Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
typing ona tablet here pc suffering blue screen of death, so back later  to reply. (must be all that atheist karma directed at me,)
Joke...

Dude, I'm outside in the freezing cold (for a Floridian 50 degrees) typing a phone. If I can do it, you can do it.

-Nam
22
General Religious Discussion / Re: Jesus Never Existed
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 11:32:51 PM »
You note your word usage "Paul mentions" not "Paul stated". One is definitive the other is not.

By the way: yours is not.

-Nam
23
General Religious Discussion / Re: What if ALL religions are right?
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 11:30:41 PM »
As I tell people: a thesaurus is your friend.

-Nam

I wouldn't really call a thesaurus my 'friend'.  But I would call it my ally, companion, associate, buddy, colleague, partner, comrade, consort, or chum without hesitation. 



You forgot squatter. Never forget squatter!

;)

-Nam
24
Chatter / Re: Poetry, or "What I Believe to be Poetry"
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 11:23:06 PM »
Both have a rough appeal. The first is a bit less accessible to me: I only vaguely recall the names mentioned. You might try (assuming you're interested in engaging a relatively uninformed reader) more historical context about the specific people named.

You never heard of Charles Bukowski, Allen Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, Sylvia Plath, Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Chatterton, Alexander Pope, Jesus, Christopher Marlowe,  Vincent Van Gogh, Emily Dickinson, Ernesto Trejo, Percy Bysshe Shelley and the Pope[1]?

Actually, minus Trejo and Chatterton, all the rest are pretty well known by the vast majority of people.

Don't take this as me not taking criticism, but, you're the first person who told me they've never heard of most or all of those people. Chatterton and Trejo I understand but the rest...

Quote
Some good images and effective use of repetition in the second.

"... for we are the disease that makes us breathe."

Nice; I wish I'd written that.

Thanks.

-Nam
 1. all of them, or pick one
25
Chatter / Re: Poetry, or "What I Believe to be Poetry"
« Last post by wright on Yesterday at 10:42:52 PM »
Both have a rough appeal. The first is a bit less accessible to me: I only vaguely recall the names mentioned. You might try (assuming you're interested in engaging a relatively uninformed reader) more historical context about the specific people named.

Some good images and effective use of repetition in the second.

"... for we are the disease that makes us breathe."

Nice; I wish I'd written that.
26
General Religious Discussion / Re: Jesus Never Existed
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 10:42:33 PM »
The best argument I have heard to answer this topic is the idea that Jesus was, literally, invented out of thin air. If that sounds hard to swallow, then I can tell you that there are various Ancient Gods who were worshipped who were invented like that. However, the evidence is the better part.

Think. Where do we first learn about Jesus? Paul. Paul's story really starts with 'meeting Jesus' on the road. For Paul this even is intensely personal even though Luke builds it up into a great affair. Paul starts preaching about this Jesus but Jesus in a heavenly being located not on earth but in a heavenly temple. Later writers come up with lots of stories about Jesus' life on earth. Each gospel has new ones that no one else knew. If one didn't know better, it is almost like creating a history for a figure who was proposed to live in the heavens rather than carefully putting down a set of eyewitness accounts. The birth narratives come form a later time than the gospels they are attached to so that's another stage of development.

When is the first independent account of Christians? Rome, 66CE? Plenty of time for Paul's 'meeting' to have taken root in far away places, too far to know the real facts, if there were any.

False.

Paul mentions that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. was buried, and then rose from the dead.

Paul knew Jesus was on Earth.
27
General Religious Discussion / Re: What if ALL religions are right?
« Last post by JeffPT on Yesterday at 10:01:25 PM »
As I tell people: a thesaurus is your friend.

-Nam

I wouldn't really call a thesaurus my 'friend'.  But I would call it my ally, companion, associate, buddy, colleague, partner, comrade, consort, or chum without hesitation. 

28
typing ona tablet here pc suffering blue screen of death, so back later  to reply. (must be all that atheist karma directed at me,)
Joke...
29
...instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing - not having their own opinions, and just accepting god's opinions as correct and valid without the slightest bit of critical thought behind it.  But yeah, god wants people to have free will, as long as they don't form their own opinions or exercise that will in a way that is in contrast to god's will.

That is your opinion because you have the presupposition that Jehovah would never have educated people.  I don't share that presupposition.
Incorrect.

What I'm doing is not presupposing that Jehovah was, in fact, educating people.  You do not share that viewpoint.  You are presupposing that Jehovah would educate people.

You're the one making the unwarranted presupposition here, not me.

Quote
What I see is with the inability to make informed decisions they should have trusted Jehovah.
Dude - blind trust is not a good thing.  That is a horrible thing to teach someone.  Do you teach your kids to resort to blind trust when they have the inability to make an informed decision by taking candy from strangers?

Not only are you making unwarranted presuppositions, but you are making them to support a poor example.

Quote
Modern man is not different.  We still face uncertain things such as should be create a true AI, assuming it's ever actually possible.  Should humans be genetically engineered?  We will only know the correct answer in retrospect because we cannot forsee the outcome.  If there was only someone that could see the outcome in advance....
And one of us believes that this someone that can see the outcome in advance does, in fact, exist.  And, upon foreseeing suffering caused by failure of his plans, he doesn't change jacksh*t about his plans.

Are you trying to undermine your own arguments or something?
30
Time for this one: let's assume there is this really powerful god who could let everyone know that he existed, and wanted everyone to know he existed. If there was such a being,  we all would know he existed.

There would be no way to not know, positively, that he existed. There would be no atheists who do not believe he exists, or "agnostics" who are not sure if he exists. We would all know that there was a god, the way we all know that there is the sun. Other than the severely mentally ill, there are no atheists or agnostics on the existence of the sun.

Since we do not all know of this god's existence, we have to re-examine our initial assumptions about this god. So, our choices are: 1) the god exists, but is not powerful enough to let every one know about him, 2) the god exists, but does not want everyone to know about him, or 3) this god does not exist so there is no god to know about.

If there is a hole in my logic, dennis, please point it out because I need to know. This is like, Chapter One of my atheist book. In fact, this is all of my atheist book. The rest is filler and jokes.  ;)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10