I'm more conceited than Brian; Brian thinks he is more conceited but as usual he is only fooling himself.

Stop being coy; many do want to know - you think you are protecting us atheists from some dreadful conclusion(s) on your part. Give it your best shot and punch away.

Most people often don't bother to if it is troublesome to do so, so there is that. In this particular case, unless someone is one of those ridiculous angry atheists, it isn't troublesome.

Taking different points of view is necessary for human relationships.

Are you assuming that atheists are autistic? Some are, of course. They can't. Psychopaths also can't. Five year olds also can't do it particularly well.

Theres a pretty large range between being autistic and finding it difficult to empathise with something you can't even imagine doing yourself.

I agree, but this case isn't one of those cases. If it were imagining what it'd be like to be French, you might have a point.

I don’t play that.

If you want to communicate with me, please find another thread I am posting in and give it your best shot.

Hint: One of your best chances is me.

I think it's easier for me to imagine being french than being religious.
The notion of religion is so alien to me, I understand the drive behind it, but just can't wrap my head around it.

I don't play your game either, so it's even. Besides I do have better things to do with my time.

One of my mates thinks he's a prophet as well, it's quite amusing to discuss with him.
I'd say it's a rather good thing to do with your time.

To be a little controversial...

What would God do for me?

Give me freedom from him and his judgement/kill himself.

Freedom comes by defeating that part of you that wants freedom from God’s judgment and relentlessly molding yourself so as to no longer give him the satisfaction of holding judgment over you in the future.

In other words, the correct answer is to not want God to do anything for you. Play by his rules and still win.

Walk a mile in another persons shoes...... that way, you are a mile away from them, and you have their shoes!

Let's say one of these apologists is defending the Bible's weird handling of slavery, as we often hear them doing. Throw them a curve ball with the following:

If in your hometown today, a neighboring people came marauding into your town killing everyone, man, woman and baby ... and said their god told them to do it ..... WOULD THAT BE OKAY WITH YOU? That is what the Christian religion is.

Since I live in a society intrinsically influenced by Christianity, I would likely have done most things similarly, maybe with a little changes around the edges.

I doubt there’s much difference between mainstream Christians and atheists in America. Most people are gonna do what they’re gonna do regardless.

In the Bible, God's judgement against a people is always preceded by an opportunity for the people to repent.

Since Christians believe that the world will be judged under the New Covenant brought into being by Jesus Christ. God will no longer issue temporal judgements, but an eternal judgement for each person after death.

Yes I know you can regurgitate the koolaid. What else can you do? Can you read it like it’s a book just like any other book? No, there is no real Harry Potter flying around playing quidditch just because it’s in a book; no there is no Luke Skywalker pulling off miracles just because it’s in a book; no, there is no Zeus, Thor, Krishna, Apollo … they’re made up in books and legends. To cite the book as if that makes it true is utter indoctrination; it’s the same as citing the Harry Potter text to prove Lord Voldemort is real. Anything you say to try to establish the truth of it has to come from outside the story book.

An all-loving god sent his people to slaughter the neighboring town, murdering the men, murdering the babies, ensnaring and raping the women in perpetuity. Anyone who doesn’t have a problem with that is just part of the evil religion. Later, “He” slaughtered the whole human race for being human … people being evil, of course, because of a talking snake story. THEY ARE STORIES … stories of primitive, brutal, ignorant, superstitious man. There are hundreds of more such examples in the scriptures. “God’s only defense,” satirically pines one commenter, “is that he doesn’t exist.” And that’s a righteous assessment of the debacle of the Old Testament (from a god who never changes so he is the same today as then).

I’m not here … really, I'm not ... to undercut anyone’s religion. Religion, when not fundamentalist stupid often has many wise edicts and paths to offer. The literalism and dogma and refusal to think so as to not have to see what it actually is … is the problem. The briefest time in a comparative religion class reveals that they are cut from the same cloth. Not all but one. Not all but the one crammed down our throats when we were six. I saw a good quote the other day: “A bishop is one who still believes the things he believed when he was six years old.” (Or at least mimes like he does.)

Adopting a religion as a guide in life is one thing, swallowing everything somebody said 2000 years ago uncritically is the refusal to think, and is immoral. Try it with medicine, try it with astronomy, try it with physics … the theology of that day is just as ignorant and primitive.

I’ve been there. As I may have said on here before, I once raised my hand in a philosophy class and proposed faith as a fundamental good. What it really is is the subversion of consciousness, and critical thinking, to authoritarian fiction. Now I would say to my own comment: “Raising consciousness is the good; sacrificing it (as with faith) is the immoral.” The whole faith system in religion sacrifices consciousness … it is a Machiavellian ploy … “Let’s see, we are making up a religion here … we certainly have no evidence that it is true … so, You just have to have faith on this one …” Because it’s true? No, because it isn’t. Whoever played the faith card when something was true? It’s a con man’s game … “You just gotta believe.”

Religion is not LOL, the Bible is not LOL. Literalism and carte-blanche wholesale belief regarding it is … in my opinion.

1. The Holy Bible is 66 books. So, while it could be problematic to establish some truths found in Mark's gospel by way of quoting other verses in Mark, it isn't problematic to establish some truths in Mark by appealing to Matthew's gospel, for example.

2. There are books aplenty written that give evidence supporting much of Scripture. One can, of course, challenge the veracity of the alleged evidence, but the claim that a Christian can't give reasons and evidence from outside of the Bible to establish the reliability of Scripture shows, in my opinion, a lack of familiarity with the relevant literature.

3. The Bible never says that God is "all-loving.". There are things He loves and things He hates.

4. You claim that "they are STORIES". How do you know that they are "stories", and not actually historical events? There are arguments on both sides, but just as calling something a "fact" doesn't make something a fact, just calling something "a story" doesn't make it a story.

As the common sense of "atheist" these days has become, one who lacks a belief in "God", it seems to me the more interesting question is for the believer; Especially a believer who at one time lacked belief.

As a believer who once lacked belief, how is your life different than it was then as a result of your belief? Are you kinder, gentler, more tolerant, wiser, more reasonable, more compassionate, more loving, more empathetic, more forgiving, more generous, easier to get along with?

Or are you more judgmental, more egotistic, more grandiose, harsher, angrier, less tolerant, domineering, more vengeful, more greedy, less able to get along with everyone?

I think it can go both ways.

This was posted in Politics but seems appropriate here.



btw, according to my understanding of Jesus, for anyone (believer or not) with the former qualities, Jesus would call him a friend.

And for a "believer" with the latter qualities, Jesus would say he does not know him.


PairTheBoard

Why did that video seem appropriate to include in your post?

Compare the qualities of Trump the believer to Penn Gillette the atheist.


PairTheBoard

You might have saw the other part of my post before I deleted it.

I guess we are all relatively "good" or bad in our "goodness" or badness.

Luke 18:18-19 (KJV) reads,
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

I think Jesus might be making a definitive statement here saying that only God is good (and also maybe openly stating that He is God, and -maybe- also showing that He is God by addressing that He is not displaying the qualities that sinful mankind has). I think it might be right to say that there are angels who have never sinned and might therefore be considered good as well, but Jesus might still be making a definitive statement in that God's quality of good is God's alone.

I think Jesus was inviting the ruler to be his friend, get to know him, and find out what it really meant for Jesus to be "Good". Jesus does not require his friends to be perfect nor does he necessarily "know" all those who cry "Lord, Lord".

PairTheBoard

I might have read what you wrote wrong, but let's look at Luke 18:18-30 (KJV),

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Do you think Jesus is talking about friendship and learning what it means to "be good like Jesus", or do you think He's talking about, maybe that (I suppose if we use that language quite literally) and something more too (I suppose, namely, what someone needs to do to inherit eternal life)?

I might have deleted some of that Scripture, here's a link to it on Bible Gateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...30&version=KJV

I think Jesus was talking about a revolution of the spirit in which people live. A spirit of Love he called the Kingdom of Heaven.


PairTheBoard