Stop giving your life to Jesus!
06 August 2015, 02:45 PM
#691
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: STIFFSPEED
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholeheartedly agree. Which reminds me of the old quote from Pen Jillette:
"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
This one generally gets ignored by believers. You'd think that the obvious truth would hit home at some point wouldn't you?
06 August 2015, 04:03 PM
#692
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're asking me to explain why I think and feel the author of the Sermon on the Mount has more validity than the Kim dynasty?! It is self-evident to anyone who has a grasp of moral philosophy. To draw the comparison, like so many of the conflations by the anti-theists on this thread, is silly. It needs no commentary from me.
Let's take Jesus out of it. I tell you Mount Everest is made of cheese. Someone else tells you it is made out of chocolate. You are unable to verify this yourself as Mount Everest was destroyed. We are both adamant, we both claim to have sampled it before its destruction and am sure of our facts.
What process do you use to ascertain which has more validity?
06 August 2015, 06:03 PM
#693
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you are giving credence to something because you believe it to be so. I am asking you, on a purely logical level, to explain to me why one second hand account should be more believable than another.
Let's take Jesus out of it. I tell you Mount Everest is made of cheese. Someone else tells you it is made out of chocolate. You are unable to verify this yourself as Mount Everest was destroyed. We are both adamant, we both claim to have sampled it before its destruction and am sure of our facts.
What process do you use to ascertain which has more validity?
Let's take Jesus out of it. I tell you Mount Everest is made of cheese. Someone else tells you it is made out of chocolate. You are unable to verify this yourself as Mount Everest was destroyed. We are both adamant, we both claim to have sampled it before its destruction and am sure of our facts.
What process do you use to ascertain which has more validity?
06 August 2015, 10:31 PM
#696
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 August 2015, 08:00 AM
#697
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it rhymes it must be true!
so come on ppl give me my due
This God thing stinks to high heaven
My kid knows it and hes only eleven
Grovel for this, pray to that
You must think Im some kind of tw@t
Everyones born with original sin?
You say that with your stupid grin?
We know its really about you having power
you want to see the plebs beg and cower
So this is really a total farce
you can take your religion
and shove it up your ....
(c) warrenm2 - right now
so come on ppl give me my due
This God thing stinks to high heaven
My kid knows it and hes only eleven
Grovel for this, pray to that
You must think Im some kind of tw@t
Everyones born with original sin?
You say that with your stupid grin?
We know its really about you having power
you want to see the plebs beg and cower
So this is really a total farce
you can take your religion
and shove it up your ....
(c) warrenm2 - right now
I presume the rest of it is the same old pish
Did Leslie post in here - can't be arsed reading it all
07 August 2015, 08:00 AM
#698
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have any witnesses?
Last edited by JTaylor; 07 August 2015 at 08:02 AM.
07 August 2015, 10:15 AM
#699
Scooby Regular
I think this sums it up.
Wholeheartedly agree. Which reminds me of the old quote from Pen Jillette:
"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
This one generally gets ignored by believers. You'd think that the obvious truth would hit home at some point wouldn't you?
Wholeheartedly agree. Which reminds me of the old quote from Pen Jillette:
"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
This one generally gets ignored by believers. You'd think that the obvious truth would hit home at some point wouldn't you?
he has nowhere really else to go
why did god let the Dinosaurs roam for 400 million years then wipe them out
in fact why extinguish 99.9% of all the creatures who have ever existed
why create a world that allows human life on only 5 odd % of it - and in geological timescales 99.9% hazardous to human life
why subject a human world to the mercy of natural forces that world cause an extinction of humanity (massive meteor strike - as in the past, massive volcanic eruptions - as in the past)
07 August 2015, 10:15 AM
#700
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why you are being so evasive, you are usually very honest and open in your answers, even if we don't agree.
There no witnesses in any of this, Cheese Everest or Jesus. You have to make a judgement based on something, in the absence any corroborative evidence (me or the gospels), there has to be a process.
I quite like the thought of a cheese Everest, though, I have to say. You certainly wouldn't be worried about running out of supplies, even the diet was a bit samey.....
There no witnesses in any of this, Cheese Everest or Jesus. You have to make a judgement based on something, in the absence any corroborative evidence (me or the gospels), there has to be a process.
I quite like the thought of a cheese Everest, though, I have to say. You certainly wouldn't be worried about running out of supplies, even the diet was a bit samey.....
07 August 2015, 10:29 AM
#701
Scooby Regular
apparently Russia is bulldozing a "cheese mountain" as we speak
maybe the saintly Putin knows something we don't
maybe the saintly Putin knows something we don't
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 07 August 2015 at 10:47 AM.
07 August 2015, 10:51 AM
#702
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why you are being so evasive, you are usually very honest and open in your answers, even if we don't agree.
There no witnesses in any of this, Cheese Everest or Jesus. You have to make a judgement based on something, in the absence any corroborative evidence (me or the gospels), there has to be a process.
I quite like the thought of a cheese Everest, though, I have to say. You certainly wouldn't be worried about running out of supplies, even the diet was a bit samey.....
There no witnesses in any of this, Cheese Everest or Jesus. You have to make a judgement based on something, in the absence any corroborative evidence (me or the gospels), there has to be a process.
I quite like the thought of a cheese Everest, though, I have to say. You certainly wouldn't be worried about running out of supplies, even the diet was a bit samey.....
Last edited by JTaylor; 07 August 2015 at 10:52 AM.
07 August 2015, 12:23 PM
#703
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that there's no evidence or witnesses for the edible Everest, yet there is for God and His Son, Jesus Christ. I just don't think your simile is sufficient for you to drive home your point. It reminds me of the Dawkinsian/Russell 'spaghetti monster' argument; it's poppycock.
Most of the divine attributes are already attributed to previous deities, why don't you believe in them?
It just seems so odd that you ignore all logic and evidence for this one thing, when the rest of your life depends on it.
But, if you're happy.......
07 August 2015, 01:13 PM
#704
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: STIFFSPEED
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 August 2015, 01:37 PM
#706
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 August 2015, 01:39 PM
#707
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think we have to accept that rarely will a believer change their view on questions of faith unless they are already dissatisfied with their position. Faith exempts itself from the requirement for evidence. To have faith, for the analytical sort, means they have usually considered most of what you have to say and there is nothing to be gained from trying. A lot are understandably quite shaky in their faith (because of the gymnastics required, supported by at least weekly reinforcement and isolation from opposing opinions), and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference as they can make all the outward noises of being convinced until it collapses.
07 August 2015, 01:45 PM
#708
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, there isn't. There is not one contemporary witness of Jesus. Zilch. Nada. All accounts of him are well after the fact.
Most of the divine attributes are already attributed to previous deities, why don't you believe in them?
It just seems so odd that you ignore all logic and evidence for this one thing, when the rest of your life depends on it.
But, if you're happy.......
Most of the divine attributes are already attributed to previous deities, why don't you believe in them?
It just seems so odd that you ignore all logic and evidence for this one thing, when the rest of your life depends on it.
But, if you're happy.......
07 August 2015, 10:35 PM
#710
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have to accept that rarely will a believer change their view on questions of faith unless they are already dissatisfied with their position. Faith exempts itself from the requirement for evidence. To have faith, for the analytical sort, means they have usually considered most of what you have to say and there is nothing to be gained from trying. A lot are understandably quite shaky in their faith (because of the gymnastics required, supported by at least weekly reinforcement and isolation from opposing opinions), and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference as they can make all the outward noises of being convinced until it collapses.
But this pattern will carry on and on and on; again and again and again............... as soon as someone mentions the word God or Jesus! >
People love going round and round in circle to go really, really dizzy.
08 August 2015, 09:52 AM
#711
Scooby Regular
I think we have to accept that rarely will a believer change their view on questions of faith unless they are already dissatisfied with their position. Faith exempts itself from the requirement for evidence. To have faith, for the analytical sort, means they have usually considered most of what you have to say and there is nothing to be gained from trying. A lot are understandably quite shaky in their faith (because of the gymnastics required, supported by at least weekly reinforcement and isolation from opposing opinions), and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference as they can make all the outward noises of being convinced until it collapses.
in my experience the most vociferous anti smokers are by and large ex smokers themselves
08 August 2015, 01:15 PM
#712
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the same way, aggressive anti-homosexuality peeps seem to have an unconscious gay person each, dormant inside them, which they resist and resist to their utmost, with their protest.
'God and religion' seems to be more frictional and generates more dialogue through repeat resistsnce due the theist's belief in the Almighty, which has no proof of existence whatsoever to the anti-theists. To the anti-theists, there's nothing more exciting than proving the believer totally delusional and mental, at least on unseen God's matter. With **** and homosexuals, at least cigarettes as an object and homosexuality as a behaviour are 'seen' things.
Homosexuality did go through such lengthy discussions with 'same old repeated over and over' and still does; in order to prove the practice as immoral and as the disease of the mind. When such protest from the anti-gay 'closet' ones was at its peak, it could have become as visible to us, had the internet tool existed, then.
Last edited by Turbohot; 08 August 2015 at 02:32 PM.
08 August 2015, 07:04 PM
#713
__________________________________________________ _____________
Really sorry I missed this thread .....
09 August 2015, 11:05 AM
#718
Scooby Regular
The thing is I am quite happy for all the “fluff” tbh
The Church Fete, the sense of community that the church can bring even the singing of the Lords prayer in schools
That’s fine, because it is essentially well meaning, the tales from the bible are nothing more fairy tales with no more validity than Hansel and Gretel or Aesop’s fables but the fundamental stuff, the drivel you see JT spout
That is demonstrably dangerous – and in my view should be seen where it belongs, with all the pseudo “science” – with all the other “woo” like
Homeopathy - which is basically water
Reiki - which seems to consist of transferring “energy” by rapidly moving, but not touching mind, your hands over someone’s head – the exact nature of transfer for obvious reasons is never explained
Clairvoyancey - guesswork (educated)
Mediums - interestingly actually speaking to the dead it seems is quite easy, it is getting them to talk back that is the tricky bit
Reading Tealeaves – guesswork
Dousing, walking around with sticks
Tarot Cards – the list is endless
For reference here is a complete list of woo/irrational nonsense
http://www.crispian.net/page2/page2.html
what you notice they all have in common, is that none zero nada have any basis in fact/evidence all that is required is faith/belief – blind faith and evidenceless belief
not healed by Reiki, not healed by a “life force” transfer – someone moving their hand over your body – mmmm you don’t believe, that’s the problem – it’s you not the total bo;;0x that is Reiki
where this gets so so dangerous is when people of power/influence believe this cr4p
in a famous interview with john Humphry’s on Radio 4, after a grilling regarding the Iraq war – and the reasons for its start etc
Tony Blair – simply said, hence ending the line of questioning
“listen John – I only know what I believe”
(remember religion is the end of the conversation not the beginning)
Job done – he only knows what he believed (as do all the religious fvctards that run things, from ISIS to George Bush via the Saudi monarchs)
Presumably everyone would be happy if TB consulted the stars/tealeaves or the voices in his head from a long dead relative when he made the decision to send sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to their deaths
Keep it as fairy tales
And as for the inevitable weary argument that I am an anti-theist, I absolutely understand that JT HAS to take that view – he has no real choice
But rationally you can’t be anti-something that does not exist, I am no more an anti-theist than I am anti mermaids or anti unicorns or anti the man in the moon or anti "tarot" reading or anti astrology
"anti" only has currency if you first accept the initial premise - that there actualy are unicorns to be "anti" against - its simple daft circular logic, but logically they have to use this ridiculous logic, they have no choice
if it makes some people happy fine - but lets all simply acknowledge it is simple "woo"
as a footnote a good friend of mine went through two years of his life absolutely believing he was Napoleon Bonaparte - his belief was very personal and very real but sadly he was not Napoleon Bonaparte.
The Church Fete, the sense of community that the church can bring even the singing of the Lords prayer in schools
That’s fine, because it is essentially well meaning, the tales from the bible are nothing more fairy tales with no more validity than Hansel and Gretel or Aesop’s fables but the fundamental stuff, the drivel you see JT spout
That is demonstrably dangerous – and in my view should be seen where it belongs, with all the pseudo “science” – with all the other “woo” like
Homeopathy - which is basically water
Reiki - which seems to consist of transferring “energy” by rapidly moving, but not touching mind, your hands over someone’s head – the exact nature of transfer for obvious reasons is never explained
Clairvoyancey - guesswork (educated)
Mediums - interestingly actually speaking to the dead it seems is quite easy, it is getting them to talk back that is the tricky bit
Reading Tealeaves – guesswork
Dousing, walking around with sticks
Tarot Cards – the list is endless
For reference here is a complete list of woo/irrational nonsense
http://www.crispian.net/page2/page2.html
what you notice they all have in common, is that none zero nada have any basis in fact/evidence all that is required is faith/belief – blind faith and evidenceless belief
not healed by Reiki, not healed by a “life force” transfer – someone moving their hand over your body – mmmm you don’t believe, that’s the problem – it’s you not the total bo;;0x that is Reiki
where this gets so so dangerous is when people of power/influence believe this cr4p
in a famous interview with john Humphry’s on Radio 4, after a grilling regarding the Iraq war – and the reasons for its start etc
Tony Blair – simply said, hence ending the line of questioning
“listen John – I only know what I believe”
(remember religion is the end of the conversation not the beginning)
Job done – he only knows what he believed (as do all the religious fvctards that run things, from ISIS to George Bush via the Saudi monarchs)
Presumably everyone would be happy if TB consulted the stars/tealeaves or the voices in his head from a long dead relative when he made the decision to send sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to their deaths
Keep it as fairy tales
And as for the inevitable weary argument that I am an anti-theist, I absolutely understand that JT HAS to take that view – he has no real choice
But rationally you can’t be anti-something that does not exist, I am no more an anti-theist than I am anti mermaids or anti unicorns or anti the man in the moon or anti "tarot" reading or anti astrology
"anti" only has currency if you first accept the initial premise - that there actualy are unicorns to be "anti" against - its simple daft circular logic, but logically they have to use this ridiculous logic, they have no choice
if it makes some people happy fine - but lets all simply acknowledge it is simple "woo"
as a footnote a good friend of mine went through two years of his life absolutely believing he was Napoleon Bonaparte - his belief was very personal and very real but sadly he was not Napoleon Bonaparte.
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 09 August 2015 at 11:33 AM.
09 August 2015, 02:57 PM
#719
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is I am quite happy for all the “fluff” tbh
The Church Fete, the sense of community that the church can bring even the singing of the Lords prayer in schools
That’s fine, because it is essentially well meaning, the tales from the bible are nothing more fairy tales with no more validity than Hansel and Gretel or Aesop’s fables but the fundamental stuff, the drivel you see JT spout
That is demonstrably dangerous – and in my view should be seen where it belongs, with all the pseudo “science” – with all the other “woo” like
Homeopathy - which is basically water
Reiki - which seems to consist of transferring “energy” by rapidly moving, but not touching mind, your hands over someone’s head – the exact nature of transfer for obvious reasons is never explained
Clairvoyancey - guesswork (educated)
Mediums - interestingly actually speaking to the dead it seems is quite easy, it is getting them to talk back that is the tricky bit
Reading Tealeaves – guesswork
Dousing, walking around with sticks
Tarot Cards – the list is endless
For reference here is a complete list of woo/irrational nonsense
http://www.crispian.net/page2/page2.html
what you notice they all have in common, is that none zero nada have any basis in fact/evidence all that is required is faith/belief – blind faith and evidenceless belief
not healed by Reiki, not healed by a “life force” transfer – someone moving their hand over your body – mmmm you don’t believe, that’s the problem – it’s you not the total bo;;0x that is Reiki
where this gets so so dangerous is when people of power/influence believe this cr4p
in a famous interview with john Humphry’s on Radio 4, after a grilling regarding the Iraq war – and the reasons for its start etc
Tony Blair – simply said, hence ending the line of questioning
“listen John – I only know what I believe”
(remember religion is the end of the conversation not the beginning)
Job done – he only knows what he believed (as do all the religious fvctards that run things, from ISIS to George Bush via the Saudi monarchs)
Presumably everyone would be happy if TB consulted the stars/tealeaves or the voices in his head from a long dead relative when he made the decision to send sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to their deaths
Keep it as fairy tales
And as for the inevitable weary argument that I am an anti-theist, I absolutely understand that JT HAS to take that view – he has no real choice
But rationally you can’t be anti-something that does not exist, I am no more an anti-theist than I am anti mermaids or anti unicorns or anti the man in the moon or anti "tarot" reading or anti astrology
"anti" only has currency if you first accept the initial premise - that there actualy are unicorns to be "anti" against - its simple daft circular logic, but logically they have to use this ridiculous logic, they have no choice
if it makes some people happy fine - but lets all simply acknowledge it is simple "woo"
as a footnote a good friend of mine went through two years of his life absolutely believing he was Napoleon Bonaparte - his belief was very personal and very real but sadly he was not Napoleon Bonaparte.
The Church Fete, the sense of community that the church can bring even the singing of the Lords prayer in schools
That’s fine, because it is essentially well meaning, the tales from the bible are nothing more fairy tales with no more validity than Hansel and Gretel or Aesop’s fables but the fundamental stuff, the drivel you see JT spout
That is demonstrably dangerous – and in my view should be seen where it belongs, with all the pseudo “science” – with all the other “woo” like
Homeopathy - which is basically water
Reiki - which seems to consist of transferring “energy” by rapidly moving, but not touching mind, your hands over someone’s head – the exact nature of transfer for obvious reasons is never explained
Clairvoyancey - guesswork (educated)
Mediums - interestingly actually speaking to the dead it seems is quite easy, it is getting them to talk back that is the tricky bit
Reading Tealeaves – guesswork
Dousing, walking around with sticks
Tarot Cards – the list is endless
For reference here is a complete list of woo/irrational nonsense
http://www.crispian.net/page2/page2.html
what you notice they all have in common, is that none zero nada have any basis in fact/evidence all that is required is faith/belief – blind faith and evidenceless belief
not healed by Reiki, not healed by a “life force” transfer – someone moving their hand over your body – mmmm you don’t believe, that’s the problem – it’s you not the total bo;;0x that is Reiki
where this gets so so dangerous is when people of power/influence believe this cr4p
in a famous interview with john Humphry’s on Radio 4, after a grilling regarding the Iraq war – and the reasons for its start etc
Tony Blair – simply said, hence ending the line of questioning
“listen John – I only know what I believe”
(remember religion is the end of the conversation not the beginning)
Job done – he only knows what he believed (as do all the religious fvctards that run things, from ISIS to George Bush via the Saudi monarchs)
Presumably everyone would be happy if TB consulted the stars/tealeaves or the voices in his head from a long dead relative when he made the decision to send sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to their deaths
Keep it as fairy tales
And as for the inevitable weary argument that I am an anti-theist, I absolutely understand that JT HAS to take that view – he has no real choice
But rationally you can’t be anti-something that does not exist, I am no more an anti-theist than I am anti mermaids or anti unicorns or anti the man in the moon or anti "tarot" reading or anti astrology
"anti" only has currency if you first accept the initial premise - that there actualy are unicorns to be "anti" against - its simple daft circular logic, but logically they have to use this ridiculous logic, they have no choice
if it makes some people happy fine - but lets all simply acknowledge it is simple "woo"
as a footnote a good friend of mine went through two years of his life absolutely believing he was Napoleon Bonaparte - his belief was very personal and very real but sadly he was not Napoleon Bonaparte.
Last edited by Turbohot; 09 August 2015 at 05:20 PM.
