21st January 2008

“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy [the Incarnation of Christ] is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”

John Adams1735 – 1826

21 Responses to “21st January 2008”

  1. Thunder Says:

    Now that is a deist statment. Deism is the modern version of gnosticism. Some of my views would be considered gnostic. But Jesus argues this…. if you don`t believe in me then believe in the things that I do (teach). That is Jesus infusing his tendancy to forgive into the regidity of the phrase (accept christ). It bolsters the effectiveness of that verse (romans 2:13-15) that I brought up). I think subliminally you can reconstruct his [John Adams] context to be focusing more on the consequences heaped upon the world by the improperly constructed faiths that are responsible for perpetrating the atrocities that you atheist want to tag to all religion.

  2. Critic Says:

    Thunder, in his way, used the oxymoronic phrase “improperly constructed faiths”.

    This implies that there is such a thing as a “properly constructed” religious faith.

    Any faith in a supernatural being is by definition improperly constructed because it is a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Once again I find that I pity you and your mental situation. I hope that your presence here at this website is evidence that you are not really secure in your silly beliefs but are instead trying to reinforce your primitive ideas by preparing arguments for religion and posing them to the non-religious.

    Also, your quoting the bible is always a nonsensical activity. I’m sure it makes you happy, but it has no positive effect on any argument you pose here. Having said that, please don’t stop doing it. It provides a quick way for others to dismiss your inane postings.

    As for the QOTD, I agree with John that belief in religion hampers the advancement of science. It is the single most annoying aspect of the religious mind that it pops back and forth between the real world and the imaginary world with such ease. You never know when a religious person is thinking intelligently in the real world or when that person has suddenly gone back to Iron Age sensibilities. This can been seen in Thunder’s posts where it seems that a spark of intelligence appears and it is quietly snuffed out when he/she says that he/she believes that Balaam’s ass actually spoke. That is sad and pitiful.

  3. Shan Says:

    “properly constructed faith”…indeed!
    Thunder speaks of this Christ character as if he actually existed! Do a bit of research ourside of your “properly constructed” box, and you’ll find more evidence for the existence of UFO’s/Aliens than Jesus Christ…

  4. Chris Says:

    Adams was more right than he may have been thinking. It’s entirely possible that Jesus didn’t even exist. What get’s me is the surprising lack of contemporaneous (sic?) accounts of his life. He is to have lived at a time and place where there were many historians, Roman for the most part, actively documenting important events. As far as I know, jesus was only mentioned in two 3rd party accounts and both of those are almost certainly forgeries by the early church.

    This is an interesting site for this kind of stuff:

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

    Thunder – everyone of faith thinks theirs is the “proper” one and all are equally wrong. At least in places where they worship a rock, there’s actually a rock.

  5. Critic Says:

    The Jesus Myth hypothesis is very controversial – but I do see the logic in the argument and am personally persuaded that it is highly likely. Of course, the scientific evidence for the existence of a person named Jesus who had a large following of believers, performed miracles, was killed by the Romans, rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven is nonexistent.

    The real point being whether Jesus, if he existed, was a god (or part of god or the son of a god or whatever the Trinity idea is all about) – and there is no scientific evidence for such a wild assertion. There is no scientific evidence suggesting the existence of any god.

    Believers believe because they want to not because there is scientific validity for their beliefs. (Why they WANT to believe varies widely and ranges from innocent to sinister). And, sadly, many don’t stop believing when shown that their beliefs are baseless. Actually, in my experience, they become even more stubborn and try to prove how right their mistaken beliefs are by loudly proclaiming to any and all listeners. As an example, consider someone who insists in the existence of god by continuing to post religious diatribes on an atheist website. It really is pathological.

  6. Chris Says:

    Yes, it is. But it is also instructive. I was raised catholic but my family was very non-dogmatic and cherry picked, pretty much. For me, shrugging off the yoke of faith was simple and pain free. Like a sneeze. I’ve had very few interactions with folks like Thunder. I find the fuzzy logic, malapropisms and nonsequitors facinating. The arguments are not compelling but the forcefulness with which they are delivered demonstrates how hard it must be for many to overcome. Any system of belief that so captivates the mind as to make it immune to rational argument deserves both suspicion and scrutiny. I kind of appreciate the close contact with this kind of thinking.

    For the record, I agree that Jesus probably was a historic person but see absolutely no reason to think he was anything more than a heretic of the jewish monotheism. Once again, the only answer is “faith” when in fact faith is never a satisfactory answer.

  7. Thunder Says:

    * Do a bit of research ourside of your “properly constructed” box *

    Been there done that. To suggest otherwise is predicated on you not having been reading my posts and primarily trusting your ill-gotten stereotypes.

    * you’ll find more evidence for the existence of UFO’s/Aliens than Jesus Christ… *

    By definition ufo suggests NO evidence. It is unidentified. DUHHHHH! It is you that has not investigated.

  8. Critic Says:

    Chris wrote:

    *The arguments are not compelling but the forcefulness with which they are delivered demonstrates how hard it must be for many to overcome.*

    I think you have it exactly right. I would add that the forcefulness with which they are delivered increases as that person realizes that their beliefs are false but does not want to face the truth. And, as we all know, the religious are well versed in not facing the truth.

  9. Critic Says:

    Here’s an interesting topic on the RDF website about the religious right’s attempt to re-write history through absolutely insane legislation. Read it and weep.

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2151,Stop-revisionist-Christian-nation-House-Resolution-888,Secular-Coalition-for-America

  10. Thunder Says:

    * Thunder – *

    You don`t know me. Don`t pretend to.

    * everyone of faith thinks theirs is the “proper” one *

    I addressed this already.

    * and all are equally wrong. *

    That is your opinion. And I venture to say ignorant opinion. I`m getting pretty confident that you guys don`t really value the virtue of being familiar with the subject that you address.

    * At least in places where they worship a rock, there’s actually a rock. *

    That depends upon which religion you are speaking of. The christian rock is allegorically referring to Jesus [it isn`t so much a rock as a brick (cornerstone)]. The islamic rock is borrowed from hinduistic sect which was a prevailing belief in muhammeds home villiage of mecca. I don`t know for absolute sure about the obsidian stone or whatever type stone it is but I`m not unfamiliar with that position. The dome of the rock is a catholic thing (and they ain`t christian).

  11. Thunder Says:

    * I would add that the forcefulness with which they are delivered increases as that person realizes that their beliefs are false *

    Please tell me exactly what fact have you promoted that should convince me to abandon what I know for what you can`t be sure of? Your vitriolic snickering? You can shove that up your …….. !

    * does not want to face the truth. *

    Self-reflect! The last time I asked someone to produce their evidence there is no God they said no evidence that there is was (should be) evidence enough. How your no evidence, predicated on your no investigation, should be compelling to me against my personal experience is a loss to me. You`re the one that is comfortable with no evidence. As I have been saying all along, I looked for it and found it. The only thing I expect you to do (if you are the open minded reasonable person you claim) is to investigate. The only problem with that is that you are incapable of controlling your attitude enough to condition yourself to Gods receptivity to your inquiry.

    * And, as we all know, the religious are well versed in not facing the truth. *

    Again, produce one instance where I have ignored anything. You can`t because I have not. You have not convinced me that you are any great thinker. There is only one person (I`m aware of) that I can`t be sure about their intellect or their ability to reason. The eye in the sky on this board is showing considerable restraint either in the impulse to put me out of your misery or to shout me down the way you guys attempt to do. In any case…. I`m on this board; subject to your input. Not that I think you can produce any that could give me pause. That possibility seems more unlikely with every passing day.

  12. Thunder Says:

    An atheist using the word scrutiny pertaining to christianity is the malapropism or, as I am finding out, the words rational, reasonable or logical.

  13. Critic Says:

    Thunder says,

    I`m getting pretty confident that you guys don`t really value the virtue of being familiar with the subject that you address.

    As R. Dawkins has observed, one does not have to be an expert in gnomology to be fairly certain that garden gnomes do not exist. And, having paraphrased that, let me say that it appears that the only one expressing true ignorance is the xian apologist.

    And, by definition, xians cannot be logical where their religion is concerned. So we’ve ruled out rational by your pathological tendencies, logical by definition, and I think the following post

    Please tell me exactly what fact have you promoted that should convince me to abandon what I know for what you can`t be sure of? Your vitriolic snickering? You can shove that up your …….. !

    rules out reasonable.

    Have a nice life.

  14. Thunder Says:

    * As R. Dawkins has observed, one does not have to be an expert in gnomology to be fairly certain that garden gnomes do not exist. *

    One should be familiar with what one portends to be. If they aren`t it is suggestive of many inadequacies (inadequacies in understanding along a broad range of subjects). Luke 16:10

    * the only one expressing true ignorance is the xian apologist. *

    On the contrary….. My subject is how you parse out guilt. How you feel no regard in being thorough in your constructions. It isn`t ignorance for me to call for you to be more thorough or equitable in your judgements.

    * by definition, xians cannot be logical where their religion is concerned. *

    By definition? BY STEREOTYPE! I`ve been nothing but logical.

    * So we’ve ruled out rational by your pathological tendencies *

    Not by any valid process I`m aware of. Only by your hatred and stupidity.

    * logical by definition *

    Whose definition? This goes to the very issue where you say christians did this or that….. and now here you are proposing to define though you claim you don`t have to be familiar with it….. And you claim to be logical. You are a dolt!

    * I think the following post…..rules out reasonable. *

    That is a fricken dodge! You provoke me and that means I can`t be reasonable? All you do is provoke it is all you have. I reiterate……

    * Please tell me exactly what fact have you promoted that should convince me to abandon what I know for what you can`t be sure of? *

  15. critic Says:

    Please tell me exactly what fact have you promoted that should convince me to abandon what I know for what you can`t be sure of?

    The above is a semmantic nightmare but, against better judgement, I will attempt one more reply – eventhough I had intended my last reply to you to be the very last.

    Fact: There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of any form of supernatural being or power. Believe me, there is none. If there was, it would be the single most talked about scientific discovery in the history of mankind. There is none. This is the fact that I am promoting.

    The only way we can know anything is through science. The current state of knowledge, verified by scientific means, is never final and is subject to change because current understandings of the universe are always being tested through predictions and experimental data. That is what it means to know something.

    Therefore, lacking any scientific proof of a god, I know that there is not a god. Do I know that there will never be any scientific evidence of a god? No, I do not. If scientific evidence is presented and substantiated, then I will have to change my mind. However, the probability of this happening is negligible. This is the logical and practical definition of, “be sure of.”

    When you say you, “know” something you are talking about the result of feelings and desires that you have. These may be very real to you but they mean nothing to me. You may also be talking about something that you have witnessed. Fine. If it is reproducible, I’ll take interest. However, eye witness accounts of one-time events are notoriously unreliable and are not proof of anything. So, although you will object, you do not know anything that proves god exists. You just have strong feelings that you want god to exist. If that’s how you want to live your life, OK by me. Just don’t be suprised that others think your abandonment of intelligent thought is pitiful and sad.

  16. Terence Meaden Says:

    As I wrote about three weeks ago, the concept of ‘god’ does exist— but only in the brains of believers.

    There has never been any proof that your god or any other gods exist anywhere else than in people’s heads. It is merely wishful thinking.

    By all means, submit to this imaginary being if you will, as long as you do no harm to the minds of anyone else. You were born a non-theist or atheist like the rest of us, but your head was indoctrinated early on.

    ‘Critic’ expresses the scientific viewpoint, just as I, a professional scientist, would. Robert ‘Thunder’ might say that his point of view comes through metaphysics but that is nothing but a cover for irrelevant and irrational thinking.

  17. Thunder Says:

    * The above is a semmantic nightmare *

    Talking to you is no picnic. You continue to bring up things that I have already addressed. Your response is never related to what you indicate you are replying to.

    * There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of any form of supernatural being or power. *

    To be precise your statment should read ” There is no [KNOWN] scientific evidence supporting the existence of any form of supernatural being or power.” This is NOT a fact that shouold persuade me to abandon what I know for what you are not sure of. You say evidence to convince you. I say evidence to refute me. I never claimed to be able to prove God to you. I told you where to find that evidence. That you don`t go looking for it suggests that you don`t want to find it. You misrepresent your position as well as mine. I don`t mine nor do I misrepresent yours.

    * Believe me, there is none. *

    I would NEVER confirm your bigoted stereotypes by becomming a sheep for you when it is so evident that you are a person not to be trusted. Here you infer an exhaustion of expectation when really you had shut the door to possibility. You have NOT looked for anything. It is just another pretense. They never stop comming from you (atheists).

    * If there was, it would be the single most talked about scientific discovery in the history of mankind. *

    You are WRONG and scripture is RIGHT. It is an evil generation that seeks a sign. I struggle with sin and I WANT to know the truth. Your having proof will only make your situation worse. You, yourself, have equated christianity with slavery and that without any knowledge at all. But now you are free from righteousness and enslaved by the sin that you love. You won`t always like that sin but you will always be ignorant of God [by your choice].

    * There is none. This is the fact that I am promoting. *

    And that absence of knowledge is no substitute for knowledge.

    * The only way we can know anything is through science. *

    Reverential statment. I`m confident that everything you think you know you have not confirmed through process of science. That is impossible.

    * The current state of knowledge, verified by scientific means, is never final and is subject to change *

    Redundant. I already said that.

    * current understandings of the universe are always being tested through predictions and experimental data. *

    The implication being it isn`t knowledge, it is only thing so.

    * That is what it means to know something. *

    Sounds like think so to me.

    * Therefore, lacking any scientific proof of a god, I know that there is not a god. *

    No, you think there is no God. I KNOW there is. My experience trumps your no information. The request was for you to produce the fact that you have promoted that should dissuade me from what I know to your countermanding think so position. There is NO verbiage you can invoke that can change my clarity of this issue.

    * Do I know that there will never be any scientific evidence of a god? No, I do not. *

    I do KNOW. There will NEVER be scientific evidence of God. I`ve already handled this issue. It isn`t meant to be scientifically proven. Science CAN`T do what Gods focus is on.

    * If scientific evidence is presented and substantiated, then I will have to change my mind. *

    Everything tells me that isn`t true. The only thing that will change your mind ,and it is going to, is experience. That is why you even reject hearing me when I speak about the possibility. If God is, arguing from your perspective, then everything you say is an accident is actually [scientific] evidence of God.

    * When you say you, “know” something you are talking about the result of feelings and desires that you have. *

    NO, I`m NOT. I`m talking about experience. AN EVENT! NOT A FRICKEN FEELING OR DESIRE! If you meet someone is that an event or is it a feeling or desire?

    * These may be very real to you but they mean nothing to me. *

    I fail to see what that has to do with me.

    * If it is reproducible, I’ll take interest. *

    God can reproduce it but you have not taken any interest.

    * However, eye witness accounts of one-time events are notoriously unreliable and are not proof of anything. *

    Interaction with God was proof enough for me. It can`t be proof to someone who doesn`t participate in it.

    * So, although you will object, you do not know anything that proves god exists. *

    Don`t know how many other ways I can say it. I`m not trying to prove anything to you. I have not ever proposed to. I simply say that if you wanted the proof that I have you could seek it from God who provided it for me upon my request. The only catch is you have to believe.

    * You just have strong feelings that you want god to exist. *

    You have no authority to characterize my position for me. What makes you think I will ever allow you to do that? (ret.)

    * If that’s how you want to live your life, OK by me. *

    That is what you say when you aren`t saying something else.

    * Just don’t be suprised that others think your abandonment of intelligent thought is pitiful and sad. *

    It doesn`t suprise me that you mischaracterize me.

  18. Thunder Says:

    * As I wrote about three weeks ago, the concept of ‘god’ does exist— but only in the brains of believers. *

    Yes we did already cover this ground. You want my response go back and read what I wrote then. My answer will not change.

    * By all means, submit to this imaginary being if you will, as long as you do no harm to the minds of anyone else. *

    You propose to permit me and also intimidate me? What you gonna use your pocket protector as a shuriken!

    * You were born a non-theist or atheist like the rest of us *

    Atheists are not born. They don`t even exist. That is a title that agnostics who want to promote their own suppositions adopt to emphasize their preference. Everyone is born a clean slate ready to be embossed with character and identity.

    * your head was indoctrinated early on. *

    You don`t know what you are talking about. You don`t know me.

    * Critic’ expresses the scientific viewpoint *

    Critic is your atheist butt buddy. You both share the same stereotype to defend and that is that christians aren`t thinkers.

    * just as I, a professional scientist, would. *

    Your credentials suffer when your position lacks credulity. You can`t use your credential to validate a personally held position outside the range of the scientific material at hand.

    * Robert ‘Thunder’ might say that his point of view comes through metaphysics *

    I would NEVER have said that. That would contradict my statment that God made us and put us in a sand box and said go at it. I define my position not you. You do NOT KNOW ME!

    * that is nothing but a cover for irrelevant and irrational thinking. *

    Since the first part was wrong so also is the second part.

  19. Critic Says:

    OK, I’m convinced that I was wrong to reply to Thunder’s post. It won’t happen again.

  20. Thunder Says:

    * I’m convinced that I was wrong to reply to Thunder’s post. *

    I`m convinced you have nothing except condecention. I`m convinced you are cowaring but you have to put a good face on it.

  21. wedding location dallas Says:

    Not-so-filling fare on the TV…

    9:02 pm, WFAA/Channel 8 Wildest Wedding Show Moments 2: Highlights of this clips show include “[a bride] who loses…