theists:

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Codex Three, The Ten Commandments, is rightly understood as a summary of morality principles, i.e., a 'Freedom Code' designed:

(1) To preserve and protect human privacy, property and life and (2) in so doing to perpetuate the human race which, over the sweep

of its history, has been bent on its own self destruction. It deals with morality not spir ...[text shortened]... iting issues in play are willful human ignorance, intransigence and myopia.



🙂

Its really peculiar why people would think a god would NEED a mediator. Suppose you have a guy with a pipsqueek voice, has to communicate to a whole stadium. Well there is this thing called a microphone and amps, everyone can hear the squeek. So god is like that pipsqueek, has to use some human intervener? Unlikely. That is just making excuses for some non-existant god so the so-called mediator can gather people around him or her and build a power base. Thats what it's REALLY about. Power over people. The 'mediator' has just co-incidently gotten the best house, car, lots of money, women up the kazoo. Such a deal!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sure someone else who knows the Bible better can quote a few verses that imply that Christianity is the only way to heaven and that belief in other gods is a terrible sin. You seem to think that belief in Krishna is acceptable as 'belief in God'.

Also, there are a number of verses that imply that God knows the future, makes you wonder why he woul ...[text shortened]... ible. Quite simply, if he didn't then any rational person would dismiss most of it as untrue.

most stuff in the bible may have had a use at one time. you might be under the impression that i think that all the bible was written under divine inspiration. i do not. some of it was propaganda for the various jewish leader to make the jews happy about being the chosen people and more easily controlled.

already said most of it is exaggerated and only valid for that era.

a woman stoned to death may have been acceptable then when women didnt own any assets and were dependent on the man. just as the electric chair is acceptable now.

does it mean that since we evolved and have different moral values that god does not exist? can't you see that no matter what you say, you cannot disprove god just as you cannot prove him? atheists are just as religious as christians and muslims. and sometimes just as fanatical

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
most stuff in the bible may have had a use at one time. you might be under the impression that i think that all the bible was written under divine inspiration. i do not. some of it was propaganda for the various jewish leader to make the jews happy about being the chosen people and more easily controlled.

already said most of it is exaggerated and only v ...[text shortened]... him? atheists are just as religious as christians and muslims. and sometimes just as fanatical

Athiets don't kill people en mass to prove a non-believe in god. The only ones killing by the thousands are fundamentalist Christians and Muslims intent on forcing control on an indigious population. See South America. See Central Africa right now. See Crusades.
See Inquisition. How many atheists have killed people in heated battle trying to force religious people to become atheistic?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its really peculiar why people would think a god would NEED a mediator. Suppose you have a guy with a pipsqueek voice, has to communicate to a whole stadium. Well there is this thing called a microphone and amps, everyone can hear the squeek. So god is like that pipsqueek, has to use some human intervener? Unlikely. That is just making excuses for some non- ...[text shortened]... ust co-incidently gotten the best house, car, lots of money, women up the kazoo. Such a deal!

God has no need for a mediator. We do. Christ is the mediator

between God and man, reconciling hopeless mankind to Himself.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
most stuff in the bible may have had a use at one time. you might be under the impression that i think that all the bible was written under divine inspiration. i do not. some of it was propaganda for the various jewish leader to make the jews happy about being the chosen people and more easily controlled.

Except, I suppose, your own personal favorite verses.

already said most of it is exaggerated and only valid for that era.
So why do you read it, and how do you know which bits are still valid?

a woman stoned to death may have been acceptable then when women didnt own any assets and were dependent on the man. just as the electric chair is acceptable now.
So if my wife owns no assets and is dependent on me, I can stone her? Thats great news, I'm off to do it right away!

does it mean that since we evolved and have different moral values that god does not exist?
It means that they are our moral values and not Gods. One should ask then why God tried to dictate his moral values to the Jews.

can't you see that no matter what you say, you cannot disprove god just as you cannot prove him?
I can certainly disprove him, if you first define him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except, I suppose, your own personal favorite verses.

[b]already said most of it is exaggerated and only valid for that era.
So why do you read it, and how do you know which bits are still valid?

a woman stoned to death may have been acceptable then when women didnt own any assets and were dependent on the man. just as the electric chair is ...[text shortened]... god just as you cannot prove him?
I can certainly disprove him, if you first define him.[/b]

you really do not read the hole posts do you? what sort of an atheist are you if you only look at the things that you can use to support your idea?

we do make our own morals. and since god isn't answering his emails anymore we are the only source of moral guidelines. does it mean that if no prophets show up anymore that god has abandoned us or is non-existent? i say no, we simply came to the point where we can pretty much take care of our selves.


prove an almost omni-potent, omniscient supreme being outside space-time and thus beyond our means of observation exists? yeah, good luck with that

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you really do not read the hole posts do you? what sort of an atheist are you if you only look at the things that you can use to support your idea?

Which bit did I miss, and what does it have to do with me being an atheist?

we do make our own morals. and since god isn't answering his emails anymore we are the only source of moral guidelines. does it mean that if no prophets show up anymore that god has abandoned us or is non-existent? i say no, we simply came to the point where we can pretty much take care of our selves.
Why would God stop answering his email, and how do you know he was the one sending them before? You have already admitted that most of the Bible is spam.

prove an almost omni-potent, omniscient supreme being outside space-time and thus beyond our means of observation exists? yeah, good luck with that
I didn't say I would prove such a being exists, I said I would prove that a being that matches your definition of God does not exist. Are you claiming that the God you pray to has no interaction with the universe? Remember you said "beyond our means of observation".

Is it even coherent to say something exists, while simultaneously saying "outside of space-time"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which bit did I miss, and what does it have to do with me being an atheist?

[b]we do make our own morals. and since god isn't answering his emails anymore we are the only source of moral guidelines. does it mean that if no prophets show up anymore that god has abandoned us or is non-existent? i say no, we simply came to the point where we can pretty mu ven coherent to say something exists, while simultaneously saying "outside of space-time"?

"an almost omni-potent, omniscient supreme being outside space-time"
that is my definition of god, disprove that. you don't need the bible or the Koran. you may use this definition of god as a base class and inherit from it in certain religions :Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc


every spam was at first useful mail. in time it turns to spam.


outside of space time there is god. i don't have to prove what i just said because i "believe". you are the rational atheist, you may prove or disprove it if you wish, good luck 😀

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"an almost omni-potent, omniscient supreme being outside space-time"
that is my definition of god, disprove that. you don't need the bible or the Koran. you may use this definition of god as a base class and inherit from it in certain religions :Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc

Please add some of the inherited properties. I do not believe that you pray to such a vague definition. For example you mentioned that you were Christian, since you admit that Islam fits your definition, are you Muslim as well?

every spam was at first useful mail. in time it turns to spam.
Nonsense.

outside of space time there is god. i don't have to prove what i just said because i "believe". you are the rational atheist, you may prove or disprove it if you wish, good luck 😀
Yes I am a rational atheist. And what you just said is incoherent nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please add some of the inherited properties. I do not believe that you pray to such a vague definition. For example you mentioned that you were Christian, since you admit that Islam fits your definition, are you Muslim as well?

[b]every spam was at first useful mail. in time it turns to spam.
Nonsense.

outside of space time there is god. i d ...[text shortened]... good luck 😀
Yes I am a rational atheist. And what you just said is incoherent nonsense.[/b]

you don't understand the definition of "i believe", do you?
can't you grasp the fact that there may be something out there that is unexplainable and beyond proof?

i may believe in the easter bunny. that doesn't make me an "incoherent" retard until i stay up all night to wait for it. do try to understand that if someone believes in a higher power doesn't mean that he is a retarded zealot or that he is less intelligent than you, the mighty atheist.


spam isn't spam unless you declare it that way. exactly the way with the undesirable parts in the bible


This conversation between you and me is over. if you cannot be civil, i would rather converse with (and/or make fun of) a creationist person. at least god forbids them to be uncivil with sinners. at least you confirmed to me that atheists can be just as single minded in their religion as christian or muslim zealots

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which bit did I miss, and what does it have to do with me being an atheist?

[b]we do make our own morals. and since god isn't answering his emails anymore we are the only source of moral guidelines. does it mean that if no prophets show up anymore that god has abandoned us or is non-existent? i say no, we simply came to the point where we can pretty mu ven coherent to say something exists, while simultaneously saying "outside of space-time"?

[/b]Is what you’re getting at here:

1. The O-O-O god is incoherent per se? (E.g., because we really don’t know what we mean when we use terms like “omniscient”?)

2. That the 3O god becomes incoherent in the face of the conditions of the natural universe (e.g., the general argument from natural evil)?

3. The notion of a being that exists outside of space-time (or natural dimensionality generally) is incoherent?

4. That the combination 1. and 3. is incoherent (even they are separately coherent)?

5. (a) That the combination of the 3O god with other attributes normally assigned by theists results in incoherencies? Or (b) that the other attributes commonly assigned are themselves contradictory?

_________________________________________

I tried to show 3. with my overly complicated syllogism back when you and LH got into the discussion about the man and the box. Have been looking for a simpler way to do it.

2. has been amply demonstrated (most rigorously on here by bbarr).

Originally posted by vistesd
Is what you’re getting at here:

1. The O-O-O god is incoherent per se? (E.g., because we really don’t know what we mean when we use terms like “omniscient”?)

2. That the 3O god becomes incoherent in the face of the conditions of the natural universe (e.g., the general argument from natural evil)?

3. The notion of a being that exists outside ...[text shortened]... or a simpler way to do it.

2. has been amply demonstrated (most rigorously on here by bbarr).[/b]

Looking through the wrong end of the looking glass (tortured

telescope) in a most studious manner and convoluted way.

Learning and learning... grasping less and less of the truth.


🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Looking through the wrong end of the looking glass (tortured

telescope) in a most studious manner and convoluted way.

Learning and learning... grasping less and less of the truth.


🙂

You really shouldn't denigrate vistesd, newbie. It makes you appear even more ignorant and foolish than your half-assed proselytizing of the ridiculous and immoral Judeo-Christian doctrines.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Looking through the wrong end of the looking glass (tortured

telescope) in a most studious manner and convoluted way.

Learning and learning... grasping less and less of the truth.


🙂

Vacuous generalities that have nothing to do with my questions to twhitehead. Perhaps, however, you do not understand the questions; they do have some historical context in terms of past discussions on here with which twhitehead is familiar.

I take no umbrage, though. And if you want to address the wrong-headedness of a particular question or statement of mine, I'll take a look at it.

Originally posted by David C
You really shouldn't denigrate vistesd, newbie. It makes you appear even more ignorant and foolish than your half-assed proselytizing of the ridiculous and immoral Judeo-Christian doctrines.

Mr. David C., nothing whatsoever to do with the poster. Focus was on the hopelessly strained vortex of thought.

By the way, and by way of reminder, weak people always attack other persons and their personalities. The strong

consistently deal constructively with worthwhile issues. You may have tipped your hand with your crass vocabulary.


🙂