Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

by Greatest I am Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4

I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.

That myth I think was written of the following reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes

Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.

I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.

That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.

Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.

The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc

Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?

Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Evolution is still a theory.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: It's a scientific theory, you need to go away and educate yourself about the difference, as this tired old chestnut makes you look very silly. Evolution has been proven by a massive weight of empirical evidence, the sheer ignorance required to either not know or deny this is nothing short of astonishing. Every year more peer reviewed empirical evidence is accrued as well, much of it by medical science, where evolution is used to cure disease and manufacture medicines.
Anyone in my opinion who believes that the universe and all it contains came about by chance and without a wonderful intelligence being involved needs urgent medical attention.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well that's just an opinion, whereas it is an irrefutable mathematical certainty that complexity comes from random events given enough time and repetition.
I can understand anyone being confused regarding the past use of the earth, the dinosaurs being a prime example but there are far more involvements in the universe that make no sense to us that pose a far greater answer than the fact that the earth was used at one time for the creation of creatures the reason for we do not know and are realy of no concern to us.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not a very coherent sentence I must say, but that aside, who are you claiming is confused? Science has discovered a great deal about how the earth was formed and about dinosaurs, your message from a being you claim has limitless knowledge didn't even mention one word about them, because the people who wrote the bible were entirely ignorant of dinosaurs, proof positive that bible is entirely man made. These facts and others about the universe may well be of no concern to you, but that's only because they fairly obviously highlight that your beliefs are based on ignorance and superstition.

by stuart torr Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:27 pm

All my emails are following you around today Sheldon, now evolution is to myself not a theory anymore. Now is it me that's wrong or not my friend?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:22 pm

stu wrote:All my emails are following you around today Sheldon, now evolution is to myself not a theory anymore. Now is it me that's wrong or not my friend?

Hi stu, off out for meal with family shortly, it's my birthday tomorrow. Theists often spout this misnomer, that evolution is a theory, more often they say just a theory as if it diminishes it's veracity. They're actually showing their ignorance when they do it, as a scientific theory is entirely different to just a theory, it has to be validated by empirical evidence. The theory of evolution has had almost 200 years of scrutiny, and probably more people trying to disprove it than any other scientific theory, yet it not only remains proven, but garners more evidence each year.

by Shirina Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:26 pm

Mr. Cusick, please read this post. I think you've been ignoring most of my posts of late, but this one you should pay attention to.

JP Cusick wrote:So more name-calling.

It's no different than calling me "self-righteous" and "full of malice" is it not? Remember, if you want to dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

JP Cusick wrote:The thing is that I am not advocating the killing of kids, and not advocating the oppression of women either.

Actually, you are.

JP Cusick wrote:You see me that way but it is your own false vision and not me.

And here's why I think you ARE advocating for the killing of kids and the oppression of women ...

The oppression of women is the easiest to confront, so I'll deal with that first. The problem is that no matter how extreme, brutal, tyrannical, or barbaric a law and its punishment is toward women, you have defended it. Nothing is off the table in regards to how cruel another culture is allowed to be towards women. What's worse is that you defend it with some of the most off-the-wall logic I've ever seen. Claiming that "there's no evidence that Saudi women even want to drive" is really reaching for a justification, and I think you know that (which is why it feels like you're trolling).

Not one single time have you relented, conceded, or agreed with anyone here unless it was about some trivial point about religion. Not one single time have you voiced any disagreement with policies that place women in a 2nd or 3rd class citizenship status - instead you claim that being deprived of choice and being "taken care of" like a pet cat is what women really want. And to top it all off - you're not even a woman, so how would YOU know?

What's even more bizarre is this terminal case of "white guilt" you seem to be carrying around. It is so pervasive that you're willing to accept and even justify the enslavement and oppression of women just to avoid the possibility of being seen as "racist" -- this despite the fact that "Islam" and "Muslim" are not "races."

Religious bigotry, you say? No ... the bigotry begins with some of these cultures which are bigoted against women. To call ME a religious bigot is like calling someone a bigot against bigotry. That's just stupid no matter how you slice it. I guess I'm a bigot bigot. What's actually frightening is that I think being bigoted against bigotry is something you try so hard to avoid that you've essentially paralyzed yourself from taking any kind of real stand on these issues; you're willing to throw women under the bus in order to avoid being firmly "against" something.

And that holds true with killing children, as well. Now ... to keep this thread going, I'll address this comment:

JP Cusick wrote:you mock the scriptures

You're damn right I do because they are barbaric, cruel, caprecious, and brutal. Not to mention that "scripture" is just made up bunk written by superstitious and fearful Bronze Age simpletons. What's more is that they espouse dangerous ideas - and killing children is one of those dangerous ideas. The fact that you are willing to overlook and justify wanton butchery commited by an omni-benevolent God tells me that there is no such thing as objective morality in your worldview. That even an all-powerful God with infinite options should be able to kill a kid here and there if he feels like it. And if it's okay for a perfectly good and loving God to kill kids, then how immoral can it be? Unfortunately for some, it's not a very long walk from 3,000 B.C. to 2013 A.D., and thus we have all kinds of brutality and depravity and oppression going on in the world thanks to a slavish devotion to those "scriptures" that I mock so often.

JP Cusick wrote:I am the only one (1) here who actually has or exhibits any real faith or religion or even true feelings.

Yeah, I know it can be a pain to post on a board where everyone seems to be against you. However, that certainly isn't my fault. I've talked about this with the staff several times - there is a need to get more diverse views on this forum. That DOESN'T mean we're all going to clap, cheer, and automatically agree with all of those diverse views. But at least it wouldn't be a dogpile on people like you. Now, as far as you being the only one "exhibiting ... even true feelings" is a rather smugly superior thing to say

JP Cusick wrote:and try to suppress any real talk on the given subject.

Give me one example of how anyone here has tried to "suppress" talk on this subject?

JP Cusick wrote:There are other sections of this forum that are for "Politics" and for "Health" and "General Discussions" but this one here claims to be for "Religion And Related Issues" but you and your gang does not respect that.

First of all, I don't have a "gang;" I didn't even know any of these people until just a few days ago. Do we share many of the same ideas and opinions? We most certainly do. But that doesn't make them a "gang," and even if they are, they certainly aren't MY "gang." You act as though I'm leading them somehow.

Secondly, and this is important because I'm going to do a little moderating here. The religion discussion forum is NOT just for believers to come and give witness to each other or to bleat out testimonials or to praise their respective deities. This is a DEBATE forum, not a "mutual admiration society" where we simply pat each other on the back for having the same views. As such, atheists and agnostics are perfectly free to post on this topic and debate with believers. If you're just looking for people who accept there is a God and who merely want to quibble over minor points of faith, then yeah, you might want to find a comfy religious board that bans atheists on sight (*cough* not that you would want anything to do with a board that "suppresses talk on this subject" *cough).

The above is in red because it is an official ruling as global moderator. Now I'll go back to being a regular poster. *takes off mod hat*

I know that atheists do not always agree with each other. Snowyflake and I have had some interesting debates about the existence of ghosts, for instance. I truly do apologize that there aren't enough believers on this board to make the debates more balanced -- I've expressed my concern for that in the past. But we can't really control who comes and goes from here. Perhaps in time more believers will show up.

JP Cusick wrote:it is not me that causes the hostility or the trolling.

Like it or not, Mr. Cusick, when people express bizarre or extemely contentious views on a message board, you're going to get pegged as a troll - it doesn't matter if you truly believe in those views. When those of us who would like to see the oppression of women come to and end are labeled as "religious bigots," "racists," and even "self-righteous," you're going to get slammed for it. In fact, had you been on some other forums, you most likely would have been drummed right off the site. Some admins may have even banned you for being overtly sexist. Consider yourself lucky that I'm not like that.

JP Cusick wrote:then maybe I could have known that this thread was intended just to bash religion and nothing else - but then this is not the only thread where the bashing of religion goes onward.

Like I said before, I'm not sure exactly what you expected to find. I don't see anyone "bashing" religion, but I do see people disagreeing and disbelieving in religion and giving their reasons why. Apparently you seem to think that people should just lay down and believe in it without nary a question or doubt.

Moving on, however, I do want to address the point of racism and atrocity. Take this news article as an example:

______________________________________________________

Republican Candidate In Arkansas Says Parents Should Seek Death Penalty Against ‘Rebellious Children’

A candidate for the Arkansas legislature, Charlie Fuqua, says children who don’t demonstrate “respect for parents” should be put to death, the Arkansas Times reports. Fuqua is a former member of the Arkansas legislature and has received support from the Arkansas Republican Party and two sitting members of Congress.

Here’s the key passage from Fuqua’s 2012 book, “God’s Law: The Only Political Solution“:

"The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:"

______________________________________________________

So .... you claim you don't advocate the murder of children. With that in mind, is this the kind of law you would support here in the United States? Or would you be against such a law?

Normally I would let a person fall unsuspecting into my little trap I have set up here, but out of respect, I'll warn you ahead of time that this quandary places you in a no-win situation.

If you say that you would support such a law, then my original premise is true: That you DO advocate killing kids.

If you say that you would NOT support such a law, then I would have to ask why not. Why would you not support a law like this here in the USA while having no qualms about supporting equally brutal and barbaric laws against women in other nations and cultures?

I think it's because you demonstrate a cognitive disconnect when it comes to the ever-present battle between perpetrator vs. the victim. You focus on the perpetrator instead of the victim. In fact, you don't even focus on the crime. The first thing you look at is the race and religion of the perpetrator, and if it is different from your own, then their actions are perfectly justified no matter what. Neither the crime or the victim even enters into the equation. Like it or not, that is just another form of racism and religious bigotry.

You trap yourself here because being against the law I quoted above heavily suggests both a flagrant level of hypocrisy and a complete disregard for the plights of others in far off places - especially for a demographic group, in this case women, of which you are not a member. I suppose there's a reason why even here in the USA males get to decide what defines a rape or whether contraception should be widely available. After all, men don't have to worry about getting raped nor do they have to worry about getting pregnant (and then dumped by the father, dooming the woman to a life of poverty). So men can make half-assed decisions about things they never have to be afraid of.

And so it is when we look at the egregious injustices commited by people in some of these other nations. "Oh, they're just women, and I'm not a woman, so who really cares. I'll never be flogged in the street for wearing pants."

I look at the crime and the victims. The race and religion of the perpetrator are wholly irrelevant to me. I don't care if the perpetrators are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or worship the Great Spaghetti Monster. Hell, I wouldn't even care if they were atheists. I would NEVER tolerate oppression, tyranny, and persecution from ANY subset culture or belief system. I don't care if they're black, white, red, or pink with purple polka-dots, if they're engaged in atrocious behavior and support discriminatory laws, I'll go after them.

Simply being a different race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion than we are does not and SHOULD not give them a free pass to let girls burn in a fire for not having the proper religious head covering or flogging an old woman half to death for being in the company of a male who is not an immediate family member (as was the case with an elderly woman who had milk delivered to her home by a male cousin, prompting "authorities" to drag her out of her home and whip her 100 times). They don't get a free pass to treat women like an obstinate donkey that you can repeatedly whip with impunity.

But what about being a different gender? Why doesn't that seem to matter to you? You wouldn't like to see whites making laws for blacks, would you? Then why do you not care when men make laws for women -- especially concerning things that are exclusively female issues like pregnancy, abortion, and in most cases, rape? It happens all the time right here in the States. And women didn't ban themselves from driving in Saudi Arabia. Men did that. But that doesn't seem to bother you ... because only racism and religious bigotry registers on your radar, but sexism and misogyny flies through it like a B-2 Spirit, stealthy and undetected.

And one last thing:

If it were my intention to suppress you in any way, why would I type this:

Shirina wrote:However, I also know that it can be decidedly difficult to defend your beliefs (regardless of what they are) if you feel you're being dogpiled upon by a significantly larger number of opponents. I do have a fair amount of sympathy for, say, JP Cusick who is the only person on the forum defending a belief in God. I know it can suck when you feel like you have no allies.

Don't get me wrong, though. I tend to disagree with most of JP Cusick's religious views (naturally given that I'm atheistic) but I do have respect for his tenacity.

And why would I moderate an atheist's post by deleting it because he was calling you names?

I know moderating can be a thankless job ... but I think what's worse than that is when it isn't even noticed. Yeah, thanks a lot. sarcasm

by Heretic Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:06 pm

JP Cusick wrote:

Heretic wrote:As a teacher of Information Technology to students(post 16) with learning or behavioural problems I frequently had to find new ways to describe ideas and I had not succeeded until every student understood what was being asked of them. While it is true I did not have large classes (up to eight students) I usually was able to get their interest and pass on knowledge and skills, if not every day then certainly on most days to most students.

Heretic
When I first read this then I intended to compliment you on it.

But after hearing your unwholesome view of other people then I shudder to think of what ideas you would put into the heads of vulnerable students.

Teaching Information Technology that is what any ideas I put into peoples heads were about. To do anything else would of been unethical.

Heretic

by stuart torr Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:22 pm

Wow Shirina!!! I just knew that was going to be a long one, so I made myself a cuppa before reading it. How very true you are in saying if JP is prepared to dish out the malice, he should be a man and accept it back. Not complain he has been got at!! Shirina it's so true how JP has defended the barbaric laws that allow women to be punished the way they are especially for just wearing pants. He certainly does not believe in equal rights,which should surely be the aim of every country. He says he is the only one that exhibits true feelings,-ouch what feelings has he shown? Has for the death penalty for rebellious children, that is totally and utterly outrageous. It is Charlie Fuqua that should be removed from society I believe. I noticed that you stopped the name calling too Shirina,I personally thanked Ivan and he said you don't normally get thanks only grumbles. so on behalf of myself and all the refugees can I give you all a big thank-you for being so pleasant and as fair as you all are.thank-you

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:50 pm

snowyflake wrote:
I'm sure as the only believer in the village, you are feeling a little picked on and I can sympathise with this. However, in light of scientific discovery, the scientific method and a gazillion things we do not know, how can you be so sure that your way is the right way? Why is your belief the right belief? Why isn't Mohammad's ministry, or Joseph Smith's ministry as true as Jesus'? What is the difference between Jesus and Shiva?

I really see all ways as the right way even when they are wrong.

Even your way is the right way when you are wrong.

But if any of you want to get off of your wrong ways then you will have to find and turn to the right way.

"The ways that can be walked are not the eternal Way;
The names that can be named are not the eternal name." The Tao Te Ching #1

snowyflake wrote:Of the 3000 religions out there, they all claim to be the one true religion and obviously they can't all be the one true religion.

It is like a trick game, because they all lead to the same place.

But most people will not even go to the end of their own short denomination.

snowyflake wrote:For me, I came to atheism late in my life but there was always something about faith that never sat right with me. It just felt like lying to myself even though I was as strong a believer as you are now. The constant wrangling in my head about the inconsistencies in the bible are very tiresome. I think, after a Science degree and a life time working in genetics, I can safely say that the probability of god existing is nil. Nothing in the world works by magic. Water doesn't turn into wine, blind people are not miraculously healed by god, amputees never grow their limbs back no matter how hard you pray, people are not raised from the dead.

I actually agree with you in this, and based on this alone then you have chosen wise and well.

You have made a sensible and logical mistake.

Christianity is a pack of nonsense and the Bible is full of lies, but the God-thing is far bigger than those.

snowyflake wrote:
God is omnipotent apparently and promises the faithful that he will answer all prayer. He doesn't because he is not there. Magic is not the answer for how our world and universe operate.

God is not omnipotent or infallible, and God does not do magic.

Real miracles are realistic, and they happen everyday while few people notice.

Things like child-birth is a miracle, the earth spinning so the sun will rise is a miracle. People like Abe Lincoln saw God on the battlefields, and the Mahatma Gandhi saw God in nonviolence and truth.

The real God is extremely realistic.

========================================

polyglide wrote:God does not promise to answer every prayer, what he promises is that those who believe in him through Jesus will enjoy that which he originally intended for us.

This is very enlightened.

===========================================

Dan Fante wrote:Bronze age shepherds knew more than us apparently. Aye, rightio

I do believe ancient people knew many things that we fail to know today.

Maybe not shepherds but those that built the Pyramids and who wrote the Bible knew much more.

Knowing mechanical stuff like cars and airplanes and computers does not really make us smarter than any other generation.

========================================

Shirina wrote:Mr. Cusick, please read this post. I think you've been ignoring most of my posts of late, but this one you should pay attention to.

I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one.

Have no idea however else to respond.

deadhorse

by stuart torr Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:10 pm

You haven't got an answer to Shirina's especially have you that's why you won't reply

by stuart torr Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:00 pm

JP, only what they call cowerds in our country, run and hide from answering questions i'm afraid. So answer the questions put to you or be considered a cowered JP. thumbsdown

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:50 am

JP Cusick wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:Bronze age shepherds knew more than us apparently. Aye, rightio
I do believe ancient people knew many things that we fail to know today.

Maybe not shepherds but those that built the Pyramids and who wrote the Bible knew much more.

Knowing mechanical stuff like cars and airplanes and computers does not really make us smarter than any other generation.

I don't think you're in a great position to make that sort of judgement tbh.

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:20 pm

Well Dan now you do know how little brain power he has. lol!

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:24 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
I'm sure as the only believer in the village, you are feeling a little picked on and I can sympathise with this. However, in light of scientific discovery, the scientific method and a gazillion things we do not know, how can you be so sure that your way is the right way? Why is your belief the right belief? Why isn't Mohammad's ministry, or Joseph Smith's ministry as true as Jesus'? What is the difference between Jesus and Shiva?
I really see all ways as the right way even when they are wrong. Even your way is the right way when you are wrong. But if any of you want to get off of your wrong ways then you will have to find and turn to the right way.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That's just incoherent gobbledygook. It's pointless asking for evidence as the statement itself is largely meaningless.
"The ways that can be walked are not the eternal Way;
The names that can be named are not the eternal name." The Tao Te Ching #1

snowyflake wrote:Of the 3000 religions out there, they all claim to be the one true religion and obviously they can't all be the one true religion.
It is like a trick game, because they all lead to the same place. But most people will not even go to the end of their own short denomination.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Again this is utterly meaningless, with no attempt at cogent thought or evidence.
snowyflake wrote:For me, I came to atheism late in my life but there was always something about faith that never sat right with me. It just felt like lying to myself even though I was as strong a believer as you are now. The constant wrangling in my head about the inconsistencies in the bible are very tiresome. I think, after a Science degree and a life time working in genetics, I can safely say that the probability of god existing is nil. Nothing in the world works by magic. Water doesn't turn into wine, blind people are not miraculously healed by god, amputees never grow their limbs back no matter how hard you pray, people are not raised from the dead.
I actually agree with you in this, and based on this alone then you have chosen wise and well. Christianity is a pack of nonsense and the Bible is full of lies, but the God-thing is far bigger than those.

You have made a sensible and logical mistake.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You on the other hand have made yet another grandiose but utterly unevidenced claim. Making rational debate all but impossible. Take a look at my avatar, I thought it was quite funny, as I watch the sitcom in question, but that is pretty much how most of your posts come across, a loud and proud but totally unevidenced "I am right, you're wrong"!

snowyflake wrote:
God is omnipotent apparently and promises the faithful that he will answer all prayer. He doesn't because he is not there. Magic is not the answer for how our world and universe operate.
God is not omnipotent or infallible, and God does not do magic.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Then it's not god your describing but some vague concept you've created in your own mind, which differs fundamentally from all the contemporary monotheistic definitions of god. So again it's incumbent on you to provide a through definition of what your beliefs are, and wha evidence if any you have. Otherwise your claims can be taken no more seriously than those of dehydrated sailors being lucked fro the ocean claiming to believe mermaids exist.
Real miracles are realistic, and they happen everyday while few people notice. Things like child-birth is a miracle, the earth spinning so the sun will rise is a miracle. People like Abe Lincoln saw God on the battlefields, and the Mahatma Gandhi saw God in nonviolence and truth. The real God is extremely realistic.

========================================

polyglide wrote:God does not promise to answer every prayer, what he promises is that those who believe in him through Jesus will enjoy that which he originally intended for us.
This is very enlightened.

===========================================

Dan Fante wrote:Bronze age shepherds knew more than us apparently. Aye, rightio
I do believe ancient people knew many things that we fail to know today.

Maybe not shepherds but those that built the Pyramids and who wrote the Bible knew much more. Knowing mechanical stuff like cars and airplanes and computers does not really make us smarter than any other generation.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Another largess claim for which not one shred of evidence is offered, is it any wonder no one takes your posts seriously? The bible is largely rambling and incoherent, it has multiple sources, all palpably human, and much of it now refuted by scientific discovery. One has only to see the risible attempts by theists to deny mountains of empirical evidence such as that available to validate evolution to see that the belief in biblical superiority is based on denial of evidence, and not on support of evidence.

========================================

Shirina wrote:Mr. Cusick, please read this post. I think you've been ignoring most of my posts of late, but this one you should pay attention to.
I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one. Have no idea however else to respond.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That at least is clear, when you have no answer you simply roll on with your claims for the religion you've created in your own mind.

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:47 pm

Hi Sheldon, how's the back friend? any easier? hope so, He has no proper answers for any questions put before him. None at all for decent ones has he?

by Heretic Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:09 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I really see all ways as the right way even when they are wrong.

Even your way is the right way when you are wrong.

But if any of you want to get off of your wrong ways then you will have to find and turn to the right way.

Do you read this rubbish before you ask the rest of us to?

JP Cusick wrote:"The ways that can be walked are not the eternal Way;
The names that can be named are not the eternal name." The Tao Te Ching #1

I really really would like to describe what that is meant to mean?

JP Cusick wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Of the 3000 religions out there, they all claim to be the one true religion and obviously they can't all be the one true religion.
It is like a trick game, because they all lead to the same place.

But most people will not even go to the end of their own short denomination.

I'm beginning to see pictures of JP going down with the Titanic and he is not Leonardo DiCaprio

JP Cusick wrote:
snowyflake wrote:For me, I came to atheism late in my life but there was always something about faith that never sat right with me. It just felt like lying to myself even though I was as strong a believer as you are now. The constant wrangling in my head about the inconsistencies in the bible are very tiresome. I think, after a Science degree and a life time working in genetics, I can safely say that the probability of god existing is nil. Nothing in the world works by magic. Water doesn't turn into wine, blind people are not miraculously healed by god, amputees never grow their limbs back no matter how hard you pray, people are not raised from the dead.
I actually agree with you in this, and based on this alone then you have chosen wise and well.

You have made a sensible and logical mistake.

Christianity is a pack of nonsense and the Bible is full of lies,

So close.

JP Cusick wrote:but the God-thing is far bigger than those.

But no cigar.

JP Cusick wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
God is omnipotent apparently and promises the faithful that he will answer all prayer. He doesn't because he is not there. Magic is not the answer for how our world and universe operate.
God is not omnipotent or infallible, and God does not do magic.

Real miracles are realistic, and they happen everyday while few people notice.

Real miracles are called science and technology (with a bit of engineering thrown in.)

JP Cusick wrote:Things like child-birth is a miracle, the earth spinning so the sun will rise is a miracle.

The natural world does seem miraculous even after being described by science, but that is just the sense of wonder that comes out of the heart when faced by the incredible.

JP Cusick wrote:People like Abe Lincoln saw God on the battlefields,

I'm sure that's how they perceived it, but there is no evidence they were right unless you are arguing that might is right?

JP Cusick wrote:and the Mahatma Gandhi saw God in nonviolence and truth.

Mahatma Gandhi saw God in nearly everything and everyone, his doctrine of Ahisma Ahismawas a very shrewd method to defeat the British Empire without firing a bullet.

JP Cusick wrote:The real God is extremely realistic.

I hope we are beginning to get near to some evidence.

polyglide wrote:God does not promise to answer every prayer, what he promises is that those who believe in him through Jesus will enjoy that which he originally intended for us.

JP Cusick wrote:This is very enlightened.

Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire , when ye pray , believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Dan Fante wrote:Bronze age shepherds knew more than us apparently. Aye, rightio

JP Cusick wrote:I do believe ancient people knew many things that we fail to know today.

And were ignorant of much more.

JP Cusick wrote:Maybe not shepherds but those that built the Pyramids and who wrote the Bible knew much more.

Knowing mechanical stuff like cars and airplanes and computers does not really make us smarter than any other generation.

Just more enlightened in so many more ways, what we have gained far exceeds what we have lost.

Shirina wrote:Mr. Cusick, please read this post. I think you've been ignoring most of my posts of late, but this one you should pay attention to.

JP Cusick wrote:I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one.

Have no idea however else to respond.

Foolish boy - How can you ignore the closest thing we have to a god here - A moderator.

Heretic

by Shirina Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:09 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Christianity is a pack of nonsense and the Bible is full of lies

Okay, my over-use of the "confused" emoticon isn't an attempt to spam you. It is an attempt to show you just how mind-numblingly confused I am right now.

WHY do you state here that "the Bible is full of lies" and then jump on me when I "mock scripture" as you said earlier. What, you're upset because I'm mocking a book that is full of lies? WTF?

And I don't understand, either, how you can say that Christianity is a "pack of nonsense" and then quote from the Bible (full of lies) and espouse Christian doctrines - and then DEFEND those things when they come under attack! Your beliefs appear to be all over the place, like a drunk behind the wheel of a car.

One of the reasons why I cannot debate with you in the way you seem to want is because I can't get a handle on exactly what it is you DO believe - other than you believe in a "Father-God." The doctrines which circumscribe your beliefs seem suspiciously Christian without calling it such - and that doesn't make you "one crying in the wilderness."

JP Cusick wrote:Maybe not shepherds but those that built the Pyramids and who wrote the Bible knew much more.

What did those who wrote the Bible know that we don't? Oooh, oh, I know! We don't know how to make a book "filled with lies" stand the test of time like they did! That must be it. Sure, we can get something going for a few decades like fascism or Naziism, but they always die out after awhile. But the Bible, filled as it is with lies, has managed to fool billions of people over the course of 3,000 or so years! That's what they knew how to do that we do not. Got it now.

And remember, you DID say that the Bible is "filled with lies" and that Christianity is a "pack of nonsense."

JP Cusick wrote:Knowing mechanical stuff like cars and airplanes and computers does not really make us smarter than any other generation.

You're right in this respect. If you were to snatch a Sumerian child and bring him to the 21st Century, he would be just as capable of learning nuclear physics and brain surgery as any child born in our time. Humans are genetically the same 8,000 years ago as they are today, so innate intelligence really isn't the issue.

However we do KNOW more than an ancient Sumerian and yes, that IS important. The reason is because our knowledge prevents us from sinking back into an age of fear and superstition, when witches and sin were blamed for perfectly natural occurances, when every bump in the night was the Devil and comets and eclipses were portents of disaster. For many these days, those who still live in fear do it to themselves either by falling prey to propaganda or to fundamentalist religion.

JP Cusick wrote:I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one.

That seems rather strange given that you are able to respond to other people's postings - and they are not so dissimilar to mine.

by Shirina Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:10 pm

stu wrote:I give you all a big thank-you for being so pleasant and as fair as you all are.thank-you

Why thank you. Very Happy

It's always nice to know when people feel we are doing our jobs correctly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:10 pm

stu wrote:Hi Sheldon, how's the back friend? any easier? hope so, He has no proper answers for any questions put before him. None at all for decent ones has he?

It's getting better stu, thanks for asking.

by Heretic Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:59 pm

Shirina wrote:
stu wrote:I give you all a big thank-you for being so pleasant and as fair as you all are.thank-you
Why thank you.

It's always nice to know when people feel we are doing our jobs correctly.

You're doing a better job than the Amazon moderators, and if your anything like your picture far better looking than I imagine the Amazon ones to be (in spite of the implication of their label).

Thankyou for making us welcome.

Heretic

P.S. I am told I do resemble my Avatar.

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:15 pm

He has wings aswell, just need to be clipped now and again, that right Heretic. Wink

by Heretic Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:18 pm

stu wrote:He has wings aswell, just need to be clipped now and again, that right Heretic.

Have you not seen that great large double handed sword in my hands?

Heretic

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:30 pm

Oh I saw that Heretic, too heavy for you to lift aint it. Laughing

by Heretic Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:35 pm

stu wrote:Oh I saw that Heretic, too heavy for you to lift aint it.

What would a big sword do to somebody if it was dropped from a great height by a vindictive sod like me?

Put it like this I wouldn't want to be the one it landed on.

:->>

Heretic

by Bellatori Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:39 pm

Heretic wrote:
P.S. I am told I do resemble my Avatar.

So that's an albino who has O/D on red bull then? Wink

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Nor would I

by Heretic Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:44 pm

Bellatori wrote:
Heretic wrote:
P.S. I am told I do resemble my Avatar.
So that's an albino who has O/D on red bull then?

And you're four years old?

Heretic

by stuart torr Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:50 pm

Wouldn't stand for that Bellatori, good job you are sat down. lol!

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:02 pm

Shirina wrote:
WHY do you state here that "the Bible is full of lies" and then jump on me when I "mock scripture" as you said earlier. What, you're upset because I'm mocking a book that is full of lies?

That is because you are taking it toooooo far.

I criticize the Bible but I am careful never to mock it, and again the distinction is huge.

When I say that the Bible is full of lies then I am not condemning the entire Bible as you are.

As like saying an apple tree is full of worms, but there is still apples and a tree there, because without the apples and the tree then there could not be any worms.

The same is true of the Bible in that it still has lots of truth in it, as it has both right and wrong all mixed in together, so we (or I) must divide the truth from the untrue in order to understand that book or its message.

Shirina wrote:And I don't understand, either, how you can say that Christianity is a "pack of nonsense" and then quote from the Bible (full of lies) and espouse Christian doctrines - and then DEFEND those things when they come under attack! Your beliefs appear to be all over the place, like a drunk behind the wheel of a car.

Mine might look like me being a drunk driver all over the road and I accept that, but the reason for that is not me, as the other drivers are the drunks and I am just dodging the other drivers.

As such I might look confusing but I am not confused at all.

I simply have to denounce most Christian doctrine simply because they are wrong, but they still have a few things correct, as it is not an all or nothing equation.

For me to denounce Christianity does not include denouncing Jesus Christ or the Bible, as those are all different aspects and three (3) different subjects.

Shirina wrote:One of the reasons why I cannot debate with you in the way you seem to want is because I can't get a handle on exactly what it is you DO believe - other than you believe in a "Father-God." The doctrines which circumscribe your beliefs seem suspiciously Christian without calling it such - and that doesn't make you "one crying in the wilderness."

I can not help that.

Christianity teach of a "Hell" and I do not, and I tell that every person will be saved without even one sinner being lost or left out, and that the God thing (do not really know whatever it is) is very active and alive in this world.

I use to try to say that I was not a Christian, but since I preach Jesus Christ then those other people do not own the name of Christian.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one.
That seems rather strange given that you are able to respond to other people's postings - and they are not so dissimilar to mine.

I am having a hard time replying to anyone.

Hostility does not really bother me when it has any merit, and I am not going to be bullied, so I myself am being disappointed as I want to discuss the subjects and I wish that the discussion could proceed in a healthier way.

Like a Star @ heaven

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:44 am

JP Cusick wrote:Hostility does not really bother me when it has any merit, and I am not going to be bullied, so I myself am being disappointed as I want to discuss the subjects and I wish that the discussion could proceed in a healthier way.

Well, I understand that, which is why I'm trying to keep the bullying to a minimum.

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:53 am

Heretic wrote:You're doing a better job than the Amazon moderators, and if your anything like your picture far better looking than I imagine the Amazon ones to be

Big name sites like Amazon don't really care about its membership; they assume that their size means they'll always have a lot of people and individual members don't count for squat. It's one of the advantages of being on a small site like this one, that we do try to be very fair and we can take the time to look at each problem personally.

And yeah, that is a picture of me. Some time ago, all of the women on this site posted their RL pictures as their avatar, so I went along with it. Now I'm the only one left of those girls! I was going to change my avatar some time ago and kept forgetting.

The only reason I even used my RL picture here is because, well, I'm an admin, so anyone who bothers me about it, I can give them a big ban-boot in the arse. Very Happy

Heretic wrote:Thankyou for making us welcome.

You're welcome for the welcome, and you are welcome any time to feel welcome by our welcoming staff.

Heretic wrote:P.S. I am told I do resemble my Avatar.

Including the wild black hair? Not the glowing eyes, I hope ...

Heretic wrote:What would a big sword do to somebody if it was dropped from a great height by a vindictive sod like me?

It would do 2d10 points of damage and the target would have to make a constitution check or be knocked unconscious.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:47 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:
WHY do you state here that "the Bible is full of lies" and then jump on me when I "mock scripture" as you said earlier. What, you're upset because I'm mocking a book that is full of lies?
That is because you are taking it toooooo far.

I criticize the Bible but I am careful never to mock it, and again the distinction is huge.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What qualifies you, or any human to criticise the message of an omniscient and omnipotent being? How can anyone not see how absurd an idea it is that a message is from an omniscient and omnipotent being yet is open to criticism by humans?
When I say that the Bible is full of lies then I am not condemning the entire Bible as you are. The same is true of the Bible in that it still has lots of truth in it, as it has both right and wrong all mixed in together, so we (or I) must divide the truth from the untrue in order to understand that book or its message.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not sure anyone has condemned the entire bible. In point of fact all atheism claims is that there is no empirical evidence that a deity exists, and that the bible is therefore like all other religious tomes entirely man made. Humans are capable of creating literature that is both timeless and profound, no god is required for that. The parts, and there are many, that are neither timeless or profound are clear evidence they couldn't have been the message claimed to have come from an omniscient omnipotent being.

Shirina wrote:And I don't understand, either, how you can say that Christianity is a "pack of nonsense" and then quote from the Bible (full of lies) and espouse Christian doctrines - and then DEFEND those things when they come under attack! Your beliefs appear to be all over the place, like a drunk behind the wheel of a car.
Mine might look like me being a drunk driver all over the road and I accept that, but the reason for that is not me, as the other drivers are the drunks and I am just dodging the other drivers. As such I might look confusing but I am not confused at all.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Are you familiar with the idiom "self praise is no recommendation"?
I simply have to denounce most Christian doctrine simply because they are wrong, but they still have a few things correct, as it is not an all or nothing equation.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E????
The same is true of the Bible in that it still has lots of truth in it, as it has both right and wrong all mixed in together, so we (or I) must divide the truth from the untrue in order to understand that book or its message. For me to denounce Christianity does not include denouncing Jesus Christ or the Bible, as those are all different aspects and three (3) different subjects.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:These endless and unsupported claims to personal knowledge of what does and does not constitute the truth are extremely ironic given your labelling of atheists as self righteous. It's very suspect that you appear not to see this.
Shirina wrote:One of the reasons why I cannot debate with you in the way you seem to want is because I can't get a handle on exactly what it is you DO believe - other than you believe in a "Father-God." The doctrines which circumscribe your beliefs seem suspiciously Christian without calling it such - and that doesn't make you "one crying in the wilderness."
I can not help that. Christianity teach of a "Hell" and I do not, and I tell that every person will be saved without even one sinner being lost or left out, and that the God thing (do not really know whatever it is) is very active and alive in this world.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E???
I use to try to say that I was not a Christian, but since I preach Jesus Christ then those other people do not own the name of Christian.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well no, but if anyone calls themselves a Christian when they are denying huge swathes of what traditionally constitutes a Christian it's reasonably to expect an explanation support by evidence more compelling than the "I'm right and they're wrong" posts you've provided thus far. You've also not addressed how a message from an omniscient omnipotent being can be so vague, ambiguous, or open to interpretation.
Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:I am not replying to most of your postings, but I still read through every one.
That seems rather strange given that you are able to respond to other people's postings - and they are not so dissimilar to mine.
I am having a hard time replying to anyone. Hostility does not really bother me when it has any merit, and I am not going to be bullied, so I myself am being disappointed as I want to discuss the subjects and I wish that the discussion could proceed in a healthier way.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Firstly Wow, you're actually trying to play the victim card after your editing of my posts in an attempt to mock? Given you were entirely wrong anyway, about what constitutes empirical evidence, and more than one poster including Shirina have pointed this out to you. Secondly of course you don't mind hostility that's the raison detre for any troll.

by blasphemer Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:52 pm

polyglide wrote:As far as I am concerned, all that God requires of us at this stage is a belief in Jesus and all that, that entails.

There is no demand to worship anyone.

Everything before the birth of Jesus is totally irrelevant to today.

If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

You mean like the Nazi's, the catholic church etc?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:41 pm

blasphemer wrote:
polyglide wrote:As far as I am concerned, all that God requires of us at this stage is a belief in Jesus and all that, that entails.

There is no demand to worship anyone.

Everything before the birth of Jesus is totally irrelevant to today.

If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

You mean like the Nazi's, the catholic church etc?

Hello B, how have you been? Very Happy

by polyglide Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:40 pm

No, I mean as stated.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:38 pm

Sorry polyglide, but to an atheist the statement is rubbish.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:44 pm

polyglide wrote:No, I mean as stated.

polyglide wrote:If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life

Blasphemer's examples are as you stated, unless you're trying to say that the Roman Catholic church don't believe in Jesus? Or perhaps you're saying that institutional child rape was indicative of living a decent life? Or the consequent cover up by the RCC was indicative of living a decent life?

94% of Nazis Germany constituted people who believed in Jesus, they said so in a census conducted in 1939.

The institutional child abuse prevalent in the Roman Catholic church was perpetrated and covered up by people who believed in Jesus

The inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the crusades etc etc...

Your statement is therefore axiomatically false.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:51 pm

stu wrote:Sorry polyglide, but to an atheist the statement is rubbish.

The statement is axiomatically false to anyone, you don't have to be an atheist stu. There are innumerable examples, both historical and contemporary, of people who both believed in Jesus and perpetrated the most egregious acts. The statement itself exhibits either extreme stupidity or wilful ignorance, though those are of course not mutually exclusive.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:59 pm

HI Sheldon, should see another post that polyglide has posted!!!

by Bellatori Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:04 pm

blasphemer wrote:...

Glad to see you are up and running. I was a bit concerned when you disappeared.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:55 am

Note = I intended to respond earlier but I have been tied up with problems all day long.

Shirina wrote:And yeah, that is a picture of me. Some time ago, all of the women on this site posted their RL pictures as their avatar, so I went along with it. Now I'm the only one left of those girls! I was going to change my avatar some time ago and kept forgetting.

The only reason I even used my RL picture here is because, well, I'm an admin, so anyone who bothers me about it, I can give them a big ban-boot in the arse.

Anyone bother you about that picture would have to be out of their mind.

Truly gorgeous indeed. I love you

=======================================

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What qualifies you, or any human to criticise the message of an omniscient and omnipotent being? How can anyone not see how absurd an idea it is that a message is from an omniscient and omnipotent being yet is open to criticism by humans?

First we are all qualified to judge anything and anyone, but the judging needs to be done with truth and justice and sincerity.

Second - the idea that God is some how "omniscient and omnipotent" does not come from me and it does not come from the Bible, and so you are basing your own belief of "omniscient and omnipotent" on your own distortion.

Plus even if God were "omniscient and omnipotent" then we all are still free and qualified to judge accordingly.

Idea

by Dan Fante Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:31 am

Shirina wrote:And yeah, that is a picture of me. Some time ago, all of the women on this site posted their RL pictures as their avatar, so I went along with it. Now I'm the only one left of those girls! I was going to change my avatar some time ago and kept forgetting.

It's a nice photo but why are your arms tied behind your back? Shocked

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:15 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What qualifies you, or any human to criticise the message of an omniscient and omnipotent being? How can anyone not see how absurd an idea it is that a message is from an omniscient and omnipotent being yet is open to criticism by humans?

JP Cusick First we are all qualified to judge anything and anyone, but the judging needs to be done with truth and justice and sincerity.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I didn't ask you if you thought we were qualified to judge an omniscient omnipotent being, I asked you what qualifies anyone to make such a judgement? It's an absurdly illogical claim that a human could judge a being with omniscience of course, but I still want to know what you think qualifies a human intellect for such a hypothetical action.

JP Cusick Second - the idea that God is some how "omniscient and omnipotent" does not come from me and it does not come from the Bible, and so you are basing your own belief of "omniscient and omnipotent" on your own distortion.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Nonsense, I have no beliefs, the claims for omniscience and omnipotence are traditionally made by adherents of all three monotheistic religions, and there are certainly many claims in the bible made for the god of the bible that would require omnipotence and omniscience, as has been claimed by many expert theologians, so take it up with them as they are not my claims, since I am an atheist and would hardly make any claims about an entirely fictional deity.

JP Cusick Plus even if God were "omniscient and omnipotent" then we all are still free and qualified to judge accordingly.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So now god is omniscient and omnipotent? Or at least may be? You're coming across as very confused again. You also are entirely wrong, as human free will would be entirely negated by a god that was omniscient, that's logically self evident.

by Sponsored content