Why do people follow the Bible?

That is just the thing:
No one does, they make up fallacious excuses for why they do not (“jesus ‘fulfilled’ the law”) and then just act as if they did follow the bible.

I was raised a New England style Catholic. In my experience, the bible is not a huge part of the Catholic experience. It’s not required reading. I didn’t read it until I had realized I was an atheist.

I am under the impression that the bible is taken much more seriously in other parts of the country. But even in those cases, there are those that take the bible as the word of god, and those that consider it a mere product of the time. Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is that I suspect there are far fewer people who really do “follow the bible” than we imagine.

Why can’t many people be bothered to signal when changing lanes ?
How can so many people be suckered by FauxNews ?
What is so interesting about these Kardashians that they get their own TV show ?

Well it claims to be a revelation from the One True God. Its truth claims are self-justifying. The “Old Testament” (as I am accustomed to call it because I was raised Christian) is the word of God as voiced through prophets, and the “New Testament” is (ostensibly) witness accounts of the manifestation of God in human form.

As always, I can’t wait to see what @thorninmud is going to write… The suspense!!!

People follow various interpretations of the Bible. Even most Christians consider that it’s impossible to make sense of the Bible using your own understanding. They would say that it’s the Holy Spirit that opens up the understanding. In actual practice believers don’t come to an understanding of the Bible while shut up in an isolation chamber with a copy of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. They learn the basic outlines of their faith socially, on the assumption that their mentors are guided by the Holy Spirit, and are therefore trustworthy. Once they’ve received this particular interpretation, then they read the Bible through that lens, consciously or not.

We’re strongly social animals. By default, we adopt the dominant social structure and then convince ourselves of its rightness, all the while believing that we came to our conclusion based solely on its merits.

@ragingloli hit it on the head.

Save for one thing: Try. Just TRY to follow the Bible. It’s so bloody contradictory you’d drive yourself bonkers. Do you “suffer not a witch to live” and bomb a coven meeting, or do you “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and follow the local law that discourages mass murder?

Because it appears as if it knows where it’s going.

@thorninmud I guess the better question would be: Why do people follow what others tell them to be true, instead of thinking through it themselves and coming to their own conclusions? Why does humanity have a “follow the leader” mentality?

Obviously, that above question doesn’t apply to everyone and it doesn’t apply solely to the bible.

Because it’s a great story.

@flip86 Most of what we believe to be true about the world and ourselves is received socially, and we accept it based on our trust of authority. Even among people who accept science as the best truth-finding mechanism, how many can actually reconstruct our current scientific understanding from basic principles to verify its accuracy? I can’t. I mostly rely on the authority of those doing the work and those checking it. I tend to believe them when they say it checks out (understanding that science is loathe to make claims of truth).

All of us rely much more on received worldviews than we realize; nobody constructs their worldview from whole cloth. There are certain advantages to this: it reinforces social order and cohesion, for one thing. The disadvantage is that erroneous views tend to persist.

There is a strong current in the US of evangelical “mere Christians” and others who espouse “the Bible” as the “literal Word of God”. That is, they believe that the Bible is one book and that book was literally written by God Himself, even though the Bible is clearly divided into 60 or so different books, written by a bunch of different people.My father, an otherwise intelligent person, fell under the sway of this mindset and even asserted these two counterfacts- even though he knew better, having studied the Bible extensively in Catholic school as a youngster and read Asimov’s Guides to the Bible and other commentaries.

@OneBadApple : People don’t signal when changing lanes because people are bad at driving. People are bad at driving because driving involves multi-tasking at our cognitive limits combined with rapid task-switching and intense concentration. Our brains are not well set-up to provide the necessary facilities, and to the extent that they can do so, it uses up a lot of energy and is tiring. New drivers are often careful as hell, and driving can be a harrowing experience for newbies. Over time, we notice that we managed to get down the road without anything terrible happening, and we relax a bit. Eventually driving doesn’t seem so hard. This is partly because we have routinized certain tasks and “chunked” them together for easy execution (this is good) and partly because we have allowed our concentration and task-switching frequency lapse to save energy (this is not so good).

People are suckered by Fox News (and whatever other deceptive propaganda outlet you care to think of) because the producers of the program know to use neurological tricks that influence our brains to make us more prone to believe what we’re being told. Read Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders, and reflect that the propaganda industry has had more than 50 years to advance the state of the art since that book was written.
What’s interesting about the Kardashians is that people will buy magazines and watch TV shows about them- and presumably purchase the products advertised therein. Magazines and commercial TV are not even a little bit interested in edifying or informing us about anything that doesn’t sell ads. They are interested in selling ads, and that’s it (unless they have some other agenda, as above.)

@flip86 Thinking for yourself isn’t something that comes naturally to humans. It has to be taught, and it’s an imperfect science at best. People tend to do what’s easy,

Well, fuck it. My car got towed, and I can’t afford to get it back, and that’s about all I had left in this shitty world. Oh well, what the hell.

“It was ridiculous to me from a young age.”

Hi Flip. I cannot say that I personally “follow the bible” in the sense that you mean here. I am not religious in any way. In fact, I believe religion is nearing pure evil. But I have studied the bible for decades, alongside other religious texts. One thing that I’ve come to understand is that it is layered. The Children’s Picture Bible targets kids at a “young age”, right alongside the Sunday School lessons for youngsters. Surely many kids would look at this with all the reality of a Saturday morning cartoon. Some grow out of it. Some don’t.

Another layer is one who goes to church and gets lessons, but never actually reads it for themselves. Another layer is peeled away by those who actually do suffer through reading it. Another layer peeled by those who read and study it. Another layer peeled by those who compare translations with original Greek, and then Hebrew wording and definitions.

It’s like any discipline, say for instance Math. You don’t just jump straight into trigonometry without first suffering calculus, algebra, geometry, fractions and basic addition/subtraction.

Or let’s consider Literature. Finnegans Wake is often denounced as gibberish by those who refuse to suffer through it. But there are others who make it their business to dissect these things on deeper levels.

@flip86 “Why do people follow it, and believe what is written within it’s pages?”

Some have found, beyond the deceptive dogma, and the various agenda based interpretations… some have found what they consider to be fundamental truths within the message. Some look past the “religion”, and discover philosophical underpinnings.

This is not to say that many, if not most followers of the bible don’t even understand what they’re following. But one should consider there may be deeper understandings which hold up over time. For if it were not so, then the bible could and should have been waved away as fad centuries ago. Were it not for some finding deeper truths, there would have been no foundation for it to survive for thousands of years.

For example, when you say “I didn’t believe a word of it.” Do you mean that Jesus never existed? Or that you find the “Pillars of Christianity” (dogma) absurd? I personally don’t care if Jesus was virgin birthed, or resurrected. It doesn’t matter to me. It may or may not have happened. But what is important are the teachings which came forth from the book, to love thy neighbor. If that’s considered “following the bible”, then I may be guilty as charged.

I think most people follow the bible, or they think they follow the bible, because it makes sense to them, they were raised going to church, and they live or spend time in communities where bible talk is the norm.

@OneBadApple @rexacoracofalipitorius Actually, every time I asked people in Memphis why they don’t signal when they change lanes they said either, “because if I signal people will speed up to not let me in,” or, “I don’t bother if no one is around.” The first answer pisses me off, well, they both piss me off, and the second answer implies more thought process for turning, as in they need to supposedly be aware if people are around or not.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I completely understand your point. I have often said that the bible should be seen as a figurative work on the nature of humanity and not taken literally. It captures the brutality of humanity quite well.

In my experience most Christians don’t read the bible. They only nominally listen to what other Christians say the bible is all about and take those opinions as fact and belief.

If you wanted to know what True Believers thought, you would have phrased the question differently.

Like many things in life the fact that you don’t believe does not make that disbelief a truth either?

Because they don’t know any better.

Why do you care?

I’m not the least surprised that the sort of people who think reality TV reflects real reality, and doesn’t have producers, directors and coaching crew wherever the camera goes also are willing to suspend disbelief when told that the Bible is the inerrant word of an omniscient, omnipotent God. But then, omniscience and omnipotence themselves are mutually exclusive concepts. As Karen Owens cleverly noted:
    Can omniscient God, who
    Knows the future, find
    The omnipotence to
    Change His future mind?

The bible is a tool that aids believers in their vision of their specific God and religion.

Once you figure out what religion you are or aren’t, you can then tackle the specific duty of either having rational, and/or logical arguments to back up your ideas or not, it’s about having the choice to do so that matters.

@Buttonstc Maybe he’s just curious. Or maybe he cares because people use the Bible to impose all sorts of things onto others as if it were a source of political authority.

@KaY_Jelly Good job sister, I didn’t have the emotional strength to get into this one…lol

@KNOWITALL Thank you :) ♡ p.s. you are very strong, don’t lose sight and keep your eye on the ball, it’s tough sometimes I know, God is mine and your encouragement! Seek His help! :)

I tried to follow Dahlgren for a short period but it was wayyyyy to difficult and I gave up.

Maybe as my mother says “Simple thing for simple minds”?

The Bible is so rife with contradictions and things we know from history to be completely false that following it indicates to me one hasn’t even read it or is easily led about/

Atheism keeps the Bible, religion and theism alive. I purpose that atheists and skeptics have God in their lives more than theists do, and they do not need to read any Bible they preach about God in blogs and internet forums and debates, and socially in reality with family and friends and mayne even strangers, probably twice a week..we should do a survey for statistical purposes and references! :) lmao.

I hardly ever talk of God. I always answer questions about God, I barely raise the question of God and on my own time I do talk to and pray to God.

So thank you atheism for keeping the talk of God with me alive, another avenue God is using to glorify Himself. Thanks for glorifying God atheists! =O

^^ @KaY_Jelly – This comment only makes sense in the context of trolling (“I purpose that atheists and skeptics have God in their lives more than theists do…” – huh?).

If you ever really sat down and read the Bible…well, it’s pretty scandalous! The Old Testament is FULL of stories about God’s chosen ones doing things, with God’s blessing, that are considered “evil” or “sinful” today.
It’s confusing.

@tom_g That’s why I quit bothering to debate @KaY_Jelly. I’d get nothing in return but meaningless statements and then a return to the same claim I just took time to refute. With “logic” as twisted as reliance on evidence being an appeal to blind faith, and blind faith being reliance on evidence; it is easy to see why such a flawed and self contradictory old book as the Bible would seem like perfect clarity in her eyes.

I think this is a vague question because in my opinion not all Christians do the same thing for the same reasons. I’ve noticed that with many conservative Christians that it’s not as much about believing or comprehending the Bible (like that’s even possible) as much as it is about intuition and a way of life. When many conservative religionists (of almost any religion) oppose evolutionary theories or refuse to believe that global warming is taking place, they tend to oppose these on nonscientific grounds.

Many conservative religionists want a certain culture to prevail according to their own personal tastes, so religion is not so much about belief as it is a tool to support their economic, political and social views. By creating a higher authority which should prevail over human run governments, and one that supports conservative beliefs, they literally in their own minds have created a supreme authority supporting their cherry picking of the Bible, and a transcendental authority to never be questioned at that.

From my own experiences dealing with Bible ‘believing’ culteral conservatives, it’s almost impossible to get an answer from them concerning their views on natural sciences without political or economics issues being brought into the discussion. Obviously if science refutes their ‘god’, then science is in the sense eliminating a transcendental authority figure who can’t be questioned, and the same created authority figure who supports (supposedly) the typical Judeo-Christian conservative stances on many political, economic and social issues.

How many Christians do read the Bible for themselves? How many Christians really believe? Given what I’ve said above, would it even make a difference if more Christians read the Bible for themselves? I doubt it. God can be made to support anybody’s stances, whether they’re liberal or conservative. There’s much more than a literal belief in the Bible or God going on here. In my opinion the true believers tend to be more Christ-like (according to The Way), are usually more open-minded concerning science and much less vocal about their religion.

@ETpro “That’s why I quit bothering to debate @KaY_Jelly.”

Uh no, you never “quit”!

“I’d get nothing in return but meaningless statements and then a return to the same claim I just took time to refute. With “logic” as twisted as reliance on evidence being an appeal to blind faith, and blind faith being reliance on evidence; it is easy to see why such a flawed and self contradictory old book as the Bible would seem like perfect clarity in her eyes.”

Not trolling at all! Time and time again @ETpro you keep posting comments like this to me. Until I finally said forget it, because as I’ve already said before this fluthership is not going anywhere.

@ETpro You are exhausting me. This makes me want to close my account forever. :/

You say this:

“With “logic” as twisted as reliance on evidence being an appeal to blind faith, and blind faith being reliance on evidence; it is easy to see why such a flawed and self contradictory old book as the Bible would seem like perfect clarity in her eyes.”

And ironically this source says the number 1 sad truths of Internet Trolls:

Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.

So again I am here responding to your flaming rhetoric, TSK on me! Even after I told you I was done and going to ignore you here.

@tom_g It’s obvious that sometimes people do not understand the points to my opinions. I get that, so I try to explain and sometimes the explanation is longer than it seemed to be in my head but I want to cover all my basis so everyone understands it. I usually like the philosophical stand point and I have strong opinions, but I am not trolling, if you think it is trolling it is definitely not on purpose, so I apologize < probably not something a troll would do!.

I am not going to stop talking about God because it upsets people because they don’t understand what I am talking about. I usually back up what I say. But I am pretty tired I also have bipolar and I’ve been fighting suicidal tendencies lately due to the bipolar which is now an extreme low, and was the opposite not long ago.

Fluthership? I like that term!

@Dutchess_III LOL I’ve used it a few times I like it too :)) I think I made it up, but I am not sure I won’t take the rights to it LOL

First time I’ve heard it @KaY_Jelly!

@ETpro quoting Karen Owens
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
___________

This is what I call The Atheists God Delusion. They pick a delusional strawman god to argue against. That strawman god must dwell within the same realm as humans… i.e. “knowing past present and future”. That’s not the god I believe in for sure.

Would be like having a discussion with a cow, about the superior extra dimensionality of humans. The cow is incapable of envisioning the extra dimensionality of any life beyond her gated field. To think another being could exist beyond that gate is preposterous. That would require believing in another dimension beyond the gate. Ridiculous even more so to suggest that life could have further dimensions capable of flight, diving into oceans, mining underground, or piercing the atmosphere. The only discussion the cow would accept are those which bound the human within the same gate as the cow dwells.

As to a real God, some would argue there is a vast chasm between “knowing the future” and “being infinite”. Like the vast chasm between being “clever” and “wise”. Miss Owens comment is certainly clever. But I question its wisdom. It shows no propensity for looking past her “finite gate”, to consider the “infinite dimensions”.

@Dutchess_III Okie dokie! Free will to use it as you please :) Talk to you later.

Are there any biblical contradictions not answered to your satisfaction here. Not being cheeky. Just pointing out there are always two sides to every argument.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies That little poem is not anything like an attempt to argue against God, it deals with two parts of a definition of God that many people hold to be a correct definition, and it shows that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. A being cannot at the same time be both omniscience and omnipotence. One power negates the other.

The only reason I brought that up is that the Bible in numerous scriptures in both the Old Testament and New claims God is omniscient and omnipotent.

It’s not possible to debate whether there is a God or isn’t till we define the God we are going to debate. As I noted above, there have been 3,000 or so worshipped here or there since history began. As if that were not confusing enough, ask a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, a Mennonite, a Unitarian and a Mormon for a definition of God and you will get 5 wildly different answers, all from sectarian viewpoints that claim to be Christian.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “This is what I call The Atheists God Delusion. They pick a delusional strawman god to argue against. That strawman god must dwell within the same realm as humans… i.e. “knowing past present and future”. That’s not the god I believe in for sure.” I can agree with that. Many nontheists make the assumption that what’s termed as ‘god’ must be on par with their own image of what different religions or religious people say about the concept.

In third/fourth dimension math, no one can see two sides of a building at the same time. Not a problem with the fifth/sixth dimension math.

Paradox in our realm is not necessarily paradox in another realm. Quantum physics seems to support that quite well.

BTW @Paradox25, I really enjoyed your comments further up. So many points were made that could each be expounded upon. Excellent post.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Ah, the appeal to direct supernatural agency. If you want to debate in a world where we can’t know if anything is true, then debate yourself because talking about falsity or truth in such a world is meaningless. 1 + 1 = infinity, or anything else you wish it to mean.

Gotta run for now. Business calls. Later.

Yes @ETpro. There are many interpretations of religious Gods. Unfortunate. I fear too many of them are created to support the agendas of those who foist them upon others.

However, I’d like to point out none of that would be the fault of a God. Especially a loving one that allows free speech/will. Claiming otherwise would be like blaming the Theory of Evolution for having many differing interpretations. Let’s admit that Darwin himself never mentioned the term “Random Mutation” in Origin of Species.

Speaking of which… In the spirit of this thread… How many Darwinian Atheists have actually read Origin of Species? Could it be that many of them follow that book without even knowing what they’re following? Basing their beliefs on what others have interpreted for them instead?

Sorry, I’m not appealing to direct supernatural agency. I’m just illustrating what Carl Sagan and many others say about quantum mechanics and extra dimensions. No mention of any God, gawds, or gads necessary.

Oh, Before I run, let me answer your question about your link to theist hand waving about biblical contradictions. Yes, if we are talking about the God the Old and New testament define, then I am dissatisfied with most of those explanations. And that is far, far from an exhaustive list of biblical contradictions.

Just wanted to provide something else for you guys to possibly, only if you want to discuss, but not with me. :/

“The problem with focusing on discrepancies is that we tend to lose the forest for the trees. The overriding fact is that the Gospels are remarkably harmonious in what they relate. The discrepancies between them are in the secondary details. All four Gospels agree:

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by Roman authority during the Passover Feast, having been arrested and convicted on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then slandered before the governor Pilate on charges of treason. He died within several hours and was buried Friday afternoon by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb, which was sealed with a stone. Certain women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, having observed his interment, visited His tomb early on Sunday morning, only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the dead to the disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection.

All four Gospels attest to these facts. Many more details can be supplied by adding facts which are attested by three out of four. So don’t be misled by the minor discrepancies. Otherwise you’re going to have to be sceptical about all secular historical narratives which also contain such inconsistencies, which is quite unreasonable.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/inerrancy-and-the-resurrection#ixzz2aIU0Ey6A

Searchable Origin of Species HERE

Not one mention of “random” nor “random mutation” anywhere to be found. Yet most Darwinian Evolutionists base their entire world view upon the principle of random mutation.

OK, that’s handled but more to do. I just popped back in to answer @RealEyesRealizeRealLies regarding having read Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. The answer is yes.

It is true the random mutation is found nowhere in Origin of the Species. It is equally true that Hawking Radiation is mentioned nowhere in the papers published by the founding scientists who gave us quantum mechanics: Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Pascual Jordan, Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, Louis de Broglie, and Satyendra Bose. The fact that knowledge gets added to scientific theories as time progresses is not a criticism of science, it is its greatest strength. It is only among theists (thankfully not all of them, but too many) that you find the claim to already know it all, and have no need for further inquiry. Science is wholly motivated by knowing that you don’t know things, and seeking to find the answers.

As to atheists not having read Origin of the Species so what. You yourself made an appeal to quantum mechanics. Have you read all the aforementioned papers that established that branch of physics? If you did, would you have any clue what the papers meant. You would not unless you hold advanced degrees or have phenomenal lay understanding of particle physics, relativity, and the most complex of maths.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for lay people to discuss science and theology without having to be an post Doctoral student of the any either field. Indeed, high level discussions of the sort confound even the experts. Too many branches of human knowledge impinge on them for any one person, no matter how bright or well schooled, to know all. Of course, the more well read one is, the more one might bring to a discussion. But there is wisdom to be learned even from the simplest of people.

Likewise, the words “trinity” and “rapture” are not to be found in biblical texts.

@ETpro “As to atheists not having read Origin of the Species so what.”

So what, then, if Christians don’t read their bible, and instead, form their steadfast positions upon what others (who haven’t read it) say about it?

I’d be surprised if we couldn’t agree on this ET… But is it out of line to suppose that the most ruthless immoveable fundamentalist positions in religion and science arise from those who form their dogmas 2nd and 3rd hand, without ever reading the texts for themselves?

Likewise, consider the unfair playing field that science requests over religion. Further study and theory for science is considered a good thing, even if they topple previous theories. But when religion splits, it’s considered an inconsistent bad wash all around. No fair man.

Religion, is supposed to be a pursuit of “God’s Truth”. It splits because some discover the establishment to not be doing that, and instead creating their own truth.

Science, is supposed to be a pursuit of “Truth”. It evolves when new Truths discovered to be more truthful than the previous truths.

If, as I believe, there is no such thing as “God’s Truth, and instead, God actually IS Truth, then from my point of view, religion and science are pursuing a greater knowledge of the exact same agent.

I have not read On The Origin of Species, yet. It’s on my to do list. I’m actually looking for a copy without the 2nd edition edits.

I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Ancestors Tale (all Dawkins), Your Inner Fish by Neil Schubin, Why Evolution is True, by… Actually the author’s name escapes me at the moment, and several other books on evolution.

Darwin was the beginning of evolutionary biology, not the prophet of evolutionary biology. He was right about much, wrong about a few things, and never struck much of what we know today.

I’m all about religious spilts. I’m glad there are some churches that allow women to speak and don’t claim the old testament God. I’m a bug fan of neo-paganism, with its “don’t hurt people” philosophy. I mean, if you’re making a leap of faith, take one that isn’t going to lead to your becoming an intolerant asswad. And more power to you.

But don’t expect me to put your religion on par with evidence based science because you claim to be a truth seeker.

OMG. Did this conversation just segue into an evolution/creation debate??

I hope not. At least that’s not my intention.

All I’m trying to get across is that any one of us is susceptible to “following” disciplines and developing dogmas based upon second hand reports, without ever checking the original material ourselves, much less the material from opposing views.

I’m also pointing out that change in science is considered good. But Atheists might use a change in religion as argument for inconsistency. In fact it’s worse than that. Because they can pick and choose the change they want to argue against. The same crowd might applaud a church which allowed women priests or gay marriage. Some changes would be encouraged, and others despised. That’s no different than when religion splits and changes itself from the inside… like a mutation.

@Seek_Kolinahr “don’t expect me to put your religion on par with evidence based science because you claim to be a truth seeker.”

Would you consider another option?

I have no religion. But I do have theism supported by evidence based science. I can’t help it if it also strikes uncanny similarities to numerous religious teachings.

How do you feel about that option?

@Seek_Kolinahr “Darwin… He was right about much, wrong about a few things, and never struck much of what we know today.”

Do you think the same could be said of Dawkins, in the current, near, or distant future?

Re: Dawkins – of course it could. Science is always up for revision.

Re: “theism supported by evidence based science” – that is meaningless to me. If you have a deity, you either have testable evidence for that deity or you are making a leap of faith. If you have testable evidence, please write a book so I can buy it.

I support religious people choosing not to be assholes. I do not support faith based reasoning.It’s not cherry-picking, it’s accepting that change is made with baby steps.

No need to buy a book when it’s something that can just be discussed… so it’s not meaningless to you any longer. You may disagree with my Theism, but it wouldn’t be meaningless.

Here’s one such discussion.

Here is another.

No need to debate here. In fact, my debating days are over. But I’m very much willing to share the reasons for my theism.

The first link is a roundabout discussion of paley’s watch, far as I can tell by skimming, which I have neither the time not inclination to read. I’m not bothering with the second.

When you come up with testable evidence leading to a deity, call me. I’m not interested in philosophy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You asked, “So what, then, if Christians don’t read their bible, and instead, form their steadfast positions upon what others (who haven’t read it) say about it?” I won’t tell you it never happens among atheist intellectuals. It’s a big world out there, and if something can happen, given the chances for it to occur, it probably will happen. But you are comparing apples and quarks.

Most atheists don’t turn to other equally ill informed atheists for information to form their opinions. For instance, when it comes to forming opinions, I turn not to other laymen but to top scientists and theologians. I read. I listen to debates that go on for an hour or more. I listen to lectures before prestigious college campuses, the National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society and such. I also devote time to famous Christian apologists to see what arguments they advance. I am not just scooping out the enemy. It they have a persuasive argument, I want to know. I will be swayed by it.

Theists, on the other hand, generally take their entire knowledge of their “belief” from a pastor with a financial interest to serve in leading them astray, and from the televangelist industry with a far more massive financial master to serve. Their “knowledge” of atheist claims comes almost entirely from the straw men their gurus set then slay before them.

As to unfair criteria for comparison, I don’t buy that either. You appear to be flailing, trying to make right what you know in your heart is wrong. Science doesn’t go through great sectarian splits. To be sure, there are camps advancing this postulate and others advancing that. But those splits are resolved as further observation reveals the truth. Religion, on the other hand, is entirely non self correcting. Martin Luther correctly pointed out errors that the Catholic CHurch had fallen into. That was in 1517. It did not lead to a meeting of the minds. In fact, the positions of both Luther and Pope Leo X have just continued to spawn more splits from that day forward, a period of almost 500 years.

“If, as I believe, there is no such thing as “God’s Truth, and instead, God actually IS Truth, then from my point of view, religion and science are pursuing a greater knowledge of the exact same agent.” That indeed may prove to be the case. But if it is so, then it will clearly not apply to a personal, intercessory God who favors one human over another and routinely suspends cause and effect so that a quarterback who prays on the ball fieled will inherently defeat those who pray in the darkness of their closet. More likely, it will emerge that the Universe itself is a vast and incredibly powerful intelligence. And if that it the case, it is not subject for NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria). It is provable or falsifiable by science. In fact, I do not accept that NOMA exist.

@Seek_Kolinahr “When you come up with testable evidence leading to a deity, call me.”

I don’t have your number. I can’t call you.

Look, no offense, but all I can do is answer your sarcasm with serious inquiry. If you insist upon sarcasm (to disguise despite) then I don’t believe that a phone call would produce any productive conversation.

@Seek_Kolinahr “I’m not interested in philosophy.”

Then you’re only interested in certain slices of truth, from perspectives of your judgement. Predictable. Expected. Typical.

@ETpro “Most atheists don’t turn to other equally ill informed atheists for information to form their opinions.”

I understand, from your perspective, how you may claim that.

@ETpro “For instance, when it comes to forming opinions, I turn not to other laymen but to top scientists and theologians.”

I try my best to do the same.

@ETpro “Theists, on the other hand, generally take their entire knowledge of their “belief” from a pastor with a financial interest to serve in leading them astray, and from the televangelist industry with a far more massive financial master to serve.”

The modern Theist is smarter than that, not basing their theism upon adhoc guilt trip. That view is kind of dated, and soon to be extinct.

@ETpro “Their “knowledge” of atheist claims comes almost entirely from the straw men their gurus set then slay before them.”

Just like atheists set up straw man gods to burn.

@ETpro “As to unfair criteria for comparison, I don’t buy that either. You appear to be flailing, trying to make right what you know in your heart is wrong.”

Your attempt at clairvoyance dilutes your argument. I don’t believe you have any knowledge of what is in my “heart”. If you believe that you do, then you’ll have to prove it scientifically, write a book about it, and sell it to @Seek_Kolinahr.

@ETpro “Science doesn’t go through great sectarian splits.”

Science doesn’t even admit sectarian factions.

@ETpro “To be sure, there are camps advancing this postulate and others advancing that. But those splits are resolved as further observation reveals the truth.”

What do you think genuine continued studies of religious texts attempt to do? Please answer this specific question.

@ETpro “But those splits are resolved as further observation reveals the truth.”

Au Contraire… Yes that’s what science is supposed to do. But there is no shortage of old or bad science being taught at the university level simply because new science hasn’t been accepted to the degree it can topple grants, tenure, corporate investment… Otherwise we would all be enjoying hydrogen powered vehicles and solar power homes in the now.

A University or Research facility is hard pressed to drop the science investment they have pursued for years, simply because they’ve been proven less adequate than newer discoveries. One look into the Adult vs Embryonic Stem Cell Research should confirm that in spades.

@ETpro “if it is so, then it will clearly not apply to a personal, intercessory God who favors one human over another and routinely suspends cause and effect so that a quarterback who prays on the ball fieled will inherently defeat those who pray in the darkness of their closet.”

That’s a human statement which attempts to put limits on what a gawd is or is not, can or cannot do.

If, as I believe, Truth is sentient, and that is what you argue against, then what parameters do you base such a judgement of it upon?

And please understand, that just as folks cannot agree upon what a real God actually is, don’t presume that you and I have the same exact ideals on what Truth actually is. We throw these words around easily and expect others to abide by our own personal definitions of them. If arguing against mine, then you must know what my definition of Truth actually is.

If you don’t, then please retract.

@ETpro More likely, it will emerge that the Universe itself is a vast and incredibly powerful intelligence.”

Then why not leave it at that… and not be tempted to foist personal dogmas upon it?

@ETpro “And if that it the case, it is not subject for NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria). It is provable or falsifiable by science.”

Again, you insist that a real God fit within the paradigm of what a human mind insist it does. That’s no better than a televangelist insisting their god wants me to send cash. Non of this will make sense to any Atheist that insists that Gawd fit into a box of their own devise.

BTW @Seek_Kolinahr, neither of the links I presented had anything to do with philosophy.

It’s all math. The same math that enables cybernetics to control your microwave oven. The same math that allows this discussion we’re having to be possible. It’s the same math that geneticists and biologists use to investigate the genome.

It’s call Information Theory.

Truthfully, people do not follow the bible. They follow those parts that in their interpretation of the bible make sense to them and/or that justify what they would do anyway.

It’s impossible to follow the Bible. It is too full of contradictions.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’m a busy person. I am happy to debate where a real search for better understanding is the end result desired by both parties. But when you claim science is just as sectarian as Lutherans and Catholics, you are asserting that there are large schools of science today still preaching only the understanding of the natural realm that science held 500 years ago. Where are the scientists still holding forth for the Ptolemaic idea of epicycles? What major universities are still teaching that as anything other than amusing history?

Then you ask me to use this same science which you appear to reject as just a bunch of hunches held by warring sects to “prove” to you that I know what you believe. That raises my concern that you aren’t really interested in bringing light to any subject. I wonder if your intention may just be to enjoy being a contrarian.

I would hope from context that you could discern that my comment, “You appear to be flailing, trying to make right what you know in your heart is wrong.” was not a claim to clairvoyance. Had it been such, it would have read “You are…” instead of “You appear to be…” It was obviously a guess based on what you had said in previous comments. I fully grant you it may be a bad guess. I hope it is a bad guess and that you can assure me of that by demonstration and not assertion that fails to match your future actions.

Can we both agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? If so, then I will take up the above list of questions and assertions that you addressed to me. If not, then I do not think this discussion is worth the time investment it would take.

For the benefit of others reading this thread, I will for the time being answer your question about the Universe itself being God. I did not just leave that statement standing because it could so easily be misunderstood, as you immediately demonstrated by replying, “Again, you insist that a real God fit within the paradigm of what a human mind insist it does. That’s no better than a televangelist insisting their god wants me to send cash. Non sic of this will make sense to any Atheist that insists that Gawd fit into a box of their own devise.”

I was doing nothing of the kind. I was pointing out that the Universe is not outside the Universe as is the supernatural, uncaused-cause God that many Christian theists trot forward as the answer to supposed irreducible complexity, the anthropic question and how something might arise from nothing. The Universe is within the Universe and is observable. It is available for scientific study, not off in some place beyond space-time where science cannot possibly go. If the Universe is intelligent, we may someday discover that. That is all I meant.

In closing, before you attempt again to tell me what I believe and what sort of box I am attempting to put God into, I refer you to this thread where I clearly stated I am not a level 7 atheist. I know that I don’t know some things, one of them being whether God exists and if GOd does exist, in what form. I think that I do know a few things. I act on those things I think I know until better knowledge comes along, at which point I adopt the improved understanding. I notice that you gave an answer in the theist-to-atheist scale question that was deliberately off the scale. In my mind, that adds to the evidence for playing the contrarian.

OK. So there you have it, @flip86. Did these folks answer your “question” adequately?
(I mean the three who actually commented on your question, not the vast majority who used your question as a springboard to show off their awesome literary abilities, extensive education, or their strong convictions.)

@flip86 In Bible study, my teacher told us that as little as 3% of all Christians have actually read the Bible from front to back. So I’m with @ragingloli for the first time in my life.

If read thoroughly, it’s a strong read and does help with daily life struggles just as well as any other book intended to help.

Hi ET. I’m busy too, and that’s why my debating days are over. These days, I only have time for discussion, not debate. Not here anyway. So I very much appreciate your thoughtful replies, well knowing that we both have better things to do.

In the spirit of discussion amongst friends, consider the onion of sectarianism to be deeply layered for both religion and science. Both suffer, and encourage, cult of personality.

For religion, an obvious sectarianism arises every time a church splits. But each split does not topple the entire previous version. Were modern Christianity to stop teaching the divinity of Christ, then it would no longer be Christianity. So your point about still teaching something from 500 years ago is a bit misplaced. Surely a better example would be one religion entirely replacing another one. Hopefully in a peaceful manner. Like when Christianity, after centuries of persecution, ultimately became the “official” religion of Rome, replacing the Pagan gods.

Is it not to be expected that many Roman citizens would still cling to their old gods? Tradition is a heavy devil to overthrow. Certainly we should not expect an immediate universal conversion. Still today, there is a Roman Polytheistic Reconstruction movement afoot. Is this any different than Nazi’s and Ba’athists still existing today, after suffering near total annihilation?

For the Sciences, it’s much the same, but different in how it appears. Although the Sciences still promote the the basic empirical method developed by Aristotle, that too could be considered a central dogma. And possibly a dangerous one.

Consider for instance, if someone became so entrenched in the most modern Marxist Materialist version of the empirical method. They might say they’re only interested in “testable evidence”, and that they are not interested in philosophy. But that would completely disregard the philosopher Aristotle to started the whole thing. It would disregard the philosophical rules of inductive and deductive logic which resolve empirical conclusions. It would disregard the logic necessary to make intelligent predictions and form hypothesis.

And what if I chose analytical instead of empirical method? Would my research be waved away as nonsense? What if I forsake the empirical method altogether because cloud data makes the scientific method obsolete? No theory necessary. I assure you, if my research threatened the grants, tenure, and corporate funding of an established research facility with a high level of tradition, they would do everything possible to lop off my head after labeling me heretic. When there is too much at stake, then they burn you at the stake.

Remember Barbara McClintock forced underground with her research for twenty years because it threatened the establishment view of random mutation. And although she was ultimately awarded the Nobel Prize, random mutation is still taught as the main mechanism which natural selection acts upon.

Right now a battle wages to correct some of the bad science being taught in schools. It covers many disciplines. Take the issue of Greenhouse gases for instance. The greenhouse effect and global warming ARE NOT the same thing. Is this obvious to everyone? Penn State published this paper because they seek to set teachers straight on the subject. It covers numerous scientific disciplines (astronomy, chemistry, meteorology) they feel are being taught incorrectly. We’d like to think there is a giant bullhorn that everyone hears to get the message and stop teaching erroneous science. But just like when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, we cannot realistically expect the entire world to change immediately… Especially if our recommendations for change cause great upheaval upon those receiving them.

One of my favorite (ha) problems with science is The Pathetic Fallacy. You’ve heard me speak on it before. Science is all too often tempted to personify the object. Not a good combination when they simultaneously objectify the personage, reducing thought and mind to mere physical symptoms of hard materialist views of energy/matter.

Another of my favorite issues with science is the interdisciplinary disrespect. In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself. So physics gets a pass go card to take a well defined word for all other disciplines and reform it to suit their own purposes. Now that’s a real easy way to confuse a conversation. At best, it is lazy. At worst, it is disingenuous, deceptive, and attempts to prevent any possibility for metaphysical notions to be considered.

The problem is bad enough that UNC School of Information and Library Sciences is attempting to set everyone straight with A Discipline Independent Definition of Information.

Now, does anyone really think that Physics departments worldwide will suddenly begin abiding by UNC’s suggestion? I propose no. One might say Physics has started their own religion faction.

Don’t even get me started on Adult vs Embryonic Stem Cell research. Here in Missouri, Embryonic research failed to pass numerous times because is was cloning. So they finally changed the definition of cloning to get their funding passed by fooling the public with the most expensive campaign in Missouri history. They made it so the bill can never be revoked. The BioTech companies who invest in the research cannot risk losing their money, even when Adult Stem Cell research has provided exponentially more pluripotential than any Embryonic research has ever hoped to produce. It’s actually sickening to me how some science moves forward under the cloak of money grabbing deception.

That’s it for me. I’ve gone way too far with this, and you know I could go much further. You are welcome to the last word my friend. Your thoughts have been heard, considered, and are greatly respected.

@Old_Timer I suppose that some topics might have quick answers to satisfy lesser issues. But there are other topics which have thousands of years of layers to peel away and entrenched dogmas to address before one can get anywhere close to genuine consideration. Answers are often challenged on this forum. That leads to deeper levels of apologetics. It cannot be helped. I believe it should be encouraged. It leaves me wondering how your comments have contributed to this thread topic in any way beyond what you’ve judged others for.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You cease to debate with a wall of words all meant for debate or blind acceptance. In contrast, I cease to debate with this. “Fare thee well.”

I’m not a busy person but I still couldn’t write that much!

@Old_Timer Welcome to Fluther. Granted, being snarky and sarcastic isn’t the best way to introduce yourself to a new commnity of people you don’t know, but who have been together for years but welcome anyway.

One must wonder considering my own personal past relationship with fluther, maybe @Old_Timer is not such a “newbie” as we think? 0_o

Why would people change their user names? It doesn’t change who they are.

@Dutchess_III Not to fear. I have not changed my user name. I am indeed a newbie, having been invited here by a long time member (in good standing I think, with at least some of you) because the other site we were on together was losing ground. (I was Old_Timer there too.)
As for introducing myself by being “snarky and sarcastic” to “a new community of people” I don’t know?
May I ask, respectfully, just WHAT do you call the tone of the conversation that has transpired here? Appears to me that “snarky and sarcastic” are mild compared to the bloody fisted free for all going on among you folks “who have been together for years.”
I suppose it’s ok for “family” to fight like cats and dogs (or Heathens and Christians) but don’t let some outsider open his mouth, huh?
I can tell you, that in the above dialogue there were some posts that impressed me favorably, and several that disgusted me at least as much as my snarky and sarcastic observation (very accurate observation, I might add) may have disgusted some of your tight-knit community of jelly fish.

@Dutchess_III But thanks for the welcome.

You are right. I haven’t personally changed. For me it’s not about that but it’s about the fact that I get bipolar and weird things happen. So maybe I do change depending on the disability and which party of it I’m in, I guess. If that makes sense. Bipolar does not make sense to me anyway. Im not always stable. lol. So I let it run its course. And yes im medicated. But it becomes pointless when someone is zombified. Anyway, thats just my personal story. :)

@Old_Timer

a) THIS is not a bloody fisted free for all! Not to say we don’t have them shut up about the food stamps people! but not this time. Perhaps you’re assuming it was because of the subject (which CAN turn into a fight, but didn’t in this case,) without really reading the responses which seem pretty level and calm to me.

b) I’m just saying that it wasn’t a good first impression. It didn’t disgust me, but it did surprise me. I mean, you don’t walk into a bar full of strangers and yell “YOU WANNA FIGHT??!!”

And you’re welcome. :)

@Dutchess_III LOL “without really reading”. Wow. I DID read the responses. Every word of every one of them. I know Flip from another site, and I thought I’d introduce myself to him on this site by making a lighthearted observation. I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. (There’d be no question about it if I were….you’d know…everybody would know) I also wasn’t trying to insult or offend anyone. (Again, if I were it would be quite obvious) I also wan’t trying to make a good impression, or any impression at all. I was simply making a light hearted observation about how his question had ignited a pure fire storm, most of which had absolutely nothing at all to do with his question. But I overlooked the fact that I’m an outsider, and should have taken advantage of the opportunity to have kept my stupid mouth shut. I’ll certainly know better from now on.
But if this wasn’t a bloddy fisted free for all, I promise you, if I were trying to start one, I’d use what transpired here as starter fuel. Perhaps before you defend it as not being, you may consider actually reading the comments you are defending.
At any rate, as I’ve tried to point out, I didn’t come here to fight (though the idea is getting more tempting all the time, I must confess) and I don’t really think I care to associate with the likes of what I’m seeing here. It appears that you folks are not trying to learn, or teach, but rather to strut and crow, each trying to put someone else down so as to build up your own shaky opinion of yourselves. I’m not into that kind of junk. So, you, or any one else who thinks as you do can think what you want to, and obviously make yourselves feel better by saying what you think, as if it could possibly make any significant difference.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a slam. Have a good day. Goodbye.

Jellies…is this a bloody fisted free for all? Maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t know, but let’s all calm down and take a breath. :)

But I’m not upset. Just hungry.

(the Fluther answer) Why do you care to know? Is it a flippant curiosity as to why people will follow a misguided book of man or believe in something unseen as if it were the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause? Maybe they are not atheist, which might be a clue. Do you plan on following it yourself and want to know what to expect?

(the true answer) Asking here on Fluther is like asking what seasickness is like for a person who never been on a boat. Or getting answers on what it feels like to do a loopy loop in a jet when they have never flown even a glider. Most here can’t even begin to tell you why people follow the Bible because they don’t believe it. That being said, the reason why people follow the Bible is so they can learn more about God. The Bible allows the believers of Christ to learn more about Him and how to have a right relationship with Him. It also is an instruction on how to live every facet of life to have peace, joy, contentment, love, etc. To have those and not have it self-centered as those who are not in the body. The Bible is also there to correct, to let us (man) know there is a better and perfect way no matter how well man thinks he has it figured out. Man has basically done things his way for 6,000 years, how well do you think its working? The more one reads the Bible the more one learns to let the Spirit interpret the Word to them, in turn they can have more faith and a better, closer, more intimate relationship with the Father.

Now you can go back to asking non-pilots how flying feels.

Addendum: Why do people follow what others tell them to be true, instead of thinking through it themselves and coming to their own conclusions?
It isn’t just Bible believing people that dose that

Why do questions that have a religious bent always turn into a whiny pissfest?

I still can’t understand, and keep saying on every religious thread that dissolves into an argument or dissolves into hostilities, why people on this site (not sure about other sites because I don’t have any other sites that I really associate with) feel a need to go at each other so vehemently when it comes to religion. Everyone has their own opinions all across the spectrum – belief in God, no belief in any god, belief in multiple gods, and yet people usually come at these with a “my way is the right way, your way is totally stupid.” Is this the way we behave when discussing things with people in our “real” lives? At work, when people start discussing religion, do we shoot them down and mock them? At a party, if we meet strangers, would we insult their beliefs? Would we try to change someone’s opinion when they discuss religion? Probably not.

@jca I can’t answer for others, but what I do know is the people I know from your neck of the woods would never (well never say never, but I will generalize) need to get into a heated discussion with their neighbors about religion. Westchester County, NY compared to Christian Town, USA is a totally different world when it comes to religion and being accepting of different beliefs. The vast majority of religious people in your part of NY are Catholic. I don’t remember what exact city you are in, but probably you have more than the average amount of Jewish people also. More than average, I just mean Jews make up about 2% of the US popuation, I would bet you have more than that there. Possibly much more.

@JLeslie: There are a lot of Jews here, a lot of Catholics who are quiet with their faith and also a lot of other Christians who are vocal with their faith (and say things like “have a blessed day”), in addition to atheists. I also have friends of all religions who are into mysticism, paganism, horoscopes, believe in ghosts, Tarot, etc.

Regardless, nobody pushes their religion on anybody else, or goes around vocalizing that their way is the right way and other ways are foolish. Yet on Fluther this is commonplace. I don’t get it. Perhaps it’s due to the relative anonymity of the internet?

@jca Well, go to a place that is 70%+ Christian (non Catholic) and see how things tend to change. When I lived in Memphis the TV commercials politicians ran literally talked about having Christian values. The Christians put others on the defensive. At a party and among friends it isn’t like people burst into hateful religious discussions, but if religion came up, you get a lot of strange looks on people’s faces if you have a very differing view from Christianity. They are very often shocked, judging, or confused.

In NYC and surrounding suburbs everyone is accustomed to having diversity of religion around them and they want everyone to be able to freely practice their religion. I can’t imagine any of my NY friends assuming something about someone’s character based on the religion they identify with.

Edit: Here are some stats for Westchester county. Super Catholic. Probably more diverse in some cities compared to others.

For what it’s worth, there are two local rag newspapers that are sent to every house – one in your junk mail, the other thrown in your front yard. Both are extremely religious in nature. Not a little – every page has a bible verse on the top and most of the “stories” are about events happening at area churches and who just hired a new youth choir leader.

No matter how many times I call or write, I can’t seem to unsubscribe. They will continue to litter my yard.

@jca I agree I don’t get it.

The atheists, skeptics and unbelievers want logic and rationality, but I guess it doesn’t matter that they point fingers at theists all to often for pushing the non logical unproven “sky daddy” Christian down their throats because religion plays a major role. But not every person is like this. I say that people have it wrong and we pass judgement

And at the risk of my own self passing judgment, honestly maybe some theists feel like atheism is taking their right to be iillogical and irrational. Also, atheism is not always rational or logical, so what we really have is a power struggle.

See here

@KaY_Jelly: “Also, atheism is not always rational or logical, so what we really have is a power struggle.”

Can we stop pretending that atheism is anything more than it is? It’s not anything more than a label we use to address the question of belief in a god or gods. So, there is nothing irrational or illogical about rejecting god claims due to insufficient (or no) evidence.

We’re on a slippery slope…....time out.

@KaY_Jelly I don’t think there has to be any power struggle. It can be just as @jca describes, everyone just getting along and respecting each other.

It does seem to me that the internet sometimes causes people to forget that they’re talking to other people. Nice, decent, caring people…regardless of their beliefs about a god or gods. One needn’t respect anyone’s beliefs, but should be able to show respect to the person holding those beliefs. There’s just no need to call a believer “ignorant” and “irrational”, or to refer to their deity as a “sky daddy” and the like. We should choose our words carefully, remembering that there is a very real human being behind every avatar.

I’m a full blown atheist myself (which I think everyone here knows), but I try not to be deliberately hurtful when discussing religion (or any other subject). I don’t always succeed, but I do try.

It all comes back to my old line: It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

@augustlan There’s just no need to call a believer “ignorant” and “irrational”, or to refer to their deity as a “sky daddy” and the like.
Lurva that 100 times! If I could

@tom_g OK. That is your opinion and I respect it. But I don’t have to like it, because at the risk of getting into another debate which I’m trying not to do, my views and opinions on the subject are different and I can also say something similar to you about theism.

@JLeslie I’m sorry again that is your opinion. To me it seems like a power struggle when jellies are leaving because of a heated topic such as this.

@KaY_Jelly: ”@tom_g OK. That is your opinion and I respect it.”

I didn’t offer an opinion. There’s nothing to respect or disrespect about it. I simply informed you what the term means (atheism).

If you were referring to this…

@tom_g: “So, there is nothing irrational or illogical about rejecting god claims due to insufficient (or no) evidence.”

…as my opinion, I don’t see how this qualifies as one. Are you saying that it is rational and logical to reject claims due to insufficient (or no evidence)? Using these terms to mean the opposite of their meaning renders them meaningless. Again, there is no opinion here. We’re simply discussing terminology and language.

I have opinions, and I often share them. In this case, however, I was just trying to clear up the incorrect use of language in your post.

@KaY_Jelly I said it does not have to be like that.

@tom_g OK you said: “So, there is nothing irrational or illogical about rejecting god claims due to insufficient (or no) evidence.”

So basically what I am saying is this to me is your opinion because there is also no evidence to prove that there is a God or there is not a God and theists like Dr. William Lane Craig can come up with very sound rational and logical arguments against atheism in logical debates and his atheist opponents can also come up with sound logical and rational arguments. I am not saying you personally are irrational or illogical but my point is that atheist or theists alike, we as people tend to be sometimes illogical and irrational because we are humans and we are not always infallible.

Let me provide a link with an expert in theism who has more of a logical and rational argument than I could ever present this is the Moral Law Argument

@JLeslie I am sorry. I did not mean to come off as rude. I apologize. I did understand what you wrote though. I was stating that point blankly as a response. I wish it wasn’t that way. I firmly believe in equality. And I think it is a tragedy that anyone feels like they have to be bullied out of any community for any reason, even in an online community. The only way things will change is if we as people are willing to change.

You need to define “following the Bible”. There are too many meanings of this phrase.

@KaY_Jelly I am not sure I understand your response. I think a power struggle can and sometimes is a possibility as an explanation. All I was saying is it doesn’t have to be that way. I dn’t think supermouse was fighting for power, I think she just didn’t like the conflict and felt either hurt or battle worn. I can’t speak for her. I know how horrible it cam feel when people start to pile on against you. Sometimes it is just overwhelming and the way not to subject yourself anymore is to disengage. That can be as simple as stopping to follow a Q or completely leaving fluther. Coming here and ignoring a Q can be more difficult than not showing up at all. I can understand that if that was the case for her. Again, I can’t know how she really felt or what she was thinking, I am just projecting my own thoughts at this point.

@KaY_Jelly Dr. Craig is making a very fine living arguing that a God who wrote “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) and “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whomsoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) was basically full of shit and that he, Dr. Craig, can prove God’s existence. The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is by faith. Read the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. It is all about salvation being by faith.

Do you not see how his teachings conflict with the very message he claims to teach?

@JLeslie I agree. I also do not think supermouse or any one else for that matter was fighting for power. That’s not really exactly what I meant and maybe “power” was the wrong descriptive term. I personally think supermouse felt disrespected. And I think she got tired of struggling for equality on a forum where theism is not popular. This is just my opinion.

I personally think it’s a tragedy that leaving fluther has to be an option as an answer to disengage to all crap that some people feel because other people cannot be nice because it doesn’t solve anything.

So there are some choices after leaving fluther for someone in this situation, they could come back and pretend they are someone they are not, or just not talk about what is in the heart for fear of being put back in the same situation or they can be who they were and do what I do, get to a point and just shut down your account when you’ve had enough and start over fresh (I’ve done that a few times, I have bipolar) or just never come back.

I personally would prefer if we could just treat eachother equally.

@ETpro Dr. Craig is not trying to prove the existence of God.

Listen. I understand we are not on the same page about this, but honestly after all this time what are you trying to prove to me? Or possibly to others?

After telling me “I act like a troll”, and that’s why you said to another jelly that “you were done with me” because I according to your opinion I use mostly argument from assertion which you are apparently not fond of, but yet you keep looking for arguments from my side and from me? What gives?

And I thought not just you made it clear but I also made it clear that we were parting our ways when it came to faith/Christian discussion.

Ok thanks.

@KaY_Jelly I said I would post rebuttals to what I saw as false claims you make, and you are free to do so with me. I have come to the understanding that your confirmation bias is so overwhelming that actual back-and-forth debate meant to clear up misunderstandings and come to a more perfect mutual understanding is impossible between you and me.

Dr. Craig has plenty of clips online and all here are free to listen and decide from themselves what he is trying to accomplish. To help sort out truth from fiction, facts from diction; here’s a link to Dr. Craig debating Laurence Krauss at North Carolina State University in which Craig claims to establish that there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. But of course, why listen to him? Certainly, you are much better equipped to speak for him than he is to speak for himself. He must just be deluded.

Why not just be that @KaY_Jelly believes what she wants to and does not have to prove anything or be challenged, and @ETpro believes what he believes and does not have to prove anything or be challenged?

Why not just let it go at that?

Why do people in horror movies wander of into the woods alone?

…because if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a story.

@Seek_Kolinahr: You know what I’m saying. You know I’m not talking about a story in a horror movie. Why not just live and let live in the case of religious arguments and challenges of others’ beliefs which seem to go nowhere good on Fluther?

@ETpro Thanks again for shitting all over my religion.

Because they are grownups and if they want to fight until they are blue in the fingers, that’s their right.

Also, reading it all is entertaining as hell.

@filmfann: Let him say what he wants. It’s his right to, and besides, it’s entertaining as hell. But seriously, whateverrrrr. Don’t take the bait.

@jca It is absolutely his right to say these things, but just because you have the right doesn’t mean you should exercise it without restraint or consideration for others.

@jca some just really go nowhere don’t they.

@ETpro OK Why should I continue with you when most times the things you say are to hurt me! I’m tired of you being so condescending.

*So continue if you must but I’m tired of the below the belt remarks from you and I’m not going to subject myself to it any longer. I am a better person than that. I’m sorry if you don’t like.

Stop being so preachy for your cause because now IMHO it’s becoming no different than any other religion.

And I thought atheism and skepticism was supposed to be sooo different and soooooo much better. But in fact the bully tactics cause jellies to stay quiet or leave all the time, so different. Freedom to be ASSHOLES when you want! Really?

I’ve been struggling with this since I got here in 09. Sigh.

@filmfann: I absolutely agree. I was parodying what @Seek_Kolinahr said.

@KaY_Jelly: Let them if it pleases them, waste their energy on a fight that should be one sided. Repeat after me: “Whateverrrrr.”

“Whateverrrrr.”

That was going to be my next line. Lol. My edit window timed out.

Some people will just be posting “rebuttals” all day while some other people will just be hitting the big red EASY button all day. :)

”“Whateverrrrr.” I can SO hear that!

“here is my argument”

“Here are what I believe to be the flaws in your argument”

“your rebuttal offends me”

“that doesn’t mean it’s wrong”

“you’re an asshole”

“I concede that but it doesn’t count as a valid argument for your position”

“why can’t you respect my beliefs?”

Here is my argument:

Whateverrrrr.

LOL! Spot on @Seek_Kolinahr!

GA @jca!

@Seek_Kolinahr

I like your last post.

But I cannot figure which quotes are from the atheist, and which are from the theist.

and therein lies the rub.

Be nice. Damn it.

Let’s go…nowhere. Why? Because we can. B-)

@filmfann Unless Dr. Craig is your God and head of your religion, I did nothing to ”...shit all over your religion”. You’re just wearing your heart on your sleeve and demonstrating the sort of constant offense at other beliefs while claiming your beliefs are above questioning that I was addressing when I said I don’t believe religious claims deserve special protection from being questioned.

@filmfann: Don’t take the bait. Let it go. Repeat after me: “Whateverrrrr.”

Just remember that Hitler is now in Heaven.

Xtra spicey flamey baitey trolliollyolly LMAO and right out the door!

BIG Whateverrrrr!!!

Argumentum ad nauseam. Say things many times and convince everyone else it’s true.

Is this really about a banana?

whut?

Just remember that Hitler is now in Heaven.
Not according to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Maybe according to those other gods (the powerless ones of stone, wood, clay, and metal) think so.