rather stern admonitions about people who amend the bible?

I've seen what a bear can do, given the opportunity I would prefer to shoot first and figure out if it was friendly later, the only animal on earth I'd treat in that manner. They can run faster than people and are stronger than oxen, they can toss a man about like a rag doll, or decapitate with a swipe of their paws. Nothing more dangerous than some well meaning naturalist trying to befriend them, you do not want them to get unafraid of people.

So what kind of god is it that sends two of them to rip up a bunch of rude kids. Certainly not one you should be looking to for moral guidance. There really is no excuse. Doesn't stop you from trying to come up with one though, and I've read a considerable variety of excuses for this particular chapter and verse.

But its not like you're going to re-evaluate your entire belief system based on yet another mass murder of innocents by your deity, since you've already come to terms with it, so I won't bother. This is for the benefit of everyone else.

philologos

Doc Ruby wrote: »

It would appear to be preferable to eternal hellfire alright. With that said you can split hairs however you like, some kids/youths/young people/minors called the guy baldy and got torn limb from limb by bears, there is no other reason unless you're inventing one from whole cloth, because it sure isn't in the book in any language. And aren't there some rather stern admonitions about people who amend the bible?

I've seen what a bear can do, given the opportunity I would prefer to shoot first and figure out if it was friendly later, the only animal on earth I'd treat in that manner. They can run faster than people and are stronger than oxen, they can toss a man about like a rag doll, or decapitate with a swipe of their paws. Nothing more dangerous than some well meaning naturalist trying to befriend them, you do not want them to get unafraid of people.

So what kind of god is it that sends two of them to rip up a bunch of rude kids. Certainly not one you should be looking to for moral guidance. There really is no excuse. Doesn't stop you from trying to come up with one though, and I've read a considerable variety of excuses for this particular chapter and verse.

But its not like you're going to re-evaluate your entire belief system based on yet another mass murder of innocents by your deity, since you've already come to terms with it, so I won't bother. This is for the benefit of everyone else.

I'm not going to re-evaluate something I regard to be true without a good reason to. The word that is used in Hebrew doesn't refer exclusively to minors for the record.

We live in God's creation, and He can take us away at any point. Especially as in this case they were a risk to the life of Elisha. Needless to say I think that God was right, and that He probably knew a heck of a lot more about the situation than you or I did.

I'm not splitting any hairs, it seems that you're claiming that because I'm providing an explanation that you don't like. Here's a link which explores the situation in more depth.

Doc Ruby

philologos wrote: »

We live in God's creation, and He can take us away at any point. Especially as in this case they were a risk to the life of Elisha.

The only risk he endured was a slightly dented ego. Its right there, in black and white. Nowhere is there any mention of hails of stones, sharp sticks, ropes, blows or undesireable flatulence. Notable by their absence are the arrows and knives, whips and cudgels. The entire episode has a violence-shaped hole in it right up until the lord decided to set some wild animals on children.

Blessed are the makers of wigs, for theirs shall be the bear-proof togas.

philologos wrote: »

Here's a link which explores the situation in more depth.

And I can give you ten more just like it, each more filled with lies than the last. Its a farce, far from the only one but certainly among the most facepalm-inducing.

philologos

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The only risk he endured was a slightly dented ego. Its right there, in black and white. Nowhere is there any mention of hails of stones, sharp sticks, ropes, blows or undesireable flatulence. Notable by their absence are the arrows and knives, whips and cudgels. The entire episode has a violence-shaped hole in it right up until the lord decided to set some wild animals on children.

Blessed are the makers of wigs, for theirs shall be the bear-proof togas.

And I can give you ten more just like it, each more filled with lies than the last. Its a farce, far from the only one but certainly among the most facepalm-inducing.

Not at all. If you understood the context of what happened in Samaria you'd know that there was a lot of hostility between the worshippers of Ba'al in Samaria and those who believed and trusted in God. So in Bethel the same city as the city that Elisha was in with these 42+ youths (it says 42 of them were mauled but there may have been more). Clearly God knew there was a significant threat, and knew what would happen if He didn't intervene in this case. See 1 Kings 12 for this.

Also, Elisha wasn't old he was possibly the same age as them, the reason they called him baldy was because he was following a priestly vow (Numbers 6).

That article draws some reasonable conclusions about the situation that Elisha was in, and it considers the Biblical context as a whole rather than extracting something out of context as you did.

But look, if you're not actually interested in considering the Gospel as a real possibility by which people can really lead their lives there's not much point in really discussing this. If you're looking to the Bible to twist what it says out of it's due context you're not actually interested in an honest discussion.

The only thing that is genuinely facepalm worthy is bad reading of the Bible that seeks to dishonestly bolster an atheist position.

Pherekydes

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. If you understood the context of what happened in Samaria you'd know that there was a lot of hostility between the worshippers of Ba'al in Samaria and those who believed and trusted in God. So in Bethel the same city as the city that Elisha was in with these 42+ youths (it says 42 of them were mauled but there may have been more). Clearly God knew there was a significant threat, and knew what would happen if He didn't intervene in this case. See 1 Kings 12 for this.

Seems some really bizarre sh1t when you think of the stuff he didn't intervene in down through the ages.

The only thing that is genuinely facepalm worthy is bad reading of the Bible that seeks to dishonestly bolster an atheist position.

The only thing that is genuinely facepalm worthy is bad re-writing of the Bible that seeks to dishonestly bolster a church's position.

philologos

Pherekydes wrote: »

Seems some really bizarre sh1t when you think of the stuff he didn't intervene in down through the ages.

The only thing that is genuinely facepalm worthy is bad re-writing of the Bible that seeks to dishonestly bolster a church's position.

1. I agree that God doesn't intervene in many cases. I also believe that God has a reasonable justification for not acting.

2. I'm not trying to dishonestly bolster anything. When I post on boards.ie I'm not trying to encourage people to become a part of "a church". What I am hoping to do is communicate something of the Gospel, and I'm hoping that misconceptions will be clarified, and perhaps that some people as a result of God might be challenged to repent of their sin and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord.

That's all. I've not promoted a single church on After Hours.

Moreover, what I try and do is look to the whole Bible, and to present what it says as a whole. To show where passages fit in. In reality a Biblical interpretation which hasn't been arrived to as a result of a reading of the whole Bible will more than likely be ignorant and ill-informed.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

1. I agree that God doesn't intervene in many cases. I also believe that God has a reasonable justification for not acting.

This is an example of the great "thinking" theists put into the subject. They essentially establish a win win situation for themselves where if they can identify a positive result it is evidence for god but if they identify a negative result it is also evidence for god.

When positive and negative results both prove your position you truly have entered into the realm of blind faith.

krudler

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is an example of the great "thinking" theists put into the subject. They essentially establish a win win situation for themselves where if they can identify a positive result it is evidence for god but if they identify a negative result it is also evidence for god.

When positive and negative results both prove your position you truly have entered into the realm of blind faith.

God kills children= justified
God doesn't stop children being killed by others= well he has reasons for that too.

Its nonsense, no matter how abhorrent his acts he gets away with it in the minds of his worshippers. 42 kids were a threat to the being who created the entire universe? seriously?

floggg

Just to go back to this "new covenant" stuff for a second.

Even of we accept that Jesus death brought in this new covenant, and that as a result the Old Testament laws don't apply, the God of the Old Testament remains the God of the New Testament.

So even if we no longer have to kill homosexuals or adulterers, the fact remains that God once required this. So we can assume that there were many people killed as a result of these laws, supposedly at Gods will during Old Testament times.

He can hardly be called just and loving if he required people to be put to death for this sort of thing, can he?

And why can you say that god would be opposed to the Kill the Gays law on Uganda when, though he may no longer do so, he once required this to be done himself. Even if he no longer requires it, where does the bible say he now forbids it?

And if so, assuming god is infallible, why did he reverse course on this?

What's so different about the value of the life of a gay man born in 100 BC and one born in 100AD?

krudler

floggg wrote: »

Just to go back to this "new covenant" stuff for a second.

Even of we accept that Jesus death brought in this new covenant, and that as a result the Old Testament laws don't apply, the God of the Old Testament remains the God of the New Testament.

So even if we no longer have to kill homosexuals or adulterers, the fact remains that God once required this. So we can assume that there were many people killed as a result of these laws, supposedly at Gods will during Old Testament times.

He can hardly be called just and loving if he required people to be put to death for this sort of thing, can he?

And why can you say that god would be opposed to the Kill the Gays law on Uganda when, though he may no longer do so, he once required this to be done himself. Even if he no longer requires it, where does the bible say he now forbids it?

And if so, assuming god is infallible, why did he reverse course on this?

What's so different about the value of the life of a gay man born in 100 BC and one born in 100AD?

Everyone calms down a bit once the first kid arrives.

9959

In my opinion, the most important, and by far the most interesting, part of The Bible is the 'blended clothing' question, (Deuteronomy 22:11) or (Leviticus 19:19).
As someone with a keen interest in Haberdashery, I look forward with keen anticipation to reading some really long posts on the above, for we seem to be getting bogged down in lofty theological discourse about piffling matters concerning the very existence of God and so on, I believe therefore that some practical Christian advice on Biblically correct - smart but casual - clothing would be helpful, particularly at this time of year with the party season in full swing.
Speaking of the party season, is it ok to wear a 'blended' prophylactic or 'French Letter' on one's appendage in order to prevent the spreading of diseases and the possible 'begetting' of unwanted kiddies, or must this form of 'clothing' be made of the purest lambswool or goats' hair to attain the acceptance and approval of Christ the Redeemer.
What does The Bible say on this?

krudler

9959 wrote: »

In my opinion, the most important, and by far the most interesting, part of The Bible is the 'blended clothing' question, (Deuteronomy 22:11) or (Leviticus 19:19).
As someone with a keen interest in Haberdashery, I look forward with keen anticipation to reading some really long posts on the above, for we seem to be getting bogged down in lofty theological discourse about piffling matters concerning the very existence of God and so on, I believe therefore that some practical Christian advice on Biblically correct - smart but casual - clothing would be helpful, particularly at this time of year with the party season in full swing.
Speaking of the party season, is it ok to wear a 'blended' prophylactic or 'French Letter' on one's appendage in order to prevent the spreading of diseases and the possible 'begetting' of unwanted kiddies, or must this form of 'clothing' be made of the purest lambswool or goats' hair to attain the acceptance and approval of Christ the Redeemer.
What does The Bible say on this?

something something something CONTEXT something something.

God= divine creator of the entire universe and all thats in it, finds polyester blends an abomination.

9959

krudler wrote: »

something something something CONTEXT something something.

God= divine creator of the entire universe and all thats in it, finds polyester blends an abomination.

The above is almost the 'dictionary definition' of textual analysis.
Thank you Sir.

hiromoto

I too, like many of the posters here was a lost soul until I accepted the Flying Spaghetti Monster into my heart. I cannot 100% disprove the existence of other false Gods yet I know in my heart the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true Lord.

Sound familiar?

9959

hiromoto wrote: »

I too, like many of the posters here was a lost soul until I accepted the Flying Spaghetti Monster into my heart. I cannot 100% disprove the existence of other false Gods yet I know in my heart the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true Lord.

Sound familiar?

I don't believe that the 'cult' of Pastafarianism will ever really take hold or 'stick to the pot of the soul' as once explained to me by a teenage malcontent at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa.

The idea of having to start as a mere 'vermicelli' before working your way up to 'vermicelloni' status 5 YEARS LATER is utterly preposterous.

In terms of the theology I've no problem with the 'flying' part, it's the 'monster' bit that I find ridiculous and lacking in any serious scientific foundation.
However, if you truly believe, then who am I to attempt to disabuse you of your source of happiness and inspiration, as long as they don't try to teach it to our kiddies in their schools.

Good luck to you!

hiromoto

9959, perhaps you could look into the Reform Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster formed after the great schism. They too expressed some of the same doubts as you and could not reconcile themselves with our theology. I pray you will allow his noodley appendages to touch your heart.

9959

hiromoto wrote: »

9959, perhaps you could look into the Reform Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster formed after the great schism. They too expressed some of the same doubts as you and could not reconcile themselves with our theology. I pray you will allow his noodley appendages to touch your heart.

I shall indeed investigate and research the great schism referenced in the above post, though I'm currently busy eating a cheese sandwich.

To be honest, I think we're all twiddling our thumbs a bit here until 'Philo' comes back online to tell us what's what, it's never as much fun without the 'great man'.
By the way, thanks for your prayers, but if anyone approaches me whilst dangling their 'noodley appendage' then they'll truly know the meaning of the culinary phrase 'al dente'!

Good day to you.

ruthloss

9959 wrote: »

I shall indeed investigate and research the great schism referenced in the above post, though I'm currently busy eating a cheese sandwich.

To be honest, I think we're all twiddling our thumbs a bit here until 'Philo' comes back online to tell us what's what, it's never as much fun without the 'great man'.
By the way, thanks for your prayers, but if anyone approaches me whilst dangling their 'noodley appendage' then they'll truly know the meaning of the culinary phrase 'al dente'!

Good day to you.

ruthloss

Pasta caring about any gawds., boom! boom!!

hiromoto

ruthloss wrote: »

Pasta caring about any gawds., boom! boom!!

Blasphemer.

ruthloss

hiromoto wrote: »

Blasphemer.

Pastaphile!!:P

krudler

hiromoto wrote: »

Blasphemer.

Be hilarious if someone tried to bring the blashemy law into play about the flying spaghetti monster, after all there's as much evidence to suggest that exists as there is old Yaweh.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dressing it up as humbling yourself before god does not for one instant change it from hubris back to humilty. At the end of the day given there is not even a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest this god even exists... what people like that are doing is simply inventing a set of standards.... judging themselves as having met them and judging others as falling short of them.

No more. No less.

Distancing oneself from this by pretending it is not your own standards you are judging people by but that of a supreme god who despite being all powerful, all knowing and all important somehow manages to give a toss what you do in your meaningless life does not add a thing to it at all either. Going around telling people how humble you feel or think you are does not for one moment make it so.

Cutting through the verbosity, not only don't you understand, but you willfully don't understand. None of your spiel above shows that your accusation of a superiority complex is in any way grounded in reality. In fact, to add to my last explanation to you, my knowledge of our creator compared to your ignorance of him, if anything, gives me a distinct INFERIORITY complex. Why? Well I fall short in knowledge, while you fall short in ignorance. To reiterate though, although you articulated your lack of understanding above, my original response to you still stands in the face of it. Not much else I can do, but tell you as a Christian how I feel. If you believe I'm lying, or pretending or whatever, thats up to you.

tony007

PurpleSt4in wrote: »

Yes, and evolution can debunk that. I just find organised religions so ridiculous.

How can it debunk it?
What about non-organised religion?

tony007

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. See where assumption gets you?

Did you see the question mark? That makes it a question, not a statement.

tony007

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is an example of the great "thinking" theists put into the subject. They essentially establish a win win situation for themselves where if they can identify a positive result it is evidence for god but if they identify a negative result it is also evidence for god.

When positive and negative results both prove your position you truly have entered into the realm of blind faith.

Theists? Like all theists? Who's making assumptions now?

Pherekydes

tony007 wrote: »

Theists? Like all theists? Who's making assumptions now?

No, just great thinking theists.

Brinimartini

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Dawkins will not deny the existence of god, he's not athiest. He's a clever man though, making millions off gullible people. Sound familiar?

Not fair.Dawkins is an atheist based on the knowledge available to him now.

tony007

Pherekydes wrote: »

No, just great thinking theists.

Really? All of them?! Wow, you have studied the works of all great thinking theists?!

Pherekydes

tony007 wrote: »

Really? All of them?! Wow, you have studied the works of all great thinking theists?!

Just clarifying what Nozz may have meant. I think he mentioned "an example" of their thinking, which would only imply a sample.

tony007

Pherekydes wrote: »

Just clarifying what Nozz may have meant. I think he mentioned "an example" of their thinking, which would only imply a sample.

A sample of the thinking of all great thinking theists?!

Pherekydes

tony007 wrote: »

A sample of the thinking of all great thinking theists?!

Jimmy (you don't mind if I call you Jimmy?), I think you're just being wilful now.

I think he meant an example of the thinking of a sample of great thinking theists.