The Blasphemy Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-01-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 11:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Also, following up on blasphemy itself, Jesus was accused of being a blasphemer (Matt. 26:59–61; John 10:33,19:7) because He claimed divinity/One-ness with YHWH, not because He called God bad names...

Then Girly's been a blasphemer for a long time now. Longer than Jesus lived even. Tongue

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
13-01-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 11:31 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  A better version of what I said is this... Not Costco, but your friends say a store is giving free pizza samples. Then one friend says it's Costco, another says Sam's, another says S-Mart, another says World Market, etc.

Now the problem with that is which one is the right one? Suppose you've gone to these stores and they've never had free samples. (In real life they have, but let's pretend they haven't.)

Now you're stuck with you've never seen free samples, and even if you like pizza which one is the right one?

Excellent thinking here, I see your logic, however the issue here is that you are currently going to no stores and receiving no pizza. (I'll take mushroom, please! Smile)

Most every time I hear the "thousands of religions" problem or paradox I think, "Yes, but only about a dozen religions claim any kind of received texts." It is certainly possible to read the Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. and draw conclusions--and it does not require in some cases reading the whole text to see the problems/discard that "faith".

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 11:58 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-01-2015 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I hear what you all are saying and tried to find a better analogy today. Let's call this one the follow-up to Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager of "If Jesus is real you gain eternal life by trusting Him, if not, you gain some earthly benefit" is half the story. The other half is that the objective rewards are obtained only by those who take them for themselves...

...Your friend says, "Costco is offering free pizza samples today at all their stores." You either go to the store or don't based on the level of trust you place in your friend. Is your friend reliable? It is likely there is really free pizza. Unreliable? He may be telling a fib. In this case, the reward is based on your choice. Here's the point, the pizza is there or isn't there, regardless of how much you trust or distrust this friend. It is possible that the pizza exists even if this is the friend you just found out is the father of your wife's baby and really isn't your friend!

Clockwork is right, you can't just assume there's evidence and say it exists but you can't see it. It is THERE, but you have to go THERE to get it, just like the pizza. There is no alternative. If YOU seek YOU will find, if YOU knock it shall be opened unto YOU.

Here's the kicker--the type of evidence God will provide to you will surely be adequate to meet your standards for falsifiability and etc. if you are seeking. It's a private party and everyone is invited but the pizza is only served at the party if you RSVP. Also, I know well that when some of you were deconverting or praying in your youth, you didn't know what the word "falsifiable" and etc. meant. You realize your standards of proof have likely increased, the longer you've been a skeptic. Okay, fine. God is powerful and able to prove Himself to anyone who WANTS to receive the proof.

My "out" is biblical--the Bible specifically addresses this notion that Jesus is for individuals who want Jesus and truth, exclusively. Are you willing to say to Jesus, "If you are real, and you will demonstrate yourself to me so I know it cannot be mere imagination or earthly reasoning, I will walk away from TTA..."?

A few problems with this, this contradicts a notion of a loving god, he just sits there and hopes that you come to him while he plans to send you to eternal torment to a place that he made. No chance at redemption after you die, the judgement is eternal.

This contradicts an all-powerful god, all he does is sit there passively and say he loves you without doing anything. This was not the case with Thomas, he doubted, Jesus showed him physical evidence, not feels, not biased interpretation of an event, actual evidence. He made powerful demonstrations in Old Testament myth, but no more.

Your conditions for evidence are acquiescence, if you already believe, then you don't require evidence, this is circular. I notice apologetic arguments are invariably constructed as a means to dodge falsifiability. This lack of falsifiability is the currency of apologetics, lack of falsifiability is where Christianity gets hung on a cross.

Let me please address the problems you raised? Yes, as you wrote, "No chance at redemption after you die, the judgement is eternal." But how many chances/opportunities did you have to reconsider/pursue Jesus? I personally have invited you to repent a dozen times in a dozen ways--if you find me off-putting I'm sorry, but I bet you've had a number of Christian believers pursue you on and offline.

Second, exactly what Thomas needed, Thomas got, to a point. Once he saw a bit, he refused to put his hand in Jesus's side and worshipped Him. If you go with "Jesus, show me you are real in a way that I will totally understand..."

Third, I get your point about acquiescence and its circular nature, but perhaps you will let me rephrase this as openness leads to illumination and revelation? Openness is required in any communication with another. Jesus has communicated to us through the Bible, through natural law and nature's wonders, the testimony of Christians, etc. You may respond with varying degrees of openness or shut down the communication. He is still interested in your salvation and cares for you. You are an active participant in brainwashing yourself away from Jesus or cleansing/washing your mind with the love of Jesus and the truths of scripture.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 03:29 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Most every time I hear the "thousands of religions" problem or paradox I think, "Yes, but only about a dozen religions claim any kind of received texts." It is certainly possible to read the Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. and draw conclusions--and it does not require in some cases reading the whole text to see the problems/discard that "faith".

Yes but all texts are ridiculous products of mankind that enable us to discard all faiths as myth. Why you cannot see this point is mind boggling. Why is it that only your texts and faith, that you seem to like and have an affinity for, are accepted and followed?

This whole seek and find crap has also got to stop because it makes you look like a flake. If i studied Greek mythology and sought out Zeus don't you think I could find evidence of him, come to understand him, and worship him just like you did with jesus (if I was filling an emotional need as you of course)? You found what you wanted to find at the get go from basing your seeking on the bible and found, surprise - jesus! If a native person to the Amazon jungle was seeking would he find jesus - NO! Do muslims find jesus - NO! Jews - NO! Why can't you see your obvious bias and wishful thinking at play here?

You must be on drugs, suffering from a serious mental condition, or taking it all on faith cuz it gives you that warm and fuzzing feeling of being special. Which is it!?!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
13-01-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 03:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  brainwashing yourself away from Jesus

That statement is so fucking hilarious that I almost choked on my teddy grahams - yum!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
13-01-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 03:34 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-01-2015 11:58 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  A few problems with this, this contradicts a notion of a loving god, he just sits there and hopes that you come to him while he plans to send you to eternal torment to a place that he made. No chance at redemption after you die, the judgement is eternal.

This contradicts an all-powerful god, all he does is sit there passively and say he loves you without doing anything. This was not the case with Thomas, he doubted, Jesus showed him physical evidence, not feels, not biased interpretation of an event, actual evidence. He made powerful demonstrations in Old Testament myth, but no more.

Your conditions for evidence are acquiescence, if you already believe, then you don't require evidence, this is circular. I notice apologetic arguments are invariably constructed as a means to dodge falsifiability. This lack of falsifiability is the currency of apologetics, lack of falsifiability is where Christianity gets hung on a cross.

Let me please address the problems you raised? Yes, as you wrote, "No chance at redemption after you die, the judgement is eternal." But how many chances/opportunities did you have to reconsider/pursue Jesus? I personally have invited you to repent a dozen times in a dozen ways--if you find me off-putting I'm sorry, but I bet you've had a number of Christian believers pursue you on and offline.

Second, exactly what Thomas needed, Thomas got, to a point. Once he saw a bit, he refused to put his hand in Jesus's side and worshipped Him. If you go with "Jesus, show me you are real in a way that I will totally understand..."

Third, I get your point about acquiescence and its circular nature, but perhaps you will let me rephrase this as openness leads to illumination and revelation? Openness is required in any communication with another. Jesus has communicated to us through the Bible, through natural law and nature's wonders, the testimony of Christians, etc. You may respond with varying degrees of openness or shut down the communication. He is still interested in your salvation and cares for you. You are an active participant in brainwashing yourself away from Jesus or cleansing/washing your mind with the love of Jesus and the truths of scripture.

Joining the pantheon of Jim Jones, Fred Phelps and other assorted nuts and flakes has very little appeal. I've judged the claims of Christianity to be outright false and shallow.
Follow the path of the charlatan, the con men and the deluded if you like, been there, done that.
I once believed as you do, but intellectual honesty showed me the true path out of the intellectual wasteland of religion.
You're here on this forum for a reason, not just to try to pick off a wavering atheist, at some level you probably know it's all bullshit too.

Take the red pill:

[Image: red-pill.png]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
13-01-2015, 04:23 PM
Re: RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 03:29 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-01-2015 11:31 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  A better version of what I said is this... Not Costco, but your friends say a store is giving free pizza samples. Then one friend says it's Costco, another says Sam's, another says S-Mart, another says World Market, etc.

Now the problem with that is which one is the right one? Suppose you've gone to these stores and they've never had free samples. (In real life they have, but let's pretend they haven't.)

Now you're stuck with you've never seen free samples, and even if you like pizza which one is the right one?

Excellent thinking here, I see your logic, however the issue here is that you are currently going to no stores and receiving no pizza. (I'll take mushroom, please! Smile)

Most every time I hear the "thousands of religions" problem or paradox I think, "Yes, but only about a dozen religions claim any kind of received texts." It is certainly possible to read the Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. and draw conclusions--and it does not require in some cases reading the whole text to see the problems/discard that "faith".

That was implied in that analogy, though. We've shopped at those stores (except S-Mart, of course). Theists usually assume we've never looked or found one faith, didn't like it, then gave up on all religions. Not true for many.

The main problem is that theists always say they have undeniable proof of their gods. However, it always boils down to the requirement that you "feel" it or is very vague (explain the eye!) or so on.

And from what I've researched, I haven't found many religions that don't claim to have divinely received texts. Satanism claims not to, but that's the only one that comes to mind at the moment. I know there are a couple more. (I'm drugged up for an acute bacterial infection, so the noggin is not 100%.) After all, it's difficult (possible?) to have a religion without a deity.

And damn it, now I want a pizza so badly. Damn you, Q! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 03:46 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(13-01-2015 03:29 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Most every time I hear the "thousands of religions" problem or paradox I think, "Yes, but only about a dozen religions claim any kind of received texts." It is certainly possible to read the Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. and draw conclusions--and it does not require in some cases reading the whole text to see the problems/discard that "faith".

Yes but all texts are ridiculous products of mankind that enable us to discard all faiths as myth. Why you cannot see this point is mind boggling. Why is it that only your texts and faith, that you seem to like and have an affinity for, are accepted and followed?

This whole seek and find crap has also got to stop because it makes you look like a flake. If i studied Greek mythology and sought out Zeus don't you think I could find evidence of him, come to understand him, and worship him just like you did with jesus (if I was filling an emotional need as you of course)? You found what you wanted to find at the get go from basing your seeking on the bible and found, surprise - jesus! If a native person to the Amazon jungle was seeking would he find jesus - NO! Do muslims find jesus - NO! Jews - NO! Why can't you see your obvious bias and wishful thinking at play here?

You must be on drugs, suffering from a serious mental condition, or taking it all on faith cuz it gives you that warm and fuzzing feeling of being special. Which is it!?!

I've read most of the Qu'ran, some of the Upanishads and Book of Mormon, a lot of materials from the Krishnas, Scientologists, Moonies, Judaism, Buddhists, etc. to draw some conclusions. Where atheists say all religions are ridiculous, Christians can almost agree--one or two is spot on, brother!

And here are the other two things you said, that I don't mind telling you I find disagreeable. 1) My "obvious bias" when I read the Bible as an adult wanting to find ANYTHING but religion or following Jesus. 2) Are all theists on drugs, mental or gushing about warm and fuzzies only without facts? Those inflammatory statements (pun intended re: anti-inflammatory statements) are as silly to apply of all theists as they would be all atheists. Some atheists IMO are making emotional responses to God, some intellectual, some a mix. I don't think atheists are high or imbalanced. That's an unfair characterization.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(13-01-2015 04:23 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(13-01-2015 03:29 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Excellent thinking here, I see your logic, however the issue here is that you are currently going to no stores and receiving no pizza. (I'll take mushroom, please! Smile)

Most every time I hear the "thousands of religions" problem or paradox I think, "Yes, but only about a dozen religions claim any kind of received texts." It is certainly possible to read the Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. and draw conclusions--and it does not require in some cases reading the whole text to see the problems/discard that "faith".

That was implied in that analogy, though. We've shopped at those stores (except S-Mart, of course). Theists usually assume we've never looked or found one faith, didn't like it, then gave up on all religions. Not true for many.

The main problem is that theists always say they have undeniable proof of their gods. However, it always boils down to the requirement that you "feel" it or is very vague (explain the eye!) or so on.

And from what I've researched, I haven't found many religions that don't claim to have divinely received texts. Satanism claims not to, but that's the only one that comes to mind at the moment. I know there are a couple more. (I'm drugged up for an acute bacterial infection, so the noggin is not 100%.) After all, it's difficult (possible?) to have a religion without a deity.

And damn it, now I want a pizza so badly. Damn you, Q! Smile

I have undeniable proof of Jesus but cannot impart it to someone who doesn't truly want it - for an analogy consider a doctor who has a pill that can save you but you send him a drop dead email, then place his emails on ignore and never darken the door of his office again. I'm sorry but I have to call it as I see it and I've had dozens if not hundreds of "Q, I hear you saying I just need to ask God sincerely but I don't want to ask Him today" conversations. I think I will be seeing people in Hell who rejected my plea and that totally sucks.

I used this recipe at home last night to great effect, on another note. Consider crisping both sides before adding sauce and toppings. Mine had mushroom and sweet peppers...

http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/10/cast-...d-lab.html

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(14-01-2015 11:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I have undeniable proof of Jesus but cannot impart it to someone who doesn't truly want it - for an analogy consider a doctor who has a pill that can save you but you send him a drop dead email, then place his emails on ignore and never darken the door of his office again.

I would expect that doctor to make efforts to contact others who could get the information to the patient. If he didn't take reasonable steps to try to help I'd label him as immoral.

If that doctor were the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator of everything who is supposed to desire a loving relationship with every one of his creations and he didn't just make it happen I'd label him as the most evil, immoral agent to ever exist.

If the Christian god exists it has earned contempt, not worship. Luckily there's no reason to believe it exists except in the minds of the deluded.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: