Author Topic: Painful argument with a Christian  (Read 3288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2011, 06:55:52 PM »


That I'm not sure. Not sure what drove him away. He might've gotten tired. I am still trying to figure out what drove WWGHA great Hermes away.


Oh, I hope they didn't become born again. I'll cry.[1]
 1. at least we still have KCrady

Yeah born agains are truly lost people. Of course, it's always possible that they could have been driven away by something less harmful, like death.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2011, 07:03:27 PM »
Kaziglu, just wanted to relate my latest experience talking to a stubborn Christian, since you did in your original post. Just finished having a three-hour text "debate" with my 18-year-old younger brother. Among his "arguments" for God's existence:

1) Pascal's Wager

2) Humans are mammals, but NOT animals  :o

3) Our morality is subjective, God's is objective

4) The OT no longer applies (except the 10 commandments), even if Jesus said to follow the law (he was only referring to the 10 commandments)

5) Evolution is "nonsense," science is "flawed"

6) Christianity is not a religion, it is only faith and salvation

7) Lot was not wrong for screwing his daughters, and they were just trying to preserve the lineage, since things were different back then.

8. Humans need to be tested by God even though God is omniscient

9) Christianity is not meant to be rational because it is faith-based

10) The Bible is a historical document.

I love my baby bro a lot, but DAMN! That was some serious nonsense right there!
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7272
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2011, 07:07:21 PM »
Wow CG, that's like a poster board for what we see here all the time, in various flavors!  A summation, if you will!

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2011, 07:09:26 PM »
Jetson, that is what I tried to tell my little brother!  :)
He goes to church, so he soaks up all that crazy spoon-fed feel-good illogical crap. Brainwashing...
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2011, 07:12:18 PM »
Kaziglu, just wanted to relate my latest experience talking to a stubborn Christian, since you did in your original post. Just finished having a three-hour text "debate" with my 18-year-old younger brother. Among his "arguments" for God's existence:

1) Pascal's Wager

2) Humans are mammals, but NOT animals  :o

3) Our morality is subjective, God's is objective

4) The OT no longer applies (except the 10 commandments), even if Jesus said to follow the law (he was only referring to the 10 commandments)

5) Evolution is "nonsense," science is "flawed"

6) Christianity is not a religion, it is only faith and salvation

7) Lot was not wrong for screwing his daughters, and they were just trying to preserve the lineage, since things were different back then.

8. Humans need to be tested by God even though God is omniscient

9) Christianity is not meant to be rational because it is faith-based

10) The Bible is a historical document.

I love my baby bro a lot, but DAMN! That was some serious nonsense right there!

Wow, as soon as I saw that #1 was Pascal's Wager, I knew it was going to be a rich list. Humans are mammals but not animals? Kings play cards on fat green stools. Homo Sapiens is a member of the Animal Kingdom. We may be pretty sophisticated and have cool stuff like thumbs and guns and fire, but we are still just animals.

I swear, the only reasonable argument for saying that science is "flawed" is because it forces people to realize that they are effin crazy. Of course, these were the same people who called Newton and Galileo flawed, and criticized Darwin, but now say "Of course there is gravity and evolution and the Earth revolves around the sun! It's all part of God's beautiful plan!" as if their previous objections never even existed. It's really sad revisionism.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2011, 07:16:39 PM »
Yeah, #2 on the list literally made me say WTF to my brother! I also told him if we were made in God's image, God must look like a hominid  ;)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7272
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2011, 07:19:13 PM »
K.b.,

Take a look at these nuts:  Reasons to Believe

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2011, 07:24:45 PM »
#10 is possibly the most insane of all of those, although it has brutal competition. The Bible is a historical document? If that were true, then every other religious text, such as the Quran or Voluspa, is also a historical document. But the Bible contains so many things that are simply not historically true or possibly, that any assertion that it is comes off as just silly.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2011, 07:31:04 PM »
Yeah, I tried to convince my bro that the Bible is mythology by pointing out similarities between Jesus and Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, etc but that did not work. He said that he thought Jesus existed as a man (because he claimed someone found Jesus' tomb and nails), so Jesus must be the real Son of God.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2011, 07:50:11 PM »
Have to add another thing my brother said (Brakeman, you would find this interesting). My brother said that Uzzah knew not to touch the Ark of the Covenant, so it was his fault that God smote him for trying to catch it. :o
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2566
  • Darwins +209/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2011, 08:31:25 PM »
kaziglu bey,

One of the big Christian gobstoppers, is them trying to explain where hell comes from. Since the Jews did not believe in it, anymore than a vague death that they all went to, known as "sheol" (translated as grave or hidden), they did not have a big plan to escape hell. You were just supposed to follow the law, and then be judged by God in this life. You knew how you were getting along, by how well you and your neighbours were doing, and how long your lifespan was. The God of the OT always promises Life, but not afterlife. Christians surreptitiously converted this to afterlife in their minds. Read Deut 28, and you will see how detailed all the curses of God are, but not even the worst of them included a hellfire. The worst is on the last verse.

Then Paul comes along, and in Galatians and Romans, he sets out a way to avoid this "curse". Paul doesn't mention hell, either, so he is being slightly fair-minded. He, like those of his day, slipped in a resurrection, or afterlife. This resurrection is not promised or particularly hinted at in the OT. But Paul knows a way to avoid these curses, so you are perfect with God, and good enough to go to a heaven that Moses never mentioned.

The next sleight of hand is when the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, insert Hell, which was never an old testament affliction. Suddenly, it's not just about going to heaven, it's about avoiding hell. The Gospel of John does not suffer the vision of hell, but refers only to those who do not believe that Jesus is God as being evil, and walking in darkness.

Hell is a terrible problem for Christians, because it does not work within their framework. They have to invent all sorts of crap to explain why it suddenly appears in one synoptic book (a book copied and messed with 3 times). They have to explain where people went before Jesus told us of hell, and where people who have never heard of the gospel go. They have to rationalize that god knows in our hearts anyway, whether we deserve hell, which negates Christ's purpose. Debates about hell drag on interminably.

Hell and afterlife is all a clever bait-and-switch con, which Christians typically don't notice, because they assume hell is consistent with the OT.

The other big problem that Christians have, is that the synoptic gospels clearly say that you have to follow even the least important Jewish laws. They have to go into denial mode to ignore the fact that it's only Paul who says you can ignore them. Why doesn't Jesus explicitly say that it's only the 10 commandments that hold? Why does he explicitly revoke none of the Jewish law? Why does he say that they shall all hold til the end of time?

The next problem, buried deep in the gizzards of the NT, is that it never mentions "eternal". Eternal is a deliberate cover-up of the vagueness of the word "eon", which nobody can really fathom. Basically, heaven is not eternal, and neither is hell. So, why do they bother?

« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 09:05:59 PM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2566
  • Darwins +209/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2011, 08:41:56 PM »
And the other good one, that even derailed C S Lewis, is that Jesus promises that the Kingdom would come in their lifetime.  Mark 9:1.

Can someone point me to CSL's rationalization?

===========================================

C.S. Lewis [1898-1963], a well-respected and popular Christian author who gained international renown for an impressive array of works both popular and scholarly, is in general agreement with Russell, since he too believed that Jesus made statements that did not come true. When referring to Matthew 24:34 which records Jesus as saying, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,” Lewis asserted, “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” However, instead of rejecting Christ as did Russell, Lewis sought to reach a satisfying answer to this apparent dilemma by claiming that Jesus, just 14 words later, actually professed to be ignorant about the timing of His return: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” [Matthew 24:36 KJV]. Lewis further explained that Jesus’ ignorance was due to His becoming a man which involved taking upon Himself the limitations of man. 
===========================================

Mark 13

[30] Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
[31] Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
[32] But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


Notice that it speaks of hour and day, but not year, century and millenia .....epoc, aeon, ....
« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 09:16:53 PM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2011, 09:10:36 PM »
Ahhhh, but there is a difference.  There is the understanding of the Flesh and the understanding of the Spirit.  You read the Bible with the understanding of the Flesh.

I didn't make that up, I got that from an ordained Protestant minister on another site.
My brain nearly exploded with the level of stupidity of such a statement. Someone actually SAID THAT to you? Are they in an asylum yet?

No, he said it to some other person.  I was lurking there.  I go there sometimes to read the Mormon and the Catholic screaming at each other.   

I'm glad you agree that it fits the definition of "Painful argument with a Christian".




Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2011, 09:18:42 PM »
. Humans are mammals but not animals? ... Homo Sapiens is a member of the Animal Kingdom. We may be pretty sophisticated and have cool stuff like thumbs and guns and fire, but we are still just animals.

Lungfish Provides Insight to Life On Land: 'Humans Are Just Modified Fish'

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
  • Darwins +377/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2011, 05:26:11 AM »
They actually hit some of the girls and pulled their hair. Luckily, they knew that since I was an American, my parents would not want anyone (but themselves) doing that to me, so I got treated a bit better than them. Anyway, it really is sad what religion does to people.

I can just imagine this scene:

FADE IN:
INT. PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC SCHOOL:

A nun, her black habit fluttering like the leathery wings of a giant bat, stalks toward a young Curious Girl, raising her ruler high to strike.  The young girl's big brown eyes widen as the nun draws near.  Just in the nick of time, she whips out from behind her back--an American flag!--and holds it high with a slender, defiant arm.  In the background, we hear a rising soundtrack:  Ameeeeeerrrricaaaaa!  FUCK YEAH!  The nun hisses, holding claw-like hands in front of her face like a vampire repelled by a cross, and backs away with awkward steps.

NUN (turning to another little girl): Are you an American, my prettyyyyyy?

GIRL (fearful): N-no....

*WHACKWHACKWHACK*
---
On to more serious stuff, here's something I don't understand: Liberal Christians.  Like Quakers, or Fred Clark.  They see through the mind-trap, they see the Bible for the deeply flawed book it is, understand things like science, history, and textual criticism, recognize the evil of the genocides and everlasting torture...but cling to the few teeny remnants they can still manage to reconcile with a modern Enlightenment viewpoint, and go on retaining membership in the same group as the fundy whackjobs.  Whaaa?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 05:32:28 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4352
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2011, 06:52:04 AM »
And the other good one, that even derailed C S Lewis, is that Jesus promises that the Kingdom would come in their lifetime.  Mark 9:1.

Can someone point me to CSL's rationalization?

Prepare to have your brain exploded.

Quote from: Cotton Candy Apologist Nitwit
...“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken pre­diction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (appar­ent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great character­istic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.
  {Bold mine}

So in other words, if the Bible reports something and turns out to be correct, this proves that it is reliable.  On the other hand, if the Bible reports something and turns out to be wrong... this also proves that it is reliable.  No matter which way we turn, the Bible is vindicated, which is, of course, remarkably convenient for the apologist.  This is a clear case of eating one's cake and having it, too.  (Credit: George Smith)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2011, 07:12:15 AM »
Thanks Pianodwarf. I am now cleaning up my exploded brain. Getting it all back into whats left of my cranium will be difficult, and as for gathering up the cerebro-spinal fluid, well its damn near impossible.

But seriously, WOW. How much more of a terrible, hideous, unfair double standard could one possibly have? I'm reading that again and I just cringe. Would they be happy if a surgeon, performing a vital operation on a loved one, screws it up and the person dies, came up to them afterwards and said "Well, usually we perform surgeries correctly and save lives, and in those cases we are competent. But even though THIS time we screwed up and your loved one died, it still shows that we are competent."  I'm guessing a $20 million malpractice suit would follow. That might not be the best analogy, but if they would not accept such a poor performance from an imperfect sinner, why would they accept it from a perfect god? And if this perfect god exists, then why get surgery? Why not just pray the malady away, like they pray away gayness?
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2011, 07:21:55 AM »
That I'm not sure. Not sure what drove him away. He might've gotten tired. I am still trying to figure out what drove WWGHA great Hermes away.

I think DTE saw how pointless this site was.  I do not think there was much anyone here could teach him about god or religion.  He was a trained theologian.  He was the only person I know of to have talked another person out of xianity and into atheism (that was Vynn). 

Some of DTE's posts.  The links to ATT are no longer good, but I don't know why.  HAL must have changed some things around over there.  That's too bad.  Those were some of his best essays.

My hypothesis on Hermes is he has OCD and 10,000 was a magical number for him, so he quit at 9,999.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2011, 11:36:39 AM »
MMcNeely, it just seems like they've got a bad case of SPAG. They can justify anything as long as their "God" commands it. Reminds me of Warren Jeffs and David Koresh.

This got me thinking. Why is it that only SOME people who claim to have a personal relationship with God and receive instructions directly from him considered to be delusional, and not all of them? How is a Schizophrenic who has delusions of grandeur any different from someone who thinks that only those like them know the secrets to eternal paradise? how is that any less grandiose, or delusional?

One is socially accepted and has a big voting lobby, one does not. Aside from that, nothing I can see
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #48 on: October 11, 2011, 11:51:35 AM »
A teacher that circles in red ink bad grammar, incorrectly spelled words, inaccurate information, self contradiction, and false conclusions isn't cherrypicking....they are correctly pointing out flaws.

If the student just points out the areas that aren't circled in red ink is cherrypicking. Particularly if they claim their paper is "perfect" and a "guide for all life"

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #49 on: October 11, 2011, 12:18:15 PM »
Ok, I just can't take it anymore. I am going to post first, the most recent correspondence send to me by the Christian in question. The first half of it is just so silly and ridiculous that I just wont even respond to her because I don't think I can do it without being really mean. Then I will post my response, in which I present to her the problem of why won't god heal amputees in a condensed form as well as some other criticisms. Since I am kinda new to the whole debating thing, I would appreciate any feedback as to any mistakes I make or any of hers I fail to point out. I'll get it on here soon.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2011, 12:23:05 PM »
...Abraham's case is different than modern believers because Abraham KNEW God existed per the texts as he had encountered God and even ate with God on occasion...

Wait... Hold up... I just gotta ask real quick... Is this for real? Because I definitely don't remember reading it anywhere...

Yahweh... Eats? As in, like... food?  :o

...

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA... That's awesome. Is that actually true???  ;D

All this time I figured it feasted on baby bones or the souls of Asians or harvested foreskins... Am I to understand that the thing has actual meals made out of the four basic food groups? Well, the bible DOES say he loves the smell of smoked meats, and I mean, who doesn't right?

So what do you think is the daily caloric requirement for the creator of the cosmos? Probably more than a Grizzly bear huh? Think he's a sweets guy, or a salts guy? Both probably. I bet he eats a lot of pie. And Cheetoes.

Of course he's perfect, so doubtless his divine body processes every molecule of food and thus Yahweh needn't excrete waste... At least that's what we're told... And I'm cool with that frankly, because the idea of The Poop of God makes me very uncomfortable. Though I'm fairly certain it would be destined to become THE hot ticket item on E-bay.

I bet he's just a pig at the table, too. No manners, just shoveling whole cows and rhinos and s**t into his gaping maw, gallons of gravey spilling all down the front of his robes, burping, farting, elbows on the table, picking his teeth with the bones of baby seals... Totally the type to reach over and just grab shit off your plate without asking, too.

Poor Abe. I feel for the guy. That must have sucked. Imagine you get the call like

"HEY ABE! IT'S GOD. LET'S DO DINNER TONIGHT."

"Oh, hi Lord. Umm... I'd love to, but I kinda had this thing planned down at the Y..."

<crack of thunder> "WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, WORM?! YOU DON'T WANT TO EAT WITH ME?!"

"<gulp> Err Of course not Lord!"

"BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND FINISH THAT LITTLE GAME WE WERE PLAYING WITH YOUR KID THE OTHER DAY... THAT WAS FUN, HUH??? AND I SURRRRE DO LOVE THE SMELL OF BURNT OFFERINGS, MMMM MMMM MMMM..."

"OH DEAR GOD PLEASE NO NOT MY ONLY SON NOT MY BABY BOY NOT AGAIN *PLEASE* NO!!! ummm I mean Dinner sounds just great Oh Lord." <dejected sigh> "Dining with you is always a <gag> pleasure!"

"YOU BET YOUR ASS IT IS! I'LL PICK YOU UP AT EIGHT BITCH. MAKE SURE YOU WEAR THAT PURPLE FROCK I LIKE, THE ONE THAT SHOWS OFF YOUR THIGHS. AND BE READY TO GO *AT* EIGHT. DON'T KEEP ME WAITING OUTSIDE FOR YOU TO FINISH GROOMING THE BUGS OUT OF YOUR BEARD AND s**t."

"Uh, right. No problem Lord. It all sounds wonderful. See you at eight."

"WE'RE GOING TO APPLEBEE'S BY THE WAY."

"Sounds swell, Lord. See you soon." <hangs up phone, starts to cry>

<through sobs of Fear and abject Terror> "God I... I just *HATE* that guy... <sniff> I hate him SO much!" <falls down on the ground whimpering and sobbing and wetting himself>

"HAH!!! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!! YOUR PHONE ISN'T EVEN PLUGGED IN!!! WHAT A STUPID BASTARD! HAHAHAHAHA MAN YOU SUCK!!! BY THE WAY YOU PISSED IN YOUR BRITCHES AGAIN! HUR HUR HUR WAIT'LL I TELL SATAN ABOUT THIS!"

"..."

"SEE YA AT EIGHT BUDDY!"
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 12:55:55 PM by RaymondKHessel »
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2011, 12:30:32 PM »
Ok, so below is what my Christian friend recently sent me. Next post is my response.


Four things are required: 1) Ancient Scripture, to be understood in the original context and intent. This is most easily accomplished by 2) More ancient scripture from alternate sources, translated correctly, and this is only accomplished through 3) living prophets who are most easily understood through 4) Personal revelation based on an individual relationship with God. All these things must work together to gain a proper understanding.

A) Scripture taken out of context should not be ignored or accepted. Get it in the full context, understand it, and then live according to it. Get all four elements together and we can proceed with confidence.

It is grave fallacy to think we understand when we do not. Until we get all four elements, let's keep thinking about it.

C) It is massive arrogance to say that we represent God when we represent only ourselves. This completely explains your objections concerning Columbus and the rather vague concept of so-called Christian Nations. It is a very easy thing to attach "Holy" to our deeds. It is much harder truly to represent God. Three elements will not do. It takes four.

D) It is fallacy to assign to God "unchanging" that means to us that He is incapable of discerning different situations, in different times and places, with different solutions and different outcomes. Ultimate Judgment, life and death, truth and error - these things are the realm of God. Again, until we get all four elements working together, we will not gain a true understanding.

God has given many individuals great gifts to prepare for these last days. They did not all pray for these gifts. God has used me, at times, because I was the only one available. He has put knowledge in my head that I had no reason to know. He has put specific words from a foreign language into my mind so that I could talk to those who spoke only that language. These things are evidence. None can deny this evidence. I am telling you that it is so, that I lived it myself. It is not hearsay. I am a direct, involved witness.

It is also true that many things that are quite reasonable can be rephrased so that they appear to be as offensive as possible. Try preparing a chicken for dinner, for example. It sounds rather innocuous with that simple language. It is quite simple to make it as gruesome-sounding as can be imagined. This is exactly what you have done by calling Jesus a "Human Sacrifice". Your attempts are horrible-izing expose your intent only to profane, and utterly discount any supposed effort to gain understanding or to disseminate useful information.

How many witnesses with what sort of evidence do you need before you will be convinced that there is a God, that He does speak to us, and that he does involve Himself in our lives? Count me as one who cannot be discounted.

How many who deny God will be needed before I fail to believe in Him? You can gather a great number. The fact is that I know of myself that there is a God. He has involved Himself in my life over and over and over and I cannot deny it.

My views. I welcome others'.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2011, 12:44:39 PM »
Now here is my response to her:

How many witnesses with what sort of evidence would it take to be convinced that there is a God? Myself and 10 other people, all of different faiths, each missing a limb, and one of them Christian. Each of those 10 people will, in their turn, pray to their respective deity that their missing limb be spontaneously regenerated instantly. When the Christian's turn came, if this did indeed happen, without any other possible explanation, then I would believe in God.

 As much as people like to point to the power of prayer and all of the people who have witnessed that power, they are deluded by the power of coincidence. Not prayer, coincidence. A church group prays for a member of their congregation who has cancer, and has been undergoing chemotherapy and surgery, and the cancer goes into remission. Did God  answer their prayer? No. Prayer is not a vital element in the treatment of cancer, however chemo and surgery are. It really shouldn't be a surprise that the person recovered, since reality based steps to stop the cancer were being used.

 However, if an amputee were to spontaneously regenerate a limb, there could be no other possible explanation than the existence of a God who answered that prayer. However, this has never once happened. No one, ever, has spontaneously regenerated a limb. When you take away any ambiguity as to whether or not prayer was the cause of X happening, you will find that prayer never influences X in unambiguous situations.

Only things that would have been possible  in the natural course of events (even if not very probable), are ever answered by prayer. But if we know such things CAN occur naturally, there is no reason to get excited when that natural occurrence merely coincides with a prayer. God never does anything that only a god could do.

Even in the case of something happening that seems to defy all realms of possibility, we should remember that we just because we don't know what caused X, doesn't mean X was caused by divine intervention. It just means that we do not (yet) know what caused X. People have believed throughout the years that various natural phenomena, i.e earthquakes, eclipses, comets, floods, tsunamis, wildfires, etc were caused by gods or by God, yet we now know all of this to be false. If we assign God as the cause of the unknown, then when the unknown becomes known, we really just look foolish.

Going back to prayer, it is also crucial to point out that every time a prayer is not answered, Jesus has broken his word.

    If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
    If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]
    Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
    Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]
    Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]
    For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this      mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

There can be no ambiguity as to what is meant by these passages. Jesus says you will get what you pray for. There's no fine print. And this coming from three of his Apostles, so it's not like they didn't know the guy. Plus, there is no evidence that any mountain has ever been moved by prayer, whether by believers or Jesus himself. What explanation is there for unanswered prayers then? Here's two possible explanations:

God exists, and God answers prayers, but for some reason God chooses to ignore the prayers of amputees (or prayers to move mountains, restore brain tissue). We don't have a good explanation for why God acts this way, and it does seem to contradict what Jesus teaches about prayer in the Bible, but clearly God has his divine reasons.

Or

God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then he does not answer any prayers. Therefore, the prayers of amputees would go unanswered too. The explanation entirely fits the problem, no ambiguity, no paradox, no contradiction.  It also explains why other prayers for medical miracles don't come true (people born with Down Syndrome will not change because of prayer, people who suffer significant medically incurable brain injuries do not see their grey matter suddenly replenish itself whole and functional at the request of believers, etc). These are all things that could only be accomplished by God, yet they do not happen, ever.

Similarly, other non medically related events that could only be produced by God do not happen either. If a church prayed that the Titanic would be suddenly raised from the ocean floor and moved to the top of Mt Rushmore, it would not happen. Again this is something that could only be done by God, and yet no matter how many people or who they were, it would never happen. This is in direct violation of what Jesus explicitly promised in the six passages above, as presented by those personally selected by Jesus himself to spread his message. How could Jesus then be wrong?

If your response to this is that we are not supposed to test God, then don't believers violate this every single time they pray? If some prayers are "testing God", then all are, as they all ask for God to do something for the person(s) praying, and God either does or does not do it.

Here's another problem I have: why/how can an all knowing and all powerful God as presented in the Bible be limited to the knowledge of the primitive people in the story? Instead of explaining all kinds of purification rites for illness, discharge, infection, and menstruation does God not explain them in a way that is helpful? Why didn't God teach them about microbes,  sanitation, sterile dressings, antibiotics, and the female reproductive cycle? Why does God view women with the same misogynistic contempt that the primitive men in the Bible do?

Why does God's worldview always coincide with that of the believer, no matter who they are or what they believe or what period of time they are from? And why has believers' perception changed, so that they can attempt to explain away explicit passages, in both the old and new testament, that say that women are subordinate to men, and are to be quiet, and not have authority. Why does God all of a sudden understand what is actually the right thing to do? Is he no more intelligent or morally grounded than humans? If so, I would argue that such a being is not, in fact, God.

The Old and New Testament also point to the fact that God, and his son Jesus are ok with slavery, yet this also only reflects the opinions of the people in the Bible. Now that WE believe slavery to be wrong, believers also think God must too. Don't you see what is happening here? It is sometimes known as SPAG, Self Projection as God. This is why no two believers will say the same thing when asked what faith and God mean to them. It means whatever we want it to believe, because we are creating an all powerful deity in our minds who is cool with whatever we are cool with, whether it be peace and brotherhood, or murder and rape, the Bible can be shown to support them all, thus providing a false validation of the person's SPAG.

SPAG also happens at a more general, public level. Even if believers would not give the same definition of God as the next person, they would probably include words such as "loving", "all-powerful", "all knowing", "savior". This is because believers in general want to believe that some cosmic superhero is right there for them, whenever they need them, who thinks like they do, who likes (and ignores) the same Bible passages, hates (or sometimes loves) the same types of people, and if we worship this cosmic superhero, he will share his powers with us by granting us eternal bliss (whatever the believers definition of this may be).

This is also used as the Christian means of Morality. Because of Original Sin, Jesus had to die and be resurrected, and we have to work to follow his laws, and confess our sins and faith in the Savior, and if we do, we get eternal bliss, if not, eternal punishment (note:eternal punishment for finite sin is a little harsh for a benevolent being who loves all of his creations).

Believers have to do good things in order to avoid eternal punishment and gain for themselves eternal bliss. This makes the motive for doing good things selfishness, as it is done to save the believer more than the person for whom good is being done. If you help a disabled veteran in a wheel chair, who wheel has become stuck in a street drain, and who is unable to dislodge it, the veteran is able to go on his way for the time being. You however are getting points towards eternal reward, which is infinitely more good for you than your help was for the veteran.

Yet, those who do not believe, such as myself, are not causing violence in the Mid-East (that has been going on for essentially millennia), are not running rampant raping, stealing, and killing anything in sight, crashing planes into buildings, launching "Crusades". Atheists are capable of being good people without threat of punishment or promise of reward. They do good, because it is the right thing to do, not because it will benefit them for eternity. If it is possible for people to be moral and do good things without faith in God, then Occam's Razor suggests that we remove that which is not necessary. That which is not necessary is, in the case of morality, God.

The Atheist would assist the disabled veteran, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, but because he wishes to show another human being consideration. Perhaps he even feels admiration for the disabled veteran who risked life and limb, and wants to show appreciation for that sacrifice. It is entirely selfless.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" isn't a Divine Proclamation, it's just common sense.


There is only one possible explanation for what I present here that does not contain contradictions or inconsistencies, create a paradox, explain away, rationalize, ignore, or alter evidence,  make supernatural assumptions, rely on coincidence, use circular logic, or require the individual to possess a supernatural  gift of understanding of a divine being. That explanation is that there is no God. It fits all of the evidence, and explains everything in a real way that doesn't require God, Allah, Yahweh, Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris, Damballah, Gandalf (Gandalf is of course one of the Maiar) or Eru Iluvatar to intervene.

There are certainly things that science can not yet explain, yet it has helped us gain more understanding of the world and contributed more achievements to the human civilization that Religion can ever hope to. A lot of things will likely be known to us, some day, that are not known now. We may never be able to understand everything before the human race perishes in the natural cycle of the universe, but that does not mean we should assign divine qualities to the unknown. It means we need to do more exploring.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2011, 12:49:17 PM »
she's quite a typical Christian.  Good reply kaz.  how I would respond:

A) Scripture taken out of context should not be ignored or accepted. Get it in the full context, understand it, and then live according to it. Get all four elements together and we can proceed with confidence.
A common Christian claim, that no one but them has the “right” context.   They always say “get it in the full context” but when a non-believer shows that they do have that context, then this meaning goes out the door and the only context that they are interested in is their own, their personal magic decoder ring.
Quote
It is grave fallacy to think we understand when we do not. Until we get all four elements, let's keep thinking about it.
Attempts to use big words when she has no idea what they mean.  No it’s not a fallacy and then we have the usual “we just can’t understand”  when all they mean is “we can’t understand only when it’s inconvenient to understand and realize our god is a vile violent character in a bunch of myths. ”
Quote
C) It is massive arrogance to say that we represent God when we represent only ourselves. This completely explains your objections concerning Columbus and the rather vague concept of so-called Christian Nations. It is a very easy thing to attach "Holy" to our deeds. It is much harder truly to represent God. Three elements will not do. It takes four.
  Nice representation of the No True Scotsman fallacy (a real fallacy). 
Quote
D) It is fallacy to assign to God "unchanging" that means to us that He is incapable of discerning different situations, in different times and places, with different solutions and different outcomes. Ultimate Judgment, life and death, truth and error - these things are the realm of God. Again, until we get all four elements working together, we will not gain a true understanding.
The usual attempts by a poor desperate Christain to redefine words so they don’t have to admit that their book is nonsense.
Quote
God has given many individuals great gifts to prepare for these last days. They did not all pray for these gifts. God has used me, at times, because I was the only one available. He has put knowledge in my head that I had no reason to know. He has put specific words from a foreign language into my mind so that I could talk to those who spoke only that language. These things are evidence. None can deny this evidence. I am telling you that it is so, that I lived it myself. It is not hearsay. I am a direct, involved witness.
Last days.  It’s always so sad to see Christians use that.  They are so pathetic in their desperation for their god to actually prove itself to them.  Funny how they have failed in every claim of “last days” for the last several millennia.  And the arrogance here.  ooooh, “I was the only one available”  “I have special powers.”  Sad that they must lie so badly too.  I want to see this Christian with her magic powers, speaking foreign languages. I want to see objective observers. But I’m guessing that she would never ever allow that or would at best, whine that I was daring to test her god.  She would of course be ignorant of all of the times her god is perfectly happy to be tested.
Quote
It is also true that many things that are quite reasonable can be rephrased so that they appear to be as offensive as possible. Try preparing a chicken for dinner, for example. It sounds rather innocuous with that simple language. It is quite simple to make it as gruesome-sounding as can be imagined. This is exactly what you have done by calling Jesus a "Human Sacrifice". Your attempts are horrible-izing expose your intent only to profane, and utterly discount any supposed effort to gain understanding or to disseminate useful information.
And sad for her that Jesus was exactly a human sacrifice.  This god decided that no other thing would work other than the intention murder of a man for the “sins” of the world, after all of its other supposed attempts failed so miserably.  It’s just like the strangling of a man to ensure that spring would come, etc.  It is rather horrible to us modern humans, but it’s simply primitive and superstitious.
Quote
How many witnesses with what sort of evidence do you need before you will be convinced that there is a God, that He does speak to us, and that he does involve Himself in our lives? Count me as one who cannot be discounted.
With the lack of evidence, this Christian can easily be discounted,.  Just like she’d discount any believer of any other religion making the same ridiculous claims.  I want evidence not fairy stories, not lies to make her feel like some special snowflake.
Quote
How many who deny God will be needed before I fail to believe in Him? You can gather a great number. The fact is that I know of myself that there is a God. He has involved Himself in my life over and over and over and I cannot deny it.
  As often seen, we have one Christian who seems to think that no matter what, she’ll keep her faith.  Lot of us felt like that.  I prayed to keep my faith and gee, I got nothing from this imaginary god.  The fact is that she has deluded herself into thinking that there is a god, just like every other theist.  She has decided that she’s ever so important that any coincidence and parlor trick is her god showing her just how special she is.  And she’s just like the billions of theists in this world, all sure that their god is the only real one and that they and only they know what it “really” wants.  As soon as she can show some real Christian abilities, those miracles like JC and better, that she can light the soaked altar, she’s just blowing smoke.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2011, 01:03:44 PM »
Nice Velkyn, you did a great job going through it point by point. I didn't quite do that, my response is more of a rant lol
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2011, 01:14:59 PM »
ahem, not that I've done this a lot...no not at all  &) ;D
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6246
  • Darwins +786/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2011, 02:30:35 PM »
K.b.,

Take a look at these nuts:  Reasons to Believe
A friend subscribes to their newsletter, so, like the cow eating it's cud,  I've seen this sh!t before.

One jaw-dropping leap on the link you gave:
Scientists are developing artificial life in the lab, and you might think that signals the final nail in the coffin of "Only god can create life, har har har, you atheists think you know so much, can you create life? Didn't think so. Therefore god!"
 
But RtB says human beings creating life is not support for abiogenesis or Darwin's TOE. Nooooo! It is actually support for Intelligent Design, because it proves that it takes intelligence to create life! Therefore god!

Yikes. :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Painful argument with a Christian
« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2011, 02:49:34 PM »
Kaziglu Bey, you mentioned praying for cancer but continuing treatment.  I've heard that encapsulated as Prayer plus 2 aspirin cures a headache.

I previously had this interaction with someone's account of how a Catholic mass (and he wasn't a Catholic) cured him of an untreatable disease, Crohn's disease.  Here is the original contention and my answer.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19762.msg437697.html#msg437697

I just made the Google search again, being sure to put the plusses in to make the terms mandatory "+crohn+spontaneous+remission" and got 439,000 hits.  Google's web crawler bots have been doing some more work.

From general knowledge I know that spontaneous remission of cancer happens often enough that whatever the victim was doing is considered a new cure.  When I was a kid there was a guy with cancer who heard how it used up a lot of energy.  So he decided to fight it by eating bigger meals.  I didn't hear how much me porked up.  When the cancer went away then abracadabra! another quack treatment.  Homeopathy works that way as well.

When I worked at a Catholic charity I found a solicitation paper that was passed around to pray to some nice, deceased Catholic housewife (she was a Mrs., not a Sr.) to be cured of some big disease.  A lot of the saints canonized in recent years are from 2 people (minimum 2 miracles!) who had spontaneous remission of cancer.

Please keep this Wikipedia link around:

Spontaneous remission