The problem with atheism.

[Rassah]

If you would take the time to really understand Jesus and what he was, you would see he is someone who loved everyone unconditionally.

Just need to interject to point out that unconditional love is not actually love, and is meaningless. When you love someone regardless, that's not really love, that's just you not caring about what they do.

[1714033966]

1714033966

[Biomech]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank.  

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.  

So if Dank says he is the only true god and Jesus said He is the only true God and only one was right which one would you pick?  I would think the choice would be fairly easy then wouldn't it?

It is. I'll tell you what it is in a minute, but first I'm going to illustrate the fallacy you've employed here. It's a really common one, and it crosses all religious boundaries and often even in to the secular world. I call it the "narrow choice fallacy", though I'm sure that it falls under several of the logical fallacies.

This fallacy is that when a small group of choices are presented, the one committing the fallacy hopes (or believes) that you will discard any options outside of those choices. In point of fact, there are almost always more options than are presented. As an anarchist, I see this all the time when I present an argument. I figure I have succeeded in my argument when I get someone in the same thread to call me a republican while someone else calls me a democrat. In point of fact, I'm neither. I don't buy either brand of democracy, as I believe it to be a proven false religion.

Thus, given the choices above, I choose neither. Insufficient evidence that Jesus actually existed, and I too was once a stoner, so while I understand Dank's standpoint, I don't see it as conclusive or particularly persuasive. That he has explored areas of his consciousness that most have not, I will conceed. That he is some sort of deity? I have at least as much claim to that as he does. I make no such claim, nor will I.

I always try to take the road less traveled. It leads to better or at least more interesting places. I'm sorry, but a book written around 2000 years ago, derived from sources even older than that, does not encompass the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. Especially since a great deal of it is demonstrably false. It has some good concepts and instructions in it. Along with a lot of utter garbage. Like any philosophy, one has to strain it through one hell of a bullshit filter. Once the bible is filtered, the good parts of it can be expressed in ONE sentence. Bill and Ted's sentence.

"Be excellent to one another". If we all tried to live by JUST that, the world would be a better place. Adding all the "shalt and shalt nots" makes things worse. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt.

Edit: Punctuation/spacing.

[BitChick]

"Be excellent to one another". If we all tried to live by JUST that, the world would be a better place. Adding all the "shalt and shalt nots" makes things worse. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt.

"Be excellent to each other.  Party on dudes."

Is that better then quoting scripture?

That said, I think "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much the point of the New Testament when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Can we agree with that at least?

[Biomech]

"Be excellent to one another". If we all tried to live by JUST that, the world would be a better place. Adding all the "shalt and shalt nots" makes things worse. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt.

"Be excellent to each other.  Party on dudes."

Is that better then quoting scripture?

That said, I think "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much the point of the New Testament when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Can we agree with that at least?

Well...

No. Not because I'm trying to pick a fight, but because it implies that everyone loves themselves. Me, I'm my own worst critic, so applying that outside myself could cause some serious problems. I think the B&T quote is better, because it implies nothing about your motivations, just your actions.

The New Testament is seriously at odds with the old anyway. The descriptions of Yahweh in the OT are of a vengeful, frightened, bully with a lot of power and little self restraint. The NT version is still vengeful and frightened, but also full of self doubt. Not a good candidate for peace.

[the joint]

"Be excellent to one another". If we all tried to live by JUST that, the world would be a better place. Adding all the "shalt and shalt nots" makes things worse. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt.

"Be excellent to each other.  Party on dudes."

Is that better then quoting scripture?

That said, I think "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much the point of the New Testament when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Can we agree with that at least?

Well...

No. Not because I'm trying to pick a fight, but because it implies that everyone loves themselves. Me, I'm my own worst critic, so applying that outside myself could cause some serious problems. I think the B&T quote is better, because it implies nothing about your motivations, just your actions.

The New Testament is seriously at odds with the old anyway. The descriptions of Yahweh in the OT are of a vengeful, frightened, bully with a lot of power and little self restraint. The NT version is still vengeful and frightened, but also full of self doubt. Not a good candidate for peace.

I personally like the Golden Rule because it is an ethical system that is both objective (it distributes to everyone; everyone can follow it) and subjective at the same time.  I also think it's plausible that the Golden Rule may actually be a Universal ethical law, and that individual actors, acting as proxies,  may relay the sum of their ethical output back to a global level of consciousness in a cyclical, continuous feedback loop that guides the evolution of the Universe.  It's a half-baked idea I've had for a while but never fully explored.

[BitChick]

"Be excellent to one another". If we all tried to live by JUST that, the world would be a better place. Adding all the "shalt and shalt nots" makes things worse. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt.

"Be excellent to each other.  Party on dudes."

Is that better then quoting scripture?

That said, I think "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much the point of the New Testament when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Can we agree with that at least?

Well...

No. Not because I'm trying to pick a fight, but because it implies that everyone loves themselves. Me, I'm my own worst critic, so applying that outside myself could cause some serious problems. I think the B&T quote is better, because it implies nothing about your motivations, just your actions.

The New Testament is seriously at odds with the old anyway. The descriptions of Yahweh in the OT are of a vengeful, frightened, bully with a lot of power and little self restraint. The NT version is still vengeful and frightened, but also full of self doubt. Not a good candidate for peace.

OK.  I will pick a different verse then:  "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."  Does that one fit into your belief system better?

[pedrog]

Yeah, this thread was about atheism, now Bible discussion group... Ok.

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.   

So if Dank says he is the only true god and Jesus said He is the only true God and only one was right which one would you pick?  I would think the choice would be fairly easy then wouldn't it?

Yes, it would, and the answer is Dank! Because he exists!

And you do realize that the later writers of the Bible wrote the stories in order to fulfill those "prophecies"...

It is. I'll tell you what it is in a minute, but first I'm going to illustrate the fallacy you've employed here. It's a really common one, and it crosses all religious boundaries and often even in to the secular world. I call it the "narrow choice fallacy", though I'm sure that it falls under several of the logical fallacies.

This fallacy is that when a small group of choices are presented, the one committing the fallacy hopes (or believes) that you will discard any options outside of those choices. In point of fact, there are almost always more options than are presented. As an anarchist, I see this all the time when I present an argument. I figure I have succeeded in my argument when I get someone in the same thread to call me a republican while someone else calls me a democrat. In point of fact, I'm neither. I don't buy either brand of democracy, as I believe it to be a proven false religion.

False dichotomy/false dilemma?

That said, I think "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much the point of the New Testament when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Can we agree with that at least?

I cannot, one should love his neighbor as his neighbor like to be loved.

I'll illustrate that for you, imagine I'd like to be taken by force by women and be subjected to some particular sexual practices, do you think I should assume that every woman likes the same stuff and rape the blond next door?

[BitChick]

Yeah, this thread was about atheism, now Bible discussion group... Ok.

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.   

So if Dank says he is the only true god and Jesus said He is the only true God and only one was right which one would you pick?  I would think the choice would be fairly easy then wouldn't it?

Yes, it would, and the answer is Dank! Because he exists!

And you do realize that the later writers of the Bible wrote the stories in order to fulfill those "prophecies"...

I know that this won't even matter to most of you, but for those that are interested we do not have to look to the "later writers of the Bible" to see prophecies about Jesus.  There were many in the Old Testament before Jesus even came.


Here are ten prophecies from the Old Testament, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus:
 

1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.

2. Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

3. Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.

4. Jesus will be born in the town Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.

5. Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.

6. Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33. 

7. Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.

8. Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.

9. Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.

10. Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.

[pedrog]

I know that this won't even matter to most of you, but for those that are interested we do not have to look to the "later writers of the Bible" to see prophecies about Jesus.  There were many in the Old Testament before Jesus even came.


Here are ten prophecies from the Old Testament, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus:
 

1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.

2. Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

3. Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.

4. Jesus will be born in the town Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.

5. Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.

6. Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33. 

7. Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.

8. Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.

9. Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.

10. Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.

1. I'll have trouble tracing my ancestry back 3 generations and the sheep herders from the bronze age have a complete accurate record for hundreds of years, really?

2. Really? Do I have to say anything about that?

3. Refer to 1.

4. “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
    one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
    from ancient times.”

Jesus never ruled Israel, every person alive has ancient origins...

5. “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images."

Isn't Israel (Jacob) the son of Isaac?

6. The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
    nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
    and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Sorry, nothing to see here...


I'm tired for this, maybe more next time.

[BitChick]

Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.  Out of Judah he came. Judah was Israel's son. (Jacob was later called Israel)  Jesus had to hide in Egypt as a baby to be protected from Herod.  Oh never mind.

[dank]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.   

I AM NOT the only the true god.  Everybody is god.  I have posted that before on this forums that you are god that you are the universe and you can do anything you believe.

If you would take the time to really understand Jesus and what he was, you would see he is someone who loved everyone unconditionally.

Just need to interject to point out that unconditional love is not actually love, and is meaningless. When you love someone regardless, that's not really love, that's just you not caring about what they do.

This is not true.  Fly.  Do something impossible.  Why can't you?  Negative energy, doubt, it resides on earth, it resides in you.  In a world of unconditional love, you could fly, you could do anything at whim.  I've done it, I've seen it, I know it's true.

And I ask, have you felt instances of truly infinite love to know how divine it feels?

[PrintMule]

And look what this thread has turned into.

Gotta love the bible quotes. It feels like in US everyone takes his bible, underlines stuff he likes, and crosses what he does not like. Looks like a coloring book in the end. Even if someone believes that god exists (which is false ), believing in the old ass book, written by "who knows?" and "for whatever purpose" which in fact is just a fiction. We could as well turn to Greek mythology text or Egyptian glyphs. And when someone starts to chew on bible text, trying to attack or defend some points, it feels like special Olympics.

[the joint]

And look what this thread has turned into.

Gotta love the bible quotes. It feels like in US everyone takes his bible, underlines stuff he likes, and crosses what he does not like. Looks like a coloring book in the end. Even if someone believes that god exists (which is false ), believing in the old ass book, written by "who knows?" and "for whatever purpose" which in fact is just a fiction. We could as well turn to Greek mythology text or Egyptian glyphs. And when someone starts to chew on bible text, trying to attack or defend some points, it feels like special Olympics.

Wrong-o, and I suspect the reason why you believe it's wrong is because you see what idiots often do with a religious text.

It's been suggested by people such as Sam Harris that the problem with religious moderates is that they provide an umbrella of cover for often destructive, religious fundamentalists.

I'd like to add that the problem with religious fundamentalists is that they provide no umbrella to those who actually understand and can provide a logical basis for theism.  The problem is that reality is stranger than fiction, and so any truthful statements made about the metaphysical nature of reality are often perceived as related to religious fundamentalism (i.e. these types of assertions are seen as 'new age,' 'trendy,' or some other catch word with a negative connotation) and get cast by the wayside.

[BitChick]

And look what this thread has turned into.

Gotta love the bible quotes. It feels like in US everyone takes his bible, underlines stuff he likes, and crosses what he does not like. Looks like a coloring book in the end. Even if someone believes that god exists (which is false ), believing in the old ass book, written by "who knows?" and "for whatever purpose" which in fact is just a fiction. We could as well turn to Greek mythology text or Egyptian glyphs. And when someone starts to chew on bible text, trying to attack or defend some points, it feels like special Olympics.

The reason I like to use Bible quotes in topics like this is because regardless of what people think about it, there is truth in it.  Many people hate the Bible with great passion.  Why is the book banned in some countries?  It is because it is powerful.  The words are God inspired and they cut to the heart like a sword piercing the soul.  The Bible is convicting.  You can call it whatever you want.  You have the choice to disregard it.  But verses like Ezekiel 3:19 "If you warn them and they refuse to repent and keep on sinning, they will die in their sins. But you will have saved yourself because you obeyed me" will not be well received.

As for underlining stuff we like and crossing out what we do not like, I agree that many Christians do that and it is a VERY dangerous thing to do.  They will probably be the ones that get to heaven, like the Bible says, and they say, "Lord I did these things in your name" to which He will reply, "Depart from me.  I never knew you."

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

But I am not sure why I am casting my pearls out here.

[dank]

"If you warn them and they refuse to repent and keep on sinning, they will die in their sins. But you will have saved yourself because you obeyed me"

This is true though, it means if you don't forgive yourself of past negativity you may die in fear.  Death is all about being at peace so you ascend upwards in consciousness.

[Rassah]

Many people hate the Bible with great passion.

Those would be people with conflicting religions, not atheists.

Why is the book banned in some countries?  It is because it is powerful.

No, it's for the same reason so many Christians and preachers hate atheists: they are afraid someone else's ideas will interfere with their own brand of crazy. Islamists don't want to lose people to Christianity, Christians don't want to lose people to Islam, and no one wants people to think for themselves and start to question their authority and power.

The words are God inspired and they cut to the heart like a sword piercing the soul.

Obviously not. Your belief and obsession with them cuts you to the heart, not the words, they have no effect on me whatsoever, and annoy and confuse some others who believe different words.

You have the choice to disregard it.

A fallacy you and many other Christians keep repeating. There is no choice in belief. You either believe, or you don't. One can't simply decide to start to believe in something. At least not if they are sane. People can't just choose to believe in your gods any more than you can just choose to believe in teapots orbiting the sun, or in fairies, or in the Sun God Ra. You can choose to delude yourself, or choose to pretend to believe, but belief requires conviction (brainwashing) and/or evidence, not just will.

As for underlining stuff we like and crossing out what we do not like, I agree that many Christians do that and it is a VERY dangerous thing to do.  They will probably be the ones that get to heaven, like the Bible says, and they say, "Lord I did these things in your name" to which He will reply, "Depart from me.  I never knew you."

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

I'm fairly sure you don't follow everything the bible tells you to do either, otherwise you'd be posting this from the inside of a jail cell. But, luckily for you, preachers and religious scholars have reinterpreted many parts of the bible to conform more closely to the culture of the times 

[dank]

Universal truth - everything just is.  You can describe it from the left perspective or the right, but what your describing still just is.

[dank]

If we can all agree that what is is still present, then we can find that our beliefs are not quite so different from one another, they simply are from different perspectives, there's many languages to describe the universe.  All perspectives converge in the occurrence of singularity or death.

[Rassah]

Just need to interject to point out that unconditional love is not actually love, and is meaningless. When you love someone regardless, that's not really love, that's just you not caring about what they do.

This is not true.  Fly.  Do something impossible.  Why can't you?  Negative energy, doubt, it resides on earth, it resides in you.  In a world of unconditional love, you could fly, you could do anything at whim.  I've done it, I've seen it, I know it's true.

So, what you're saying is, the act of loving, caring, and taking care of someone, even at expense to yourself, is maifested in breaking physics and levitating? To love is to be able to fly? I'm going to take a really crazy guess here: you're single, right?

Universal truth - everything just is.  You can describe it from the left perspective or the right, but what your describing still just is.

That is the most worthless, useless, and lazy conclusion in the world, ever, and is no better than the answer "God did it." Lazy stupid idiots say "It is what it is" or "God did it" and end it at that. People who actually like to use their heads don't stop at what it is, they ask WHY it is.

[BitChick]

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

I'm fairly sure you don't follow everything the bible tells you to do either, otherwise you'd be posting this from the inside of a jail cell. But, luckily for you, preachers and religious scholars have reinterpreted many parts of the bible to conform more closely to the culture of the times 

I am assuming you are referring to things in the Old Testament such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, war and such?  Just because the Bible give a historical account of what people did does not condone what they did. 

I read the words of Jesus and try to follow them.  I can understand God's relationship with man based on the stories in the Old Testament as well.  But I won't pick and choose the parts I don't like.  In understanding other cultures I can get a glimpse into why things were allowed (polygamy because so many men were killed in war at that time).  Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!