flopstock:-6
Thanks. Got it. I see no problem with outsiders presenting some observations and judgments. Such helps to keep those who call themselves Christians reexamining their behaviours.
I do think in moving past much of the verbiage, posted by the creator of this particular thread, that I saw my name somewhere. LOL.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
Insight No. 87,643
FarRider:-6
I only know because my name was in bold type. I've read nothing this gentleman posts. It is a waste of time.
Oh my heavens we agree on some things. We can't let this go to our heads. It could ruin our reputations. LOL.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I only know because my name was in bold type. I've read nothing this gentleman posts. It is a waste of time.
Oh my heavens we agree on some things. We can't let this go to our heads. It could ruin our reputations. LOL.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
posted by Ted
Where I do have a disagreement is in the judgment about who is and who is not a "true Christian". One can give the impression that if one does not think just like the person making the judgment then they are not true Christians. It seems to me that the only one who can make such a judgment is God alone. Who in this world is able to judge the heart of another? It seems to me that we ought to be very careful in judging others since we have no right to make such judgments.
Problem is there are many "christians" who do make such judgements. Take catholic and protestant for example. At the heart of it is the assumption that one version is true and the other is not. At least now you don't get burned at the stake for the good of your soul. How anyone could believe setting fire to someone would save their immortal soul is completely beyond me.
Or how about christian attitudes towards homosexuals to pick a topical example. Why not leave it up to god to decide rather than punish them on his behalf? Not so much judge not less ye be judged more a we'll get them for you god and by god they will know they have sinned. If being forgiving is a christian virtue many christians are not so disposed it would seem.
Another question for you, in a similar vein, which has always puzzled me. If JC came to earth witht he new testament-brotherly etc etc why do so many christians still cherish the old testament and seem to hanker after the capricious vindictive being portrayed there?
posted by glaswegian
It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty. God's utter indifference to suffering humanity was the point I made earlier with regard to the Holocaust. How easily you forget this, BH672! (But I know it's more convenient for you to forget this, isn't it?) Regarding the Holocaust, God was guilty of a crime of omission on a breath-taking scale - a failure to act when it was within His power to act so as to prevent the most appalling human suffering imaginable. We humans have devised systems of justice to deal with crimes of omission. Indeed, individuals have been executed for this type of crime. So why should God be let off the hook over his indifference to the Holocaust? And the Holocaust is just one of God's crimes of omission. The crimes of omission which God is guilty of are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the shorelines of the world.
So you are arguing that god does exist then are you? If he doesn't exist then his indifference cannot be an issue because there is no such thing as god. If it is an issue then is it because he is not the christian god of compassion as advertised. But since there is only one god is he at the same time vindictive and compassionate. Who are you to judge god-assuming he exists. As an omnipotent being that shows signs of being a right vindictive sort should you take the risk of annoying him?
Where I do have a disagreement is in the judgment about who is and who is not a "true Christian". One can give the impression that if one does not think just like the person making the judgment then they are not true Christians. It seems to me that the only one who can make such a judgment is God alone. Who in this world is able to judge the heart of another? It seems to me that we ought to be very careful in judging others since we have no right to make such judgments.
Problem is there are many "christians" who do make such judgements. Take catholic and protestant for example. At the heart of it is the assumption that one version is true and the other is not. At least now you don't get burned at the stake for the good of your soul. How anyone could believe setting fire to someone would save their immortal soul is completely beyond me.
Or how about christian attitudes towards homosexuals to pick a topical example. Why not leave it up to god to decide rather than punish them on his behalf? Not so much judge not less ye be judged more a we'll get them for you god and by god they will know they have sinned. If being forgiving is a christian virtue many christians are not so disposed it would seem.
Another question for you, in a similar vein, which has always puzzled me. If JC came to earth witht he new testament-brotherly etc etc why do so many christians still cherish the old testament and seem to hanker after the capricious vindictive being portrayed there?
posted by glaswegian
It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty. God's utter indifference to suffering humanity was the point I made earlier with regard to the Holocaust. How easily you forget this, BH672! (But I know it's more convenient for you to forget this, isn't it?) Regarding the Holocaust, God was guilty of a crime of omission on a breath-taking scale - a failure to act when it was within His power to act so as to prevent the most appalling human suffering imaginable. We humans have devised systems of justice to deal with crimes of omission. Indeed, individuals have been executed for this type of crime. So why should God be let off the hook over his indifference to the Holocaust? And the Holocaust is just one of God's crimes of omission. The crimes of omission which God is guilty of are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the shorelines of the world.
So you are arguing that god does exist then are you? If he doesn't exist then his indifference cannot be an issue because there is no such thing as god. If it is an issue then is it because he is not the christian god of compassion as advertised. But since there is only one god is he at the same time vindictive and compassionate. Who are you to judge god-assuming he exists. As an omnipotent being that shows signs of being a right vindictive sort should you take the risk of annoying him?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
Okay, Far Rider. Where were we? Ah, yes - we were discussing your alleged 'money miracle'.
Far Rider;575594 wrote: When my brother took over the livestock of the farm and my father retired from the farming and went into full time missionary work we estimated that more than 2.5 million dollars had come through our little farm. 90% of it was as gifts. Now. we NEVER under any circumstances revealed any needs we had and we NEVER asked anyone for money, I mean NEVER ever.
So let me ask you again: How did the folks who gave your family 2.25 million dollars (90%) know who to give this money to? Did God provide them with your family's name and address details as well?
Was the money gifted to your family for the purposes of missionary work?
Now, here is what your 'money miracle' entails about the 'God' who allegedly engineered it for your family:
This God ignores the prayers of millions and millions of Ethiopian men, women and children as they die slow, agonising deaths from starvation. Yet He answers your family's prayers for money.
You alleged 'money miracle' is not merely ludicrous, Far Rider. It is obscene.
Far Rider;575594 wrote: When my brother took over the livestock of the farm and my father retired from the farming and went into full time missionary work we estimated that more than 2.5 million dollars had come through our little farm. 90% of it was as gifts. Now. we NEVER under any circumstances revealed any needs we had and we NEVER asked anyone for money, I mean NEVER ever.
So let me ask you again: How did the folks who gave your family 2.25 million dollars (90%) know who to give this money to? Did God provide them with your family's name and address details as well?
Was the money gifted to your family for the purposes of missionary work?
Now, here is what your 'money miracle' entails about the 'God' who allegedly engineered it for your family:
This God ignores the prayers of millions and millions of Ethiopian men, women and children as they die slow, agonising deaths from starvation. Yet He answers your family's prayers for money.
You alleged 'money miracle' is not merely ludicrous, Far Rider. It is obscene.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc:-6
I and many churches are in complete agreement with you on judging, punishing and the whole issue of sexual orientation.
The OT contains the beginnings of the Christian faith and also much ancient wisdom. However, one must read the OT in light of the New Testament. Thus we read both.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I and many churches are in complete agreement with you on judging, punishing and the whole issue of sexual orientation.
The OT contains the beginnings of the Christian faith and also much ancient wisdom. However, one must read the OT in light of the New Testament. Thus we read both.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;577385 wrote: So you are arguing that god does exist then are you?
No, gmc. I am not arguing that God exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by the Christian's belief in the existence of God. For example, that God is a Being who - if He exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
It should be clear from the posts I've made in this thread (and in other threads in this Forum) that I regard 'God' as nothing more than a figment of the religious believer's imagination, as something invented by people who are unable to draw contentment from within themselves, as a comforting delusion clung to by those who are terrified of existence and death - as a metaphysical pacifier for Big Infants, in other words.
No, gmc. I am not arguing that God exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by the Christian's belief in the existence of God. For example, that God is a Being who - if He exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
It should be clear from the posts I've made in this thread (and in other threads in this Forum) that I regard 'God' as nothing more than a figment of the religious believer's imagination, as something invented by people who are unable to draw contentment from within themselves, as a comforting delusion clung to by those who are terrified of existence and death - as a metaphysical pacifier for Big Infants, in other words.
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;577811 wrote: No, gmc. I am not arguing that God exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by the Christian's belief in the existence of God. For example, that God is a Being who - if He exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
gmc, nor am I arguing that Glaswegian exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by FG's cyber-belief in the existence of Glaswegian. For example, that he is a poster who - if he exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
Were he concerned with said suffering, he would stop contributing to it with these posts.
gmc, nor am I arguing that Glaswegian exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by FG's cyber-belief in the existence of Glaswegian. For example, that he is a poster who - if he exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
Were he concerned with said suffering, he would stop contributing to it with these posts.
Insight No. 87,643
Ted;577617 wrote: gmc:-6
I and many churches are in complete agreement with you on judging, punishing and the whole issue of sexual orientation.
The OT contains the beginnings of the Christian faith and also much ancient wisdom. However, one must read the OT in light of the New Testament. Thus we read both.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just to pursue this without getting personal about it and leaving aside any hint, insuation or implying that the other is an idiot-As you will have gathered I am not a believer and quite frankly do not understand why anyone of adult years having given the matter consideration would be. Be that as it may I am quite capable of disagreeing amicably with anyone.
So you are saying the god of the old testament is the same one as represented by JC?
Looks to me you dodged my question about christian churches condemning others for not being of the true faith. catholics and protestants slaughtered each other for years to settle that very issue-except it was more a case of everyone got fed up warring about it there are plenty who would go to war again if given the chance.
Shia and Sunni will do the same were they not somewhat distracted at the moment.
Personally I will allow anyone their faith but am getting fed up with religious groups that demand their faith be treated with respect even to the extent that saying it is a load of rubbish should not be allowed and trying to get their daft ideas of intelligent design taught instead of proper science and bring God's law back in to secular life. ( or so it seems to be in the states in some areas)
Those who demand tolerance need to extend it to others to receive it.
posted by glaswegian
No, gmc. I am not arguing that God exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by the Christian's belief in the existence of God. For example, that God is a Being who - if He exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
It should be clear from the posts I've made in this thread (and in other threads in this Forum) that I regard 'God' as nothing more than a figment of the religious believer's imagination, as something invented by people who are unable to draw contentment from within themselves, as a comforting delusion clung to by those who are terrified of existence and death - as a metaphysical pacifier for Big Infants, in other words.
I'm firmly in the agnostic camp. Believing there is no god is just as irrational as believing there is one. I rather like Stephen Hawkings reply when it was pointed out you can no more prove the non existence of god than you can prove it's existence-he copuldn't prove or disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of his garden. But on balance he didn't think there were any.
Having seen a few fairy glens in my time-ah well let's not go too far off topic.
posted by bh672
gmc, nor am I arguing that Glaswegian exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by FG's cyber-belief in the existence of Glaswegian. For example, that he is a poster who - if he exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
Were he concerned with said suffering, he would stop contributing to it with these posts.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
I have an advantage there in that I know Glasgow does exist therefore the glaswegian does also. Although there are those in Edinburgh who hold it to be a dreary place. He posts therefore he is-all praise the garden and blessed is the spreader of slurry, be wary of those who would stop the weeds from posting for a weed is a flower as good as any other. Consider those who would only have "proper" flowers are they not like those who would have rhodedendron in the garden because it looks nice litle realising it chokes the life from tne garden.
Bring the holy wine unto me because that which is wrote almost makes sense.
I and many churches are in complete agreement with you on judging, punishing and the whole issue of sexual orientation.
The OT contains the beginnings of the Christian faith and also much ancient wisdom. However, one must read the OT in light of the New Testament. Thus we read both.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just to pursue this without getting personal about it and leaving aside any hint, insuation or implying that the other is an idiot-As you will have gathered I am not a believer and quite frankly do not understand why anyone of adult years having given the matter consideration would be. Be that as it may I am quite capable of disagreeing amicably with anyone.
So you are saying the god of the old testament is the same one as represented by JC?
Looks to me you dodged my question about christian churches condemning others for not being of the true faith. catholics and protestants slaughtered each other for years to settle that very issue-except it was more a case of everyone got fed up warring about it there are plenty who would go to war again if given the chance.
Shia and Sunni will do the same were they not somewhat distracted at the moment.
Personally I will allow anyone their faith but am getting fed up with religious groups that demand their faith be treated with respect even to the extent that saying it is a load of rubbish should not be allowed and trying to get their daft ideas of intelligent design taught instead of proper science and bring God's law back in to secular life. ( or so it seems to be in the states in some areas)
Those who demand tolerance need to extend it to others to receive it.
posted by glaswegian
No, gmc. I am not arguing that God exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by the Christian's belief in the existence of God. For example, that God is a Being who - if He exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
It should be clear from the posts I've made in this thread (and in other threads in this Forum) that I regard 'God' as nothing more than a figment of the religious believer's imagination, as something invented by people who are unable to draw contentment from within themselves, as a comforting delusion clung to by those who are terrified of existence and death - as a metaphysical pacifier for Big Infants, in other words.
I'm firmly in the agnostic camp. Believing there is no god is just as irrational as believing there is one. I rather like Stephen Hawkings reply when it was pointed out you can no more prove the non existence of god than you can prove it's existence-he copuldn't prove or disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of his garden. But on balance he didn't think there were any.
Having seen a few fairy glens in my time-ah well let's not go too far off topic.
posted by bh672
gmc, nor am I arguing that Glaswegian exists. I am simply spelling out what is entailed by FG's cyber-belief in the existence of Glaswegian. For example, that he is a poster who - if he exists - is utterly indifferent to the suffering of humanity.
Were he concerned with said suffering, he would stop contributing to it with these posts.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
I have an advantage there in that I know Glasgow does exist therefore the glaswegian does also. Although there are those in Edinburgh who hold it to be a dreary place. He posts therefore he is-all praise the garden and blessed is the spreader of slurry, be wary of those who would stop the weeds from posting for a weed is a flower as good as any other. Consider those who would only have "proper" flowers are they not like those who would have rhodedendron in the garden because it looks nice litle realising it chokes the life from tne garden.
Bring the holy wine unto me because that which is wrote almost makes sense.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;577961 wrote: He posts therefore he is
:wah:
As I can neither prove nor disprove his existence, I'm willing to trust your judgement that he is. Dreary or otherwise.
gmc wrote: Consider those who would only have "proper" flowers are they not like those who would have rhodedendron in the garden because it looks nice litle realising it chokes the life from tne garden.
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
:wah:
As I can neither prove nor disprove his existence, I'm willing to trust your judgement that he is. Dreary or otherwise.
gmc wrote: Consider those who would only have "proper" flowers are they not like those who would have rhodedendron in the garden because it looks nice litle realising it chokes the life from tne garden.
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc:-6
Of course everyone is welcome to their opinion. I would defend anyone's right to that.
Regarding the OT I'm saying that the wisdom of the OT is to be read in light of the NT. There are many attempts in the OT to come to grips with the nature of the divine. They are very human words and human experiences.
Unfortunately Christianity does not hold a monopoly on evil deeds: other faiths, communism, fascism, dictatorships, those of no faith. Just because the messenger doesn't behave doesn't mean the message does not contain some wisdom and truth. As for speaking of the "burning at the stake" or the crusades [my addition} it becomes an argument taken out of context. We cannot judge the actions of the past with today's knowledge.
Your comments about a "load of rubbish" or "daft ideas" clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going.
I would agree with your comments on tolerance but once again it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Of course everyone is welcome to their opinion. I would defend anyone's right to that.
Regarding the OT I'm saying that the wisdom of the OT is to be read in light of the NT. There are many attempts in the OT to come to grips with the nature of the divine. They are very human words and human experiences.
Unfortunately Christianity does not hold a monopoly on evil deeds: other faiths, communism, fascism, dictatorships, those of no faith. Just because the messenger doesn't behave doesn't mean the message does not contain some wisdom and truth. As for speaking of the "burning at the stake" or the crusades [my addition} it becomes an argument taken out of context. We cannot judge the actions of the past with today's knowledge.
Your comments about a "load of rubbish" or "daft ideas" clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going.
I would agree with your comments on tolerance but once again it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
I didn't read the first post, but is this another thread about how much he hates Christians?
Insight No. 87,643
cinamin:-6
It could be. I never read a damned thing he posts just the responses.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It could be. I never read a damned thing he posts just the responses.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
posted by ted
Regarding the OT I'm saying that the wisdom of the OT is to be read in light of the NT. There are many attempts in the OT to come to grips with the nature of the divine. They are very human words and human experiences.
The old testament was writen by a people living in a harsh environment at the mercy of narure and their neighbours which is arguably the reason the gpd of the ol;d testment is at times harsh and capricious. Similarly with tne greek idea of the gods-they exist you can pay to them but don't expect too much and the gods play their games with mankind.
Much of the bible has more credence to me now as archeology backs up some of the stiories in it. But it still remains te record of a primitive people amns their view of the world. The divine is used to explain what they cannot understand. Children die and it is god's wil they do so. Nowadays fewer die (in the west anyway) because we have a reater understanding of disease and the way the body works. tale away the mystery and the divine goes as well. The bible is not the word of god but a history and an attempt to understand. imo that is.
Much of the old testament directly contradicts the teaching of christ. So again why do do many so called christians use the old testament rather than the new when it suits their particular prejudices?
Let's keep this in general terms. I am not trying to "have a go " at you in particular. It's more I appreciate you are up for this kind of discussion without resorting to the "It just is" kind of response you get from most of a religious disposition. If yo can't talk to people you fundamentally disagree with the alternative is all out war.
posted by ted
Your comments about a "load of rubbish" or "daft ideas" clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going
You miss my point. Where the church and theology are going is not an issue. (Which church and which theology are you talking about:sneaky: idolatorous catholicism or the ourer protestant faiths) Each to his own.
What is an issue is that I have every right to express such opinions just as the religious have to express theirs. What i object to is the demand of religious groups to have their beliefs held as superior and should not be challenged by those who do not share their view or belief.
In the UK only the Church of England is protected by the laws of blasphemy there are now calls to extend the protection to all religious beliefs (mainly from muslims it should be said). In effect my expressing disbelief becomes a crime against god and in the secular world. Blasphemy is only an offence if you believe it in the first place it is completely absurd. on a par with making not believing in fairies a crime.
My issue, and I suspect glaswegians as well, is not so much with religious belief but with religon and the demand for respect from those who do not adere to it's tenets and the desire of those of religious persuasion who would force others to their way. Christs's call to spread the word all too often becomes if all else fails use coercion and force if necessary.
Religious fanaticism along with political fanaticism are much the same in the type of people they attrect and their desire to have their way.
Regarding the OT I'm saying that the wisdom of the OT is to be read in light of the NT. There are many attempts in the OT to come to grips with the nature of the divine. They are very human words and human experiences.
The old testament was writen by a people living in a harsh environment at the mercy of narure and their neighbours which is arguably the reason the gpd of the ol;d testment is at times harsh and capricious. Similarly with tne greek idea of the gods-they exist you can pay to them but don't expect too much and the gods play their games with mankind.
Much of the bible has more credence to me now as archeology backs up some of the stiories in it. But it still remains te record of a primitive people amns their view of the world. The divine is used to explain what they cannot understand. Children die and it is god's wil they do so. Nowadays fewer die (in the west anyway) because we have a reater understanding of disease and the way the body works. tale away the mystery and the divine goes as well. The bible is not the word of god but a history and an attempt to understand. imo that is.
Much of the old testament directly contradicts the teaching of christ. So again why do do many so called christians use the old testament rather than the new when it suits their particular prejudices?
Let's keep this in general terms. I am not trying to "have a go " at you in particular. It's more I appreciate you are up for this kind of discussion without resorting to the "It just is" kind of response you get from most of a religious disposition. If yo can't talk to people you fundamentally disagree with the alternative is all out war.
posted by ted
Your comments about a "load of rubbish" or "daft ideas" clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of where the church and theology are going
You miss my point. Where the church and theology are going is not an issue. (Which church and which theology are you talking about:sneaky: idolatorous catholicism or the ourer protestant faiths) Each to his own.
What is an issue is that I have every right to express such opinions just as the religious have to express theirs. What i object to is the demand of religious groups to have their beliefs held as superior and should not be challenged by those who do not share their view or belief.
In the UK only the Church of England is protected by the laws of blasphemy there are now calls to extend the protection to all religious beliefs (mainly from muslims it should be said). In effect my expressing disbelief becomes a crime against god and in the secular world. Blasphemy is only an offence if you believe it in the first place it is completely absurd. on a par with making not believing in fairies a crime.
My issue, and I suspect glaswegians as well, is not so much with religious belief but with religon and the demand for respect from those who do not adere to it's tenets and the desire of those of religious persuasion who would force others to their way. Christs's call to spread the word all too often becomes if all else fails use coercion and force if necessary.
Religious fanaticism along with political fanaticism are much the same in the type of people they attrect and their desire to have their way.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;578173 wrote: the god of the old testament is at times harsh and capricious
No, gmc. He is infinitely worse than that.
Richard Dawkins describes Him more accurately as follows:
'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.' (The God Delusion, p.31)
It is sad and depressing that countless millions of religious believers throughout the centuries have saw this revolting and despicable God as an object fit for worship. When He is fit for nothing.
No, gmc. He is infinitely worse than that.
Richard Dawkins describes Him more accurately as follows:
'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.' (The God Delusion, p.31)
It is sad and depressing that countless millions of religious believers throughout the centuries have saw this revolting and despicable God as an object fit for worship. When He is fit for nothing.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
Far Rider;578328 wrote: Your very DNA has His imprinted image on your soul.
That sentence is clearly the product of a mind completely benighted by religious nonsense, Far Rider. Since I don't possess such a mind, and you do, please tell me what that sentence of yours...er...'means'.
That sentence is clearly the product of a mind completely benighted by religious nonsense, Far Rider. Since I don't possess such a mind, and you do, please tell me what that sentence of yours...er...'means'.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc:-6
Your comments re the history of the ancient ages are accurate. Yes the divine was used to explain what they did not understand. I am in complete agreement. Fortunately I do not believe in the "god of the gaps". My beliefs and experiences tell me that God is but not in the way that many folks do not accept. I do not believe in that god at all.
Scholars and psychologists and 30% of scientists are convinced there is more to it then just explaining the unknown. These people accept the reality of God. Some believe we are hard wired to seek for the divine.
One Canadian scientist, well recognized, clearly states in her work that she is of the opinion that science is limited and will never answer all the questions. Ursula Franklin is well recognized and accepted in Canadian and scientific circles. She is an experimental physicist, engineer, university of Toronto professor(retired) staunch feminist and a devout Quaker. Her brilliance and intelligence are well recognized and rewarded.
The church and theology I am talking about are those following the emerging paradigm and they cross most denominational boundaries. (Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, and a host of others) that I could list if anyone wishes.
I have said elsewhere that everyone whether of faith (any faith) or non faith are and should be free to express their beliefs. Not only that I think all folks should respect the right of others to believe as they wish without recrimination.
I know nothing of the blasphemy laws but agree they should be dropped.
Fanaticism is extremism and unfortunately is not just the monopoly of religion. All extremists are dangerous.
None of this is meant to prove the existence or non existence of God since such is impossible withing the scientific method or in logic.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Your comments re the history of the ancient ages are accurate. Yes the divine was used to explain what they did not understand. I am in complete agreement. Fortunately I do not believe in the "god of the gaps". My beliefs and experiences tell me that God is but not in the way that many folks do not accept. I do not believe in that god at all.
Scholars and psychologists and 30% of scientists are convinced there is more to it then just explaining the unknown. These people accept the reality of God. Some believe we are hard wired to seek for the divine.
One Canadian scientist, well recognized, clearly states in her work that she is of the opinion that science is limited and will never answer all the questions. Ursula Franklin is well recognized and accepted in Canadian and scientific circles. She is an experimental physicist, engineer, university of Toronto professor(retired) staunch feminist and a devout Quaker. Her brilliance and intelligence are well recognized and rewarded.
The church and theology I am talking about are those following the emerging paradigm and they cross most denominational boundaries. (Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, and a host of others) that I could list if anyone wishes.
I have said elsewhere that everyone whether of faith (any faith) or non faith are and should be free to express their beliefs. Not only that I think all folks should respect the right of others to believe as they wish without recrimination.
I know nothing of the blasphemy laws but agree they should be dropped.
Fanaticism is extremism and unfortunately is not just the monopoly of religion. All extremists are dangerous.
None of this is meant to prove the existence or non existence of God since such is impossible withing the scientific method or in logic.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;572541 wrote: ...The 'truths' which Christianity holds out to its followers are metaphysical 'truths' and, as such, their truth or falsity cannot be demonstrated. This is why there must always be an element of doubt concerning these 'truths' in the mind of not only the evangelical Christian but of every Christian no matter how much they deceive themselves otherwise...Given that the truth or falsity of Christianity's metaphysical claims cannot be established one way or the other it is pretty pointless to ask whether or not they are true.
In contrast with Far Rider, here is an American who was eminently rational and in no way gullible or mercenary in his outlook:
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
It is good to see that Mr. Jefferson was completely in tune with what I said in the above excerpt from post #3 in this thread. The great man writes:
'To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.'
Here's to you, Thomas Jefferson. :yh_worshp You were a man after my own heart.
In contrast with Far Rider, here is an American who was eminently rational and in no way gullible or mercenary in his outlook:
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
It is good to see that Mr. Jefferson was completely in tune with what I said in the above excerpt from post #3 in this thread. The great man writes:
'To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.'
Here's to you, Thomas Jefferson. :yh_worshp You were a man after my own heart.
Insight No. 87,643
Far Rider:-6
You are absolutely correct that humankind has been searching for and worshiping the divine since his beginnings. They have found religious artifacts dating from the stone age. Some scientists and scholars are of the opinion that we may be hard wired to seek out the divine. Interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are absolutely correct that humankind has been searching for and worshiping the divine since his beginnings. They have found religious artifacts dating from the stone age. Some scientists and scholars are of the opinion that we may be hard wired to seek out the divine. Interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
Far Rider:-6
It is difficult to deny the experiential reality of the risen Lord. You are correct about what we know on the inside. Absolutely.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS We can't let this agreement go on too long or it will ruin our reputations. LOL
It is difficult to deny the experiential reality of the risen Lord. You are correct about what we know on the inside. Absolutely.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS We can't let this agreement go on too long or it will ruin our reputations. LOL
Insight No. 87,643
Ted;578690 wrote: Far Rider:-6
It is difficult to deny the experiential reality of the risen Lord. You are correct about what we know on the inside. Absolutely.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS We can't let this agreement go on too long or it will ruin our reputations. LOL
It's purely subjective. If you could prove the existence of god you wouldn't need faith. On the other hand if you could prove he didn't exist you could still have faith that he did.
belief in god is irrational
Oxford english dictionary
irrational
• adjective not logical or reasonable.
So is belief there is no god.
I don't have a problem with religious belief per se or with aetheists. I do have a problem with religon. Rather than letting people come to their own concluscions and respecting that freedom too many religons demand the right to control what people can see and read for themselves and impose their faith and sytem of belief on others. I also have a problem with aetheists trying the same thing in reverse.
To me it's a personal thing each must make up their own mind and respect those who don't see things the same way. there is no right way and those who believe there is cause trouble beyond what their number would suggest they should be capable of.
One of the biggest problems with being tolerant is too many see it as a sign of weakness and want things their way.
Far rider, Ted. I can't argue with your faith, it is a personal thing to each of you. I do enjoy arguing about it though even if I do think it a load of cobblers:D
There is no god only the cosmic comedian. Life is a joke but we don't know the punchline.
The most dangerous religons are the ones that can't laugh at themselves.
I was at a Burns supper where the entertainment was a band from Northern Ireland-this in a stauchly protestant part of lanarjshire where the orange march is a regular event. Sectarian joke on sectarian joke flowed one after the another to a kind of appaled silence- they were actually very funny but really really non PC.
Then the catholic priest at the top table stood up. As they see here I nearly ended myself laughing. laughter heals all wounds they say especially when you can laugh at the differences between people and what makes each special.
It is difficult to deny the experiential reality of the risen Lord. You are correct about what we know on the inside. Absolutely.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS We can't let this agreement go on too long or it will ruin our reputations. LOL
It's purely subjective. If you could prove the existence of god you wouldn't need faith. On the other hand if you could prove he didn't exist you could still have faith that he did.
belief in god is irrational
Oxford english dictionary
irrational
• adjective not logical or reasonable.
So is belief there is no god.
I don't have a problem with religious belief per se or with aetheists. I do have a problem with religon. Rather than letting people come to their own concluscions and respecting that freedom too many religons demand the right to control what people can see and read for themselves and impose their faith and sytem of belief on others. I also have a problem with aetheists trying the same thing in reverse.
To me it's a personal thing each must make up their own mind and respect those who don't see things the same way. there is no right way and those who believe there is cause trouble beyond what their number would suggest they should be capable of.
One of the biggest problems with being tolerant is too many see it as a sign of weakness and want things their way.
Far rider, Ted. I can't argue with your faith, it is a personal thing to each of you. I do enjoy arguing about it though even if I do think it a load of cobblers:D
There is no god only the cosmic comedian. Life is a joke but we don't know the punchline.
The most dangerous religons are the ones that can't laugh at themselves.
I was at a Burns supper where the entertainment was a band from Northern Ireland-this in a stauchly protestant part of lanarjshire where the orange march is a regular event. Sectarian joke on sectarian joke flowed one after the another to a kind of appaled silence- they were actually very funny but really really non PC.
Then the catholic priest at the top table stood up. As they see here I nearly ended myself laughing. laughter heals all wounds they say especially when you can laugh at the differences between people and what makes each special.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;578843 wrote: I do think it a load of cobblers
Or as I expressed it in my post Religion And The Need For Blasphemy: The Christian faith is 'a steaming pile of horse-sh*t'. Why mince words, gmc?
Or as I expressed it in my post Religion And The Need For Blasphemy: The Christian faith is 'a steaming pile of horse-sh*t'. Why mince words, gmc?
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;578888 wrote: Or as I expressed it in my post Religion And The Need For Blasphemy: The Christian faith is 'a steaming pile of horse-sh*t'. Why mince words, gmc?
Common courtesy. I can be as abusive as the next if I choose to be, and know lots of interesting words and colourful epithets. I see no reason to be as it usually stops amicable discourse, and since that is the main reason for a forum like this and my being here I try to extend the same courtesy to others I expect in return and refrain from being abusive. If others don't reciprocate then I get over the disappointment in about two seconds.
I find especially with those from the other side of the pond one has to be careful as they do not seem used to impassioned debate and tend to take such comments as being a personal attack rather than a comment on what is being said.
Which version of the christian faith are you talking about? I still suspect you are a reformed wee free. You have all the impassioned fervour of the escapee and lapsed roman candles seem not to have the same reforming zeal. Maybe there is more misery in the free kirk to get back at.
Common courtesy. I can be as abusive as the next if I choose to be, and know lots of interesting words and colourful epithets. I see no reason to be as it usually stops amicable discourse, and since that is the main reason for a forum like this and my being here I try to extend the same courtesy to others I expect in return and refrain from being abusive. If others don't reciprocate then I get over the disappointment in about two seconds.
I find especially with those from the other side of the pond one has to be careful as they do not seem used to impassioned debate and tend to take such comments as being a personal attack rather than a comment on what is being said.
Which version of the christian faith are you talking about? I still suspect you are a reformed wee free. You have all the impassioned fervour of the escapee and lapsed roman candles seem not to have the same reforming zeal. Maybe there is more misery in the free kirk to get back at.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;578920 wrote: Which version of the christian faith?
The Christian faith in toto, gmc. The Whole Shebang.
gmc wrote: I still suspect you are a reformed wee free.
Why do you persist with this rationalization when I told you earlier in the thread that my upbringing was free of religion? You are beginning to sound as desperate as Far Rider is over this matter. Stop clutching at straws.
gmc wrote: You have all the impassioned fervour of the escapee.
If have impassioned fervour then it is the impassioned fervour of someone who thinks that Christianity is not simply excrement but dangerous excrement: and that it ought to be consigned to the cess pit of history where it belongs.
The Christian faith in toto, gmc. The Whole Shebang.
gmc wrote: I still suspect you are a reformed wee free.
Why do you persist with this rationalization when I told you earlier in the thread that my upbringing was free of religion? You are beginning to sound as desperate as Far Rider is over this matter. Stop clutching at straws.
gmc wrote: You have all the impassioned fervour of the escapee.
If have impassioned fervour then it is the impassioned fervour of someone who thinks that Christianity is not simply excrement but dangerous excrement: and that it ought to be consigned to the cess pit of history where it belongs.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;578920 wrote: I find especially with those from the other side of the pond one has to be careful as they do not seem used to impassioned debate and tend to take such comments as being a personal attack rather than a comment on what is being said.
In other words, they are not as adept as we are at attaining an objective view of things. I agree. But that is their problem, not ours. I say they should wise up and become more European in that respect.
In other words, they are not as adept as we are at attaining an objective view of things. I agree. But that is their problem, not ours. I say they should wise up and become more European in that respect.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;574959 wrote: What I actually try to do is offer the [Christian] believer reasoned arguments in support of the view that his religion is a delusion.
When I say that the Christian's religion is a delusion I mean only that and nothing else. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Christian is a completely deluded person. Not at all. He is not deluded through and through but only as far as his religion goes. I don't doubt that the Christian is able to function rationally in those areas of his life which lie outside of his religion. For example, I don't doubt that he is able to brush his teeth, dress himself, and hold down a job. Perhaps he is even able to get a girlfriend.
Therefore, in case I have been misunderstood, let me make everything as clear as an azure sky. All I am saying about the Christian and other religious believers is this: It is the part of their mind which believes in their religion that is deluded. It is that part, and that part alone, which is irrational, pathologically regressed, and completely divorced from reality.
But what I have said just now has been said so much better by many others - one of whom is the American academic, Sam Harris. In his book The End Of Faith Harris writes:
We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional'...Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.
When I say that the Christian's religion is a delusion I mean only that and nothing else. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Christian is a completely deluded person. Not at all. He is not deluded through and through but only as far as his religion goes. I don't doubt that the Christian is able to function rationally in those areas of his life which lie outside of his religion. For example, I don't doubt that he is able to brush his teeth, dress himself, and hold down a job. Perhaps he is even able to get a girlfriend.
Therefore, in case I have been misunderstood, let me make everything as clear as an azure sky. All I am saying about the Christian and other religious believers is this: It is the part of their mind which believes in their religion that is deluded. It is that part, and that part alone, which is irrational, pathologically regressed, and completely divorced from reality.
But what I have said just now has been said so much better by many others - one of whom is the American academic, Sam Harris. In his book The End Of Faith Harris writes:
We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional'...Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;578960 wrote: In other words, they are not as adept as we are at attaining an objective view of things. I agree. But that is their problem, not ours. I say they should wise up and become more European in that respect.
I wouldn't agree with you there at all. You're not doing so well at being objective yourself.
I just meant that the nuances in language get lost in translation sometimes. A common culture divided by the same language as it were.
For instance were I to call you a ranting ba'heid whose approach is akin to pissing in to the wind and just about as useful. If I also point out that if you want to persuade others to your objective viewpoint ranting and being insulting is not a good way to proceed you have the perspicacity to appreciate I am not making a personal attack.
Aetheism is also irrational since you can't disprove the extistence of god any more than you can prove it.
Come to that you can't prove that you exist but only arrive at the belief you do in your own manner as does everybody else. Religon/aetheism is a debate about what it all means
I wouldn't agree with you there at all. You're not doing so well at being objective yourself.
I just meant that the nuances in language get lost in translation sometimes. A common culture divided by the same language as it were.
For instance were I to call you a ranting ba'heid whose approach is akin to pissing in to the wind and just about as useful. If I also point out that if you want to persuade others to your objective viewpoint ranting and being insulting is not a good way to proceed you have the perspicacity to appreciate I am not making a personal attack.
Aetheism is also irrational since you can't disprove the extistence of god any more than you can prove it.
Come to that you can't prove that you exist but only arrive at the belief you do in your own manner as does everybody else. Religon/aetheism is a debate about what it all means
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;579413 wrote: For instance were I to call you a ranting ba'heid...you have the perspicacity to appreciate I am not making a personal attack.
Correct, gmc. I would appreciate that you were simply making a pass at me. Just joking, darling!
Correct, gmc. I would appreciate that you were simply making a pass at me. Just joking, darling!
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;579413 wrote: Aetheism is also irrational since you can't disprove the extistence of god
"You atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
That is the argument which the cornered Christian usually shrieks after one has kicked away the rest of the props which support his delusional belief system (e.g., the occurrence of 'miracles'). And the atheist must reply in all honesty that he certainly can't disprove the existence of God. But this very same argument can be turned against the Christian.
Thus, the Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
"You atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
That is the argument which the cornered Christian usually shrieks after one has kicked away the rest of the props which support his delusional belief system (e.g., the occurrence of 'miracles'). And the atheist must reply in all honesty that he certainly can't disprove the existence of God. But this very same argument can be turned against the Christian.
Thus, the Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;579479 wrote: "You atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
That is the argument which the cornered Christian usually shrieks after one has kicked away the rest of the props which support his delusional belief system (e.g., the occurrence of 'miracles'). And the atheist must reply in all honesty that he certainly can't disprove the existence of God. But this very same argument can be turned against the Christian.
Thus, the Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
If I could answer that I would have the faith of a monotheist. Why do you have such faith that he doesn't?
Seems to me you are evangelising every bit as much as a christian except for a different faith.
The religious evangelist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the evangelist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.'
Change the words slightly
The aetheist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the aetheist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.'
Blessed are the rational for they shall have fun winding up both sides of the religious divide.
That is the argument which the cornered Christian usually shrieks after one has kicked away the rest of the props which support his delusional belief system (e.g., the occurrence of 'miracles'). And the atheist must reply in all honesty that he certainly can't disprove the existence of God. But this very same argument can be turned against the Christian.
Thus, the Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
If I could answer that I would have the faith of a monotheist. Why do you have such faith that he doesn't?
Seems to me you are evangelising every bit as much as a christian except for a different faith.
The religious evangelist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the evangelist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.'
Change the words slightly
The aetheist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the aetheist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.'
Blessed are the rational for they shall have fun winding up both sides of the religious divide.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc:-6
I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. However, not all churches are as you describe.
I do disagree that a religious faith is irrational.
Personally I have no problem with people thinking for themselves. My particular church encourages it. Neither do we force our faith on anyone. If someone wants to come in and listen they are welcome. There is no pressure whatsoever unless of course they enjoy going to the pub now and then. They might be tempted to join us after church.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. However, not all churches are as you describe.
I do disagree that a religious faith is irrational.
Personally I have no problem with people thinking for themselves. My particular church encourages it. Neither do we force our faith on anyone. If someone wants to come in and listen they are welcome. There is no pressure whatsoever unless of course they enjoy going to the pub now and then. They might be tempted to join us after church.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Insight No. 87,643
posted by ted
However, not all churches are as you describe.
I'm well aware of that. The ones that are are dangerous, especially if they manage to get political power.
You cannot be free if you look to someone or some organisation to tell you what to believe and what opinions to have. A free decision is one thing, being indoctrinated is another. Having said that I don't have a nice simple answer and distrust those who say they do. Maybe cynicism shuld be compulsory teaching in schools.
However, not all churches are as you describe.
I'm well aware of that. The ones that are are dangerous, especially if they manage to get political power.
You cannot be free if you look to someone or some organisation to tell you what to believe and what opinions to have. A free decision is one thing, being indoctrinated is another. Having said that I don't have a nice simple answer and distrust those who say they do. Maybe cynicism shuld be compulsory teaching in schools.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian wrote:
The Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
gmc;579520 wrote: If I could answer that I would have the faith of a monotheist.
I'm sure you know very well what the answer to that question is, gmc. I'm sure you know that the reason why the Christian takes it for granted that his particular deity exists and the non-Christian ones do not is the outcome of bias - specifically, cultural bias. If the modern day Christian were to be transported back to ancient Egypt then his conviction that, say, Horus existed would be just as implacable as his present conviction that 'God' exists.
gmc wrote: Why do you have such faith that he doesn't [exist]?
For the exact same reason as you, gmc - lack of evidence. Or as you put it: because faith in the Christian 'God' is 'a load of cobblers'.
The Christian may be right in holding that the existence of God cannot be disproved. However, the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Minerva, Thor, Ganesha, and Hecate, etc. cannot be disproved either. But the Christian is willing to take it for granted that none of these non-Christian deities exist.
Why do you think that is, gmc?
gmc;579520 wrote: If I could answer that I would have the faith of a monotheist.
I'm sure you know very well what the answer to that question is, gmc. I'm sure you know that the reason why the Christian takes it for granted that his particular deity exists and the non-Christian ones do not is the outcome of bias - specifically, cultural bias. If the modern day Christian were to be transported back to ancient Egypt then his conviction that, say, Horus existed would be just as implacable as his present conviction that 'God' exists.
gmc wrote: Why do you have such faith that he doesn't [exist]?
For the exact same reason as you, gmc - lack of evidence. Or as you put it: because faith in the Christian 'God' is 'a load of cobblers'.
Insight No. 87,643
posted by glaswegian
For the exact same reason as you, gmc - lack of evidence. Or as you put it: because faith in the Christian 'God' is 'a load of cobblers'.
So is faith that there is no god and for the same reason. Hey faith and reason in the same sentence. You won't see them together very often, enjoy.
For the exact same reason as you, gmc - lack of evidence. Or as you put it: because faith in the Christian 'God' is 'a load of cobblers'.
So is faith that there is no god and for the same reason. Hey faith and reason in the same sentence. You won't see them together very often, enjoy.
Insight No. 87,643
gmc:-6
I am in complete agreement with your last post to me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in complete agreement with your last post to me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;580600 wrote: So is faith that there is no god and for the same reason.
I think you're on the slippery slope to fantasy-land, gmc. Next you'll be telling me that refusal to believe in the existence of fairies, pixies and elves is irrational as well.
gmc wrote: Hey faith and reason in the same sentence. You won't see them together very often.
And you won't ever see them together in the mind of the Christian. For they must be kept completely compartmentalised from each other in his mind. Reason is the arch-enemy of faith. Reason is kept caged from faith in the believer's mind because it always threatens to devour the latter.
In case you think I'm exaggerating let me provide you with a Christian view of the corrosive effect which reason has on faith - that of Martin Luther, no less. Luther recognised the great danger which reason posed to faith when he wrote:
'Reason is the greatest enemy which faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.'
And...
'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.'
And again...
'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'
At least Luther was honest about one thing.
I think you're on the slippery slope to fantasy-land, gmc. Next you'll be telling me that refusal to believe in the existence of fairies, pixies and elves is irrational as well.
gmc wrote: Hey faith and reason in the same sentence. You won't see them together very often.
And you won't ever see them together in the mind of the Christian. For they must be kept completely compartmentalised from each other in his mind. Reason is the arch-enemy of faith. Reason is kept caged from faith in the believer's mind because it always threatens to devour the latter.
In case you think I'm exaggerating let me provide you with a Christian view of the corrosive effect which reason has on faith - that of Martin Luther, no less. Luther recognised the great danger which reason posed to faith when he wrote:
'Reason is the greatest enemy which faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.'
And...
'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.'
And again...
'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'
At least Luther was honest about one thing.
Insight No. 87,643
from the oxford english dictionary
reason
verb [T]
to try to understand and to make judgements based on practical facts:
[+ (that)] Newton reasoned (that) there must be a force such as gravity, when an apple fell on his head.
I spent hours reasoning out the solution to the puzzle.
rational
adjective
showing clear thought or reason:
a rational course of action/argument/explanation
irrational
adjective
not using reason or clear thinking
posted by glaswegian
I think you're on the slippery slope to fantasy-land, gmc. Next you'll be telling me that refusal to believe in the existence of fairies, pixies and elves is irrational as well.
Like god, stories about fairies and pixies are an attempt to explain phenomena for which there was no logical explanation. I've seen a fairy ring. Now |I know the reason for them but when you come across one unexpectedly it is still magical. I know santa isn't real but I wish he was.
Since there are not enough facts to prove or disprove the existence of fairies belief or non belief in them is, literally, irrational.
I can't prove there aren't fairies but personally i don't think there are.
I can't prove or disprove that god exists so I am firmly in the agnostic camp which to me is the only rational position to take.
I am sure religion is bunkum. I find a difference between those at peace with themselves and their belief and with those who do not share it and the rabid evangelist who fall in to two categories-the ones you describe that want to force everyone to their view and those who evangelise out of a need to get others to share what they think they have found.
You also find evangelical atheists as well. Those that want to browbeat others to their belief or those at peace with their beliefs.
In your first post change the religious evangelist to atheist and the description matches some atheists. Not that i am hinting, insinuating or otherwise implying that you are an evangelical atheist.
People can view the same facts use their reason and come to different conclusions. Some people are too lazy to think for themselves and like to be told some are so impressed by their own intelligence and perspicacity they end up feeling contempt for their thicker brethren. Real intelligence is always questioning and testing the answers.
I know many intelligent people that believe in god just as i know many that just as passionately don't.
Religious belief is irrational. Telling someone they are off their trolleys and shouting them down is not a terribly constructive approach. Making them think is a lot more fun. Might not get you anywhere but then again. Why are you an aetheist?
reason
verb [T]
to try to understand and to make judgements based on practical facts:
[+ (that)] Newton reasoned (that) there must be a force such as gravity, when an apple fell on his head.
I spent hours reasoning out the solution to the puzzle.
rational
adjective
showing clear thought or reason:
a rational course of action/argument/explanation
irrational
adjective
not using reason or clear thinking
posted by glaswegian
I think you're on the slippery slope to fantasy-land, gmc. Next you'll be telling me that refusal to believe in the existence of fairies, pixies and elves is irrational as well.
Like god, stories about fairies and pixies are an attempt to explain phenomena for which there was no logical explanation. I've seen a fairy ring. Now |I know the reason for them but when you come across one unexpectedly it is still magical. I know santa isn't real but I wish he was.
Since there are not enough facts to prove or disprove the existence of fairies belief or non belief in them is, literally, irrational.
I can't prove there aren't fairies but personally i don't think there are.
I can't prove or disprove that god exists so I am firmly in the agnostic camp which to me is the only rational position to take.
I am sure religion is bunkum. I find a difference between those at peace with themselves and their belief and with those who do not share it and the rabid evangelist who fall in to two categories-the ones you describe that want to force everyone to their view and those who evangelise out of a need to get others to share what they think they have found.
You also find evangelical atheists as well. Those that want to browbeat others to their belief or those at peace with their beliefs.
In your first post change the religious evangelist to atheist and the description matches some atheists. Not that i am hinting, insinuating or otherwise implying that you are an evangelical atheist.
People can view the same facts use their reason and come to different conclusions. Some people are too lazy to think for themselves and like to be told some are so impressed by their own intelligence and perspicacity they end up feeling contempt for their thicker brethren. Real intelligence is always questioning and testing the answers.
I know many intelligent people that believe in god just as i know many that just as passionately don't.
Religious belief is irrational. Telling someone they are off their trolleys and shouting them down is not a terribly constructive approach. Making them think is a lot more fun. Might not get you anywhere but then again. Why are you an aetheist?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc;580867 wrote: Like god, stories about fairies and pixies are an attempt to explain phenomena for which there was no logical explanation. I've seen a fairy ring. Now |I know the reason for them but when you come across one unexpectedly it is still magical. I know santa isn't real but I wish he was.
Since there are not enough facts to prove or disprove the existence of fairies belief or non belief in them is, literally, irrational.
I can't prove there aren't fairies but personally i don't think there are.
I can't prove or disprove that god exists so I am firmly in the agnostic camp which to me is the only rational position to take.
I am sure religion is bunkum. I find a difference between those at peace with themselves and their belief and with those who do not share it and the rabid evangelist who fall in to two categories-the ones you describe that want to force everyone to their view and those who evangelise out of a need to get others to share what they think they have found.
You also find evangelical atheists as well. Those that want to browbeat others to their belief or those at peace with their beliefs.
In your first post change the religious evangelist to atheist and the description matches some atheists. Not that i am hinting, insinuating or otherwise implying that you are an evangelical atheist.
People can view the same facts use their reason and come to different conclusions. Some people are too lazy to think for themselves and like to be told some are so impressed by their own intelligence and perspicacity they end up feeling contempt for their thicker brethren. Real intelligence is always questioning and testing the answers.
I know many intelligent people that believe in god just as i know many that just as passionately don't.
Religious belief is irrational. Telling someone they are off their trolleys and shouting them down is not a terribly constructive approach. Making them think is a lot more fun. Might not get you anywhere but then again. Why are you an aetheist?
There are several things in your post which I'd like to discuss with you, gmc. But I'm afraid I can't do so at the moment. I have to get back to working on a screenplay which I've neglected for a while now (Dungeon Of The Teenage Lesbian Vampires). Catch you in about two weeks.
Since there are not enough facts to prove or disprove the existence of fairies belief or non belief in them is, literally, irrational.
I can't prove there aren't fairies but personally i don't think there are.
I can't prove or disprove that god exists so I am firmly in the agnostic camp which to me is the only rational position to take.
I am sure religion is bunkum. I find a difference between those at peace with themselves and their belief and with those who do not share it and the rabid evangelist who fall in to two categories-the ones you describe that want to force everyone to their view and those who evangelise out of a need to get others to share what they think they have found.
You also find evangelical atheists as well. Those that want to browbeat others to their belief or those at peace with their beliefs.
In your first post change the religious evangelist to atheist and the description matches some atheists. Not that i am hinting, insinuating or otherwise implying that you are an evangelical atheist.
People can view the same facts use their reason and come to different conclusions. Some people are too lazy to think for themselves and like to be told some are so impressed by their own intelligence and perspicacity they end up feeling contempt for their thicker brethren. Real intelligence is always questioning and testing the answers.
I know many intelligent people that believe in god just as i know many that just as passionately don't.
Religious belief is irrational. Telling someone they are off their trolleys and shouting them down is not a terribly constructive approach. Making them think is a lot more fun. Might not get you anywhere but then again. Why are you an aetheist?
There are several things in your post which I'd like to discuss with you, gmc. But I'm afraid I can't do so at the moment. I have to get back to working on a screenplay which I've neglected for a while now (Dungeon Of The Teenage Lesbian Vampires). Catch you in about two weeks.
Insight No. 87,643
Glaswegian;581165 wrote: There are several things in your post which I'd like to discuss with you, gmc. But I'm afraid I can't do so at the moment. I have to get back to working on a screenplay which I've neglected for a while now (Dungeon Of The Teenage Lesbian Vampires). Catch you in about two weeks.
With a title like that I wouldn't have thought there was much need for a good plot line or even much dialogue. But maybe I misread the type of movie it is.
With a title like that I wouldn't have thought there was much need for a good plot line or even much dialogue. But maybe I misread the type of movie it is.
Insight No. 87,643
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 390827.ece
Now there's a thing if you believe in god does that mean you also have to believe in the devil?
There is no such coyness at the Vatican, where the Pope's chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, is said to have cast out 30,000 demons. "Of course the Devil exists, and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations," such as the Nazis, he said last year. "You can tell by their behaviour and their actions ... and the atrocities committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."
Mind you it was the catholic church that created him wasn't it?
Now there's a thing if you believe in god does that mean you also have to believe in the devil?
There is no such coyness at the Vatican, where the Pope's chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, is said to have cast out 30,000 demons. "Of course the Devil exists, and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations," such as the Nazis, he said last year. "You can tell by their behaviour and their actions ... and the atrocities committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."
Mind you it was the catholic church that created him wasn't it?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
I'm sorry about the delay in getting back to you, gmc. But when I'm immersed in the creative process I lose all sense of time. A day can pass like a moment. I'm happy to announce that the screenplay Dungeon Of The Teenage Lesbian Vampires has been completed. Let me provide you with an excerpt from it so you can understand why it was a labour of love for me...
DUNGEON OF THE TEENAGE LESBIAN VAMPIRES
Scene 55
Glaswegian comes face to face with the Queen of the Vampires
(The setting is the dungeon of the teenage lesbian vampires. All around the dungeon are signs of the most appalling carnage. We are in the midst of horror piled upon horror. Human body parts lie scattered everywhere - arms, legs, heads, teeth, entrails. A dozen beautiful female vampires feed on the corpses of four nuns. A dead priest lies naked and face down next to a brazier of burning coals, a poker protruding from his rectum. A wisp of smoke rises from his charred anus. The hero of the story, Glaswegian, is chained to a wall of the dungeon. Carmilla, the Queen of the Vampires, approaches Glaswegian and contemplates him. She turns from Glaswegian and calls out.)
CARMILLA: Nightfinger!
(A hideous male dwarf emerges from a hole in the dungeon floor and positions himself near Carmilla. He has one eye, one ear, one arm, a hump, and is completely bald apart from an eighteen-inch long strand of hair which grows out from the stump of his missing ear.)
NIGHTFINGER: (Nervously) Yes, Majesty?
CARMILLA: Is it true that you have heard of this man?
(Nightfinger glances at Glaswegian.)
NIGHTFINGER: Yes.
CARMILLA: What have you heard?
NIGHTFINGER: Only this: That he is a man of extraordinary insight.
(Carmilla looks at Glaswegian.)
CARMILLA: (Thoughtfully) Is that so?
NIGHTFINGER: Our enemy hates him.
CARMILLA: How do you know?
(Nightfinger gestures at the dead priest with his head.)
NIGHTFINGER: That dog's last words were: 'Kill Glaswegian. Let his death be worse than mine. Let it be your masterpiece.'
(He bends over, inserts his fingers into his rectum, and removes something small and pinkish. He holds it up for Carmilla's inspection.)
This tongue uttered those very words...screamed them at me. But I was deaf to them.
(He tosses the priest's tongue into the burning brazier. He walks over to Glaswegian and looks him over.)
Perhaps I should have heeded the priest. This one could have been my masterpiece.
(He spits in Glaswegian's face and walks back to Carmilla.)
But I saved him for you.
(Carmilla smiles approvingly at Nightfinger.)
Shall I saw his legs off for you, Majesty? It's your birthday.
CARMILLA: No.
(Nightfinger stares at Glaswegian.)
NIGHTFINGER: (Wistfully) I could have surpassed myself with him. I know it.
CARMILLA: Don't worry, my little scorpion. You shall have others...many others.
(Nightfinger kneels before Carmilla.)
NIGHTFINGER: Majesty?
CARMILLA: Yes?
NIGHTFINGER: I did the right thing this time, didn't I?...
(He points at Glaswegian.)
...When I saved that for you.
CARMILLA: Yes, you did the right thing...this time.
NIGHTFINGER: In that case: may I have his eyes?
CARMILLA: No.
NIGHTFINGER: Not even one of them?
CARMILLA: No. Not even one. Leave us, Nightfinger.
NIGHTFINGER: Then let me have his lower jaw. At least give me that.
CARMILLA: Return to the ant-eater hole.
(Nightfinger rises and moves towards Glaswegian, his arm outstretched.)
NIGHTFINGER: But it will only take me a moment.
CARMILLA: Leave!
(Nightfinger leaves. Glaswegian watches him descend into the darkness of the hole.)
GLASWEGIAN: I bet he has lots of soft toys down there.
CARMILLA: Silence!
(She studies Glaswegian's face. It is the face of a man who has looked deeply into his own soul and into the soul of the world. It is the face of a man who has saw too much.)
I should like to hear one of your insights.
GLASWEGIAN: (Groans) Right now?
(Carmilla moves closer to Glaswegian and runs a long fingernail across his throat. She nods slowly.)
CARMILLA: Right now.
(Glaswegian casts a glance at the dead priest.)
GLASWEGIAN: I hope you're going to clean that poker.
(Carmilla opens her mouth revealing two enormous fangs which glisten in the preternatural light of the dungeon. Her tongue is covered in fur. Beads of sweat break out on Glaswegian's forehead. He swallows hard.)
Alright. If you insist. This insight came to me a little while ago when I saw that picture of Mother Teresa hanging upside down on the wall over there.
(Carmilla turns and looks at the picture.)
CARMILLA: The picture of the Albanian toad?
GLASWEGIAN: Yes.
CARMILLA: You gained an insight from looking at her picture?
GLASWEGIAN: Yes. And not just any old insight.
CARMILLA: A profound insight?
GLASWEGIAN: As profound as a thousand midnights. As profound as the nethermost region of hell. As profound as...
(He starts to weep.)
Oh God! Why am I here? What have I done to deserve this? Is there no justice?
(He grimaces.)
But it's all my fault. I know that. Oh, Amy! I should have listened to you. You were right. You were so goddamned right! I should never have used your astral marmalade as lubricant...
(Carmilla slaps Glaswegian.)
CARMILLA: Enough! Your tears won't do you any good. Do not try my patience further. Tell me your insight.
GLASWEGIAN: I'm trying to tell you.
CARMILLA: Out with it!
GLASWEGIAN: Alright. Here it is: 'The electric guitar owes much of its appeal to the fact that it can be strapped on and brandished like a dildo.'
(Carmilla gasps and moves back a step. Her eyes run over Glaswegian's body. She moves forward and rips open his shirt, revealing his naked torso. She gasps again. Enraptured, she places her hand gently on his chest and lets it slide slowly down to his stomach. She is visibly excited.)
CARMILLA: (Purrs): So toned...so firm...so strong...
GLASWEGIAN: I can do sixteen hundred and fifty stomach crunches in one hour.
(Carmilla moans. She tears her hand from Glaswegian's body and composes herself. She summons four vampires.)
CARMILLA: (To vampires) Unchain him.
(The vampires proceed to release Glaswegian.)
Take him to my bedchamber and guard him.
(The Queen of the Vampires fixes Glaswegian in her gaze. Her eyes burn black with malevolence.)
I shall deal with you later, Glaswegian...personally. Before this night is over you will suffer as no man has ever suffered before. Yes, Man of Insight, before I have finished with you you will envy the maggots that will consume you in death.
(Glaswegian is led away.)
DUNGEON OF THE TEENAGE LESBIAN VAMPIRES
Scene 55
Glaswegian comes face to face with the Queen of the Vampires
(The setting is the dungeon of the teenage lesbian vampires. All around the dungeon are signs of the most appalling carnage. We are in the midst of horror piled upon horror. Human body parts lie scattered everywhere - arms, legs, heads, teeth, entrails. A dozen beautiful female vampires feed on the corpses of four nuns. A dead priest lies naked and face down next to a brazier of burning coals, a poker protruding from his rectum. A wisp of smoke rises from his charred anus. The hero of the story, Glaswegian, is chained to a wall of the dungeon. Carmilla, the Queen of the Vampires, approaches Glaswegian and contemplates him. She turns from Glaswegian and calls out.)
CARMILLA: Nightfinger!
(A hideous male dwarf emerges from a hole in the dungeon floor and positions himself near Carmilla. He has one eye, one ear, one arm, a hump, and is completely bald apart from an eighteen-inch long strand of hair which grows out from the stump of his missing ear.)
NIGHTFINGER: (Nervously) Yes, Majesty?
CARMILLA: Is it true that you have heard of this man?
(Nightfinger glances at Glaswegian.)
NIGHTFINGER: Yes.
CARMILLA: What have you heard?
NIGHTFINGER: Only this: That he is a man of extraordinary insight.
(Carmilla looks at Glaswegian.)
CARMILLA: (Thoughtfully) Is that so?
NIGHTFINGER: Our enemy hates him.
CARMILLA: How do you know?
(Nightfinger gestures at the dead priest with his head.)
NIGHTFINGER: That dog's last words were: 'Kill Glaswegian. Let his death be worse than mine. Let it be your masterpiece.'
(He bends over, inserts his fingers into his rectum, and removes something small and pinkish. He holds it up for Carmilla's inspection.)
This tongue uttered those very words...screamed them at me. But I was deaf to them.
(He tosses the priest's tongue into the burning brazier. He walks over to Glaswegian and looks him over.)
Perhaps I should have heeded the priest. This one could have been my masterpiece.
(He spits in Glaswegian's face and walks back to Carmilla.)
But I saved him for you.
(Carmilla smiles approvingly at Nightfinger.)
Shall I saw his legs off for you, Majesty? It's your birthday.
CARMILLA: No.
(Nightfinger stares at Glaswegian.)
NIGHTFINGER: (Wistfully) I could have surpassed myself with him. I know it.
CARMILLA: Don't worry, my little scorpion. You shall have others...many others.
(Nightfinger kneels before Carmilla.)
NIGHTFINGER: Majesty?
CARMILLA: Yes?
NIGHTFINGER: I did the right thing this time, didn't I?...
(He points at Glaswegian.)
...When I saved that for you.
CARMILLA: Yes, you did the right thing...this time.
NIGHTFINGER: In that case: may I have his eyes?
CARMILLA: No.
NIGHTFINGER: Not even one of them?
CARMILLA: No. Not even one. Leave us, Nightfinger.
NIGHTFINGER: Then let me have his lower jaw. At least give me that.
CARMILLA: Return to the ant-eater hole.
(Nightfinger rises and moves towards Glaswegian, his arm outstretched.)
NIGHTFINGER: But it will only take me a moment.
CARMILLA: Leave!
(Nightfinger leaves. Glaswegian watches him descend into the darkness of the hole.)
GLASWEGIAN: I bet he has lots of soft toys down there.
CARMILLA: Silence!
(She studies Glaswegian's face. It is the face of a man who has looked deeply into his own soul and into the soul of the world. It is the face of a man who has saw too much.)
I should like to hear one of your insights.
GLASWEGIAN: (Groans) Right now?
(Carmilla moves closer to Glaswegian and runs a long fingernail across his throat. She nods slowly.)
CARMILLA: Right now.
(Glaswegian casts a glance at the dead priest.)
GLASWEGIAN: I hope you're going to clean that poker.
(Carmilla opens her mouth revealing two enormous fangs which glisten in the preternatural light of the dungeon. Her tongue is covered in fur. Beads of sweat break out on Glaswegian's forehead. He swallows hard.)
Alright. If you insist. This insight came to me a little while ago when I saw that picture of Mother Teresa hanging upside down on the wall over there.
(Carmilla turns and looks at the picture.)
CARMILLA: The picture of the Albanian toad?
GLASWEGIAN: Yes.
CARMILLA: You gained an insight from looking at her picture?
GLASWEGIAN: Yes. And not just any old insight.
CARMILLA: A profound insight?
GLASWEGIAN: As profound as a thousand midnights. As profound as the nethermost region of hell. As profound as...
(He starts to weep.)
Oh God! Why am I here? What have I done to deserve this? Is there no justice?
(He grimaces.)
But it's all my fault. I know that. Oh, Amy! I should have listened to you. You were right. You were so goddamned right! I should never have used your astral marmalade as lubricant...
(Carmilla slaps Glaswegian.)
CARMILLA: Enough! Your tears won't do you any good. Do not try my patience further. Tell me your insight.
GLASWEGIAN: I'm trying to tell you.
CARMILLA: Out with it!
GLASWEGIAN: Alright. Here it is: 'The electric guitar owes much of its appeal to the fact that it can be strapped on and brandished like a dildo.'
(Carmilla gasps and moves back a step. Her eyes run over Glaswegian's body. She moves forward and rips open his shirt, revealing his naked torso. She gasps again. Enraptured, she places her hand gently on his chest and lets it slide slowly down to his stomach. She is visibly excited.)
CARMILLA: (Purrs): So toned...so firm...so strong...
GLASWEGIAN: I can do sixteen hundred and fifty stomach crunches in one hour.
(Carmilla moans. She tears her hand from Glaswegian's body and composes herself. She summons four vampires.)
CARMILLA: (To vampires) Unchain him.
(The vampires proceed to release Glaswegian.)
Take him to my bedchamber and guard him.
(The Queen of the Vampires fixes Glaswegian in her gaze. Her eyes burn black with malevolence.)
I shall deal with you later, Glaswegian...personally. Before this night is over you will suffer as no man has ever suffered before. Yes, Man of Insight, before I have finished with you you will envy the maggots that will consume you in death.
(Glaswegian is led away.)
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Insight No. 87,643
gmc wrote: Why are you an atheist?
The reason why I am an atheist, gmc, is because - unlike the religionists and occultists in this forum - I am averse to self-deception.
Another way of putting it is this: I can cope with reality. The religionists and occultists in this forum can't.
The reason why I am an atheist, gmc, is because - unlike the religionists and occultists in this forum - I am averse to self-deception.
Another way of putting it is this: I can cope with reality. The religionists and occultists in this forum can't.