RoderickSpode

I'm not sure what the difference between a natural or unnatural tendency is but humans do tend to display this tendency.

I do not agree. The cave man that assumes a lion moved the grass is more likely to survive than the one who assumes it is the wind even if he is right more often. Nature favors the cautious and caution assumes (dangerous) agency.

I will let you address this since the rest of your argument hinges on this point.

The tendency of humans to anthropomorphize and assume agency.

Unless I misunderstand the question

Perhaps you can produce this atheist manifesto and we could check to see if you are truthful or a liar.

See post# 287

I own a copy of Dawkins lecture where he talked in depth on that subject, he went about showing just how ridiculous the concept of a creator and that nature evolves from simple beginnings.

Yes, have you seen a duck? I have ducks in my pond, I see them all the time. However, a person who has never seen a duck would not know a duck if it walked, quacked and waddled right past them.

Why would anyone consider a creator with a design when no such thing shows itself anywhere in nature? There are many valid explanations for nature, none of them have anything to do with religions, creators or other such magic. It would be dishonest to ignore and dismiss those explanations in favor of believing in a creator with a design.

You don't have to dismiss anything. Where are you picking that up from?

And why would a creator have to be attached to a religion? What about either a deistic creator, or a more generic theistic creator?

Communist countries are filled with religious people what privately practice their faith, it is simply not allowed in public. Too bad all theists don't practice their religions in private.

LOL (sort of).

Not quite. Christians in China have been imprisoned because they worshiped, held bible studies, held house church services in their private homes and villages.

When you say (I assume American) theists should practice our own religion in private, what exactly would that entail?

How exactly is that not (I assume) happening?

That's because religions are mans doing. A god with a brain in his head would never allow us to war over him. Yet, that's what we've observed for centuries.

Again, well it doesn't really matter then which god created us since he obviously allows for wars. Right?

If we eliminate religion, we'll have eliminated at least one reason to kill and there will be less killing, we can work on the other reasons as well.

A god with brains in his head wouldn't need you to pray or have faith, it would simply reveal itself to everyone and that would be that. False promises from false gods are useless. We need to hear from the horses mouth, not some ignorant sheep herder.

God doesn't need you to pray. Remember the apostle Paul?

But if the creator lays down the requirement for you to pray, it's entirely up to you whether or not you respond.

You're talking about your God, of course, but a god with a brain in his head would simply reveal himself to men if he wanted a relationship.

Do you hide yourself away when you want to have a relationship with someone? Seriously? How dumb is that.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Now you say an all powerful God can't have a relationship with us because of some condition? What, herpes? Are you actually reading what you write?

It's funny how theists just make up stuff whenever it suits them.

What you're wrong about is the fact you believe your God is the only god, yet there are hundreds of gods throughout history purported to exist with followers just as zealous as you. And since this is the case, the god we do happen communicate with may be nothing like your God or their gods. We can probably assume any sort of alleged supreme being would have brains in their heads and wouldn't behave anything like your vicious God or the hundreds throughout history.

Actually, isn't it YOU that is placing restrictions on what God should be? Or have you prayed to many, many gods and found that only one answers? Because again, more people do not believe in your version of god than do, which means either you're wrong or they are. 

Again I'll ask, when you're talking about versions of my God, what exactly are you talking about? Give me some examples of these versions.

They aren't making international headlines because they can't prove it. And the argument "there's no evidence for any gods, and IF THERE WERE, and that evidence pointed to the god of the bible, I wouldn't worship him because he'd be morally repugnant and not worthy of worship" isn't an argument nor is it contradictory. It is an admittedly inelegant statement pointing out (a) there's no evidence for any gods, and (b) positions a hypothetical that doesn't in any way contradict the first part. An argument would leave off the first part and just use the second part along the lines of "If the god of the bible were anything more than just a character in the book, it wouldn't be worthy of worship, because the book demonstrate a morally repugnant asshole not worth worshiping, here and here and here and here and here." 

Your scripture is written by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages, I can safely ignore anything they've written.

I suppose you can certainly safely ignore anything they've written. So long as you're not ignoring it while lying on a railroad track.

The TL:DR version of your response, then, is "no, I can't." 

This by the way would be one of those example posts not worth responding to.

Again, you mean? Sure! Just demonstrate that a being exists that cares if I jerked off in the shower when I was 13, or that will burn my friend in a lake of fire for being gay. Once you demonstrate this being, then you can demonstrate its rules and how I'm breaking them. I'll be glad to participate. Are you ever going to address anything I say?

I've never once heard or used the phrase "The Family of Man." How does the space race somehow imply devalue of human life? You realize that it's not a binary choice between the two, right? Like in the richest country on earth, there's a way to do both? Let's figure out a way to raise a ton of money, strictly for the poor, the people Jesus wanted to help, okay? Here's an idea. Maybe we can remove the property tax exemption from all churches and evangelist mansions masquerading as pastoral centers in America. Maybe the poorer, more rural churches in places like Mississippi or Carolina or Nebraska, maybe they can apply for a re-assessment and pay a PERCENTAGE of the property tax, but not 0. I mean, they take donations, right? But in the meantime, buildings like St. Pats in NYC or the National Cathedral in Washington, those places have to pay the full burden of their property taxes, because they're not hurting for money, they have well monied donor bases. ALL of that revenue goes to public housing. Can't afford it? Okay, then we have the IRS here to audit your books and adjust your rates accordingly. 

As a Christian, would you vote for that?

WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you saying if you're poor, might be a better choice to keep food on the table instead of taking a trip to Paris? Sage advice. I'm trying to figure out why you think I would NOT have made this observation without being prompted, or what it has to do with the discussion. 

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but it looks like you think I'm accusing you of negligence. Like when you went to Paris, you neglected to pay your PG&E bill or something. If that's your concern, you can remove it.

THe space race was something from sixty years ago, bud. There's no 'space race' anymore. Almost every developed country has a space program, do you think their sole purposes are "to be the coolest kids in space" or " have more of space than this other guy?" Or do you think space exploration has led to things like not only the MRI machine, but the network of satellites that carries the internet wherever your phone is, research on all manner of subjects to do with the atmosphere that you probably think are a Chinese hoax, velcro, memory foam, the ability to see almost to the beginning of time, not to mention innumerable less famous mechanical innovations? It's not JUST a source of national pride. Notred Dame cathedral was a building that hadn't changed materially in a thousand years. Landing a controllable rover on Mars only ONE HUNDRED YEARS after figuring out how to make a usable airplane...how much did religion contribute directly to that? 

No, it doesn't surprise me that you agree. The argument is unassailable: if in one day about ten people can throw $1B at an old church, IN ONE DAY, why can't that same person take $100M and build and subsidize housing for 100K people? In practical logistical terms it isn't apples to apples, but it forces us to confront the fact that churches, while nice, are not what we need. 

That's friggin hilarious. Those who truly wish to gain knowledge and understanding often pursue it and often get what they're after; knowledge and understanding. Those very same people would be more than excited to find they could communicate with a god, any god. They would pursue that goal in the interest of gaining more knowledge and understanding.

The problem, of course, is the fact there are those, like yourself, who proclaim they can communicate with God but offer no methodology whatsoever other than, "Read the Bible". Therefore, no one has any inkling on how to communicate with God.

Of course, the simple fact is there are really dumb people who proclaim to communicate with God, and we're supposed to take really dumb people seriously?

They wouldn't be excited about finding God if they consider him evil. Right? As I stated before, a big part of the militant atheist manifesto is that the God of the Bible is evil. And if he did exist, he would be someone to abhor.

Or am I wrong?

The fact that you can't provide any intellectual meat to a discussion has nothing to do with me or any imaginary group you think I belong. You're just a really dumb guy and really dumb people gravitate towards religions, because they're really dumb and they see others who aren't really dumb as some sort of elite group of intellectuals. But, they're just dumb.

You simply have to up your game to non-dumb. Can you do that rather than snubbing your nose at others and making lame excuses for your lack of honesty, integrity and intellect?

I don't think I was snubbing my nose at anyone. I was actually going to thank you for including me in your group, but I see there's a new addition to the script. It's not just dumb humans that abide on our planet, but there's the not really dumb species as well. Hmmmm, I wonder who falls into that category? Is it safe to assume that this new addition to the script favors you by any chance?

The Bible was written by men, not God. The Bible is a book that one reads. That would be like saying Bilbo Baggins is communicating with me directly when I read LOTR.

So once again, does God communicate with you?

Nature, in no way, shape or form indicates any gods whatsoever. That is utterly absurd. Only the most ignorant people would use Nature as an example of God.

The Bible was written by men, not God. The Bible is a book that one reads. That would be like saying Bilbo Baggins is communicating with me directly when I read LOTR.

So once again, does God communicate with you?

What about my explanation about God, is he smart or dumb? Would he have the brains and understanding that if he was selective, the result would be multiple religions with people killing each other, which is where we are today or would be communicate with every single human being? This has nothing to do with what I want or what you want and everything to do with what God would want.

You're last sentence is remarkably accurate.

What you're really asking is why didn't God just create us within his spiritual realm to where there would be no need to seek him, pray to him, have faith in him even when we can't physically see him, or see evidence of his promises. For some reason, God's desire is for a relationship with man in our created plane where we are not in direct contact like the created beings in heaven, and humans who have passed away and now abide in his realm. In our realm we're separated from God due to our human condition that can only be resolved individually. I can't do it for you, and you can't do it for me. What causes us to battle one another (wars, racial divisions, etc.) is man's doing. It's man's issue, not God's. People are going to kill whether there's religion or not. And we have definitive proof of this from what we've seen even to this day with communist regimes that kill not just for religious reasons.

Is that a joke? Once again, you imply that you communicate with God. Yes or No?

Who else do you know that communicates directly with God? Why are those people not making international headlines?

You're clearly going down a rabbit hole here from which you'll never escape.

That is simply not true and you know it. Try to be honest.

First off, I base this off of scripture. So why would you claim I was lying?

And since you don't believe in God anyway, why would you even make this claim? You can't be making the claim as someone who is familiar with God's character, so you must be implying this from scripture. if that's the case, where exactly in scripture are you getting this impression?

I notice you didn't answer my questions, any of them.

I'm asking because I want to know why you said if anyone wants to communicate with god, they can (not communicate TO god, communicate WITH god). Or, if you have instructions on how to pray to your specific god, I'd like to have them. I must have been doing something wrong all those years, according to you, so I should be able to find what it was in your instructions. 

This is something we've gone over at DDO. And ended there until now.

I can only speculate why God hasn't communicated with you. Since you believe that Yahweh is evil, then if Yahweh is God, why would he reveal himself to you? If you prayed hoping God would speak to you, and tell you that he's not the God of the Bible, and it happens to be that he is the God of the Bible, I guess he's not going to lie to you. Right?

In other words, as I've said before, you've placed restrictions on what God should be, or be like.

Am I wrong?

As far as how to pray, I don't think there's any particular ritual you'd have to follow. I think generally when people do seek God, to find out if he's real, would be to get alone somewhere, perhaps in kneeling position as a means to show humility. But I don't think that's really the issue/problem here.

I think the idea of directly communicating with something that created the universe, and all the events of your life and all life being part of some grand plan, and that by believing this you get to live forever in a giant chromed out mansion in paradise with that creator as your neighbor, is a comfort zone position, because as long as you believe all that, you get to be part of a giant club of similarly believing folks, feel that you're superior to all other people who don't believe as you do (as the majority does not believe what you believe, you also get the 'we're the underdogs!' stuff that feels good), and you get to think you don't ever have to die like all life before you has. If you realized how fragile your evidence for this communication is, and discovered that you've been lied to, and lying to yourself, too, and to others, it may very well be too painful. 

And we didn't even get into how you know the god of the bible is the creator of the universe. 

It's certainly comforting to know that God exists, is taking care of us (including you). As far as a comfort zone? I guess it could be if I wanted to go through mental gymnastics to qualify that claim. But there is aspects of Christianity that are not comfortable. And might be why many don't, by choice, believe.

One of course is having to come to grips with being the equivalent of a criminal. All of humanity is in that very position. I personally don't have a problem with that, but I imagine many people do. Particularly the humanists and atheist activists. Also it's very clear that we are not part of an elite group. We are not at all special. For a believer to think he's special could be a very big problem since Christ's focus is so much on the lost (non-believers). There's a parable about workers coming to work late, and getting the same pay as those who worked for a long period of time. That means that the length of time I've been a believer is fairly meaningless. The prodigal son's complaining brother is another good example of this.

But yeah. If someone has pride in humanity to the point where they don't like the idea of our accomplishments being a result of divine intervention, that person will probably have a number of issues.

If we cannot tell that it is evidence then it is not evidence for us. Evidence that is unrecognizable/unknowable/unobservable is indistinguishable from no evidence.

My point is that it's still evidence. Even if an ant isn't capable of considering it.

How is it then do you think that some people do consider nature evidence?

No, I am always willing to examine new evidence. But it has to be EVIDENCE. Not someone's story or dream. It has to be something I can demonstrate, or they can demonstrate. I'm not sure still how nature is involved. THere's tons of natural explanations for basically every phenomena we observe. 

This place did a 30 page topic on going from A god to a specific God. Not a single believer even tried, in earnest, over the course of the 30 pages. My point is even if I said "Okay, there's a creator behind this," there is still no way to connect that thing to any specific version of a myth. 

.Clearly, because there are so many vastly different versions of the character, he is either unwilling or unable to do so definitively, or he's simply incompetent at the task. Otherwise why would so many people NOT believe in him?

What exactly are there so many versions of? Yahweh? Or creator gods in general?

SO when you think injustice, you think of scientific research? Weird. I'll give you another one. Tragically, the cathedral at Notre Dame burned down about a month ago. 800 years of history, burned in a matter of hours. No, I'm not going to ask where Jesus was to put out the fire. My concern is that within about 24 hours, they'd literally received more than one billion dollars in private donation commitments, most of which came from single donors (so not $5 a piece from a 200,000,000 people). France has a massive homeless problem. Paris, specifically. Is rebuilding that old building, which will NOT be the same as the historical place that burned down, more important than using that billion dollars of private money to build housing for homeless people in France? How many low income apartments can you subsidize for a year on the billion dollars that came in in the first 24 hours of donation? Couldn't Jesus himself step in? Space missions led to the invention of stuff like the MRI machine. That Cathedral led to a souvenir shop. I'd been there, it was incredible as a tourist attraction, but it served no purpose directly to the people of Paris. 

When I think of injustice, I think of a number of things. What is this obsession with thinking I'm against scientists?

Would it surprise you if I told you I agree with you about the Notre Dame Cathedral?

First off, I wouldn't say it serves no purpose. But there's an applicable passage in scripture where a disciple makes a comment to Jesus about the magnificence of Jewish architecture. Jesus basically countered by giving a prophetic word concerning it's destruction. It's clear that the statement was more profound than just the prophesy alone, but that human life is far more important than magnificent architecture. So yes, I would place the Notre Dame cathedral in the same boat as space exploration. Nothing wrong with either perse, but neither are as important as human life. The ND cathedral is a source of national pride. Our space programs are a source of national pride as well. You like to point out where I don't comment on some of your comments, so I'll do the same concerning the race to space rivalry I noticed you didn't comment on.

Look at it this way. Is Paris a good place to take one's family? Sure! However, if you're family were starving, and may end up freezing and possibly getting sick because your electricity is about to get shut off, you'd be unwise to make that trip to Paris. As a good provider of the home, you would place food and proper shelter ahead of your desire to see Paris.

The humanists like to use phraseology like The Family Of Man. The attempt to give the appearance of being concerned about our fellow man as if we were all one big global family. Obviously that's not the case. And obviously in the case of the space race, tribalism (or nationalism) is valued over global family.

ROLLEYES. Here we go. No, the argument made by atheists is that religion should be absolutely separate from state, that you're free to worhsip your toilet if you want to, but don't make laws based on your toilet worship that affect me, and don't treat those that don't worship your toilet as inherently different than you just because they don't find your toilet as nice as you do. This inferiority complex by the religious is grating.

What exactly is your objection to my scenario? It simply illustrates your god of the gaps thinking as it pertains to medical science and how medicine and science have made gods smaller and less important in practical terms. 

Interesting. So if anyone tries communicating with god, he'll communicate back in a way that makes it very clear, at least to that person, that he's real and there and all that? So every prayer said in sincerity is answered? Or only Christian prayers? Or only CERTAIN Christian prayers? How can we tell?

Are you asking because you want to know how to pray to God?

If you pray to God, and he answers, he (or for your sake, it) will probably either be a specific God of a religion, or a more generic god with no affiliated religion. Maybe it's a step you need to take. If a god reveals itself to you, don't blame me if it turns out to be Jesus. I have nothing to do with the identity of the creator. If it turns out to be Thor, so be it.

So, if you went to this doctor with your elderly relative, who was forgetting where they were, who they were, and the doctor said "As you know, Jesus says this COULD be one of many levels of demonic possessions. That's who I believe in, and that's how I'd advise proceeding. Not medicines, not proven therapies, but just good ol' fashioned Jesus....praying and an exorcism. That's my medical advice," you're saying you'd go to one of the people who were hesitant to accept this explanation, a doctor who went to medical school and would advise this medicine plus this therapy, then that medicine and another therapy, in an effort to actively cure your relative. That is just good common sense. Except you talk about them like they're idiots for not conferring with their various gods to get to an answer. Yeah, we have to rely on humans balancing power, because humans are real and intervene in our lives, all of us. Yeah, human advancement comes at a cost in some cases. If this were such anathema to Jesus, he would step in and do something about it. Or maybe Allah would, or vishnu, or Thor. 

This anti-intelligence stuff just bugs me..."Oh, fancy book school you went to doctor, thanks but I'll just ask Jesus for help instead, you dummy!" But when put to the test, none of these bible thumpers ever eschew the doctor, instead they say "God put this doctor here and helped him come up with this plan or medicine or innovation." That's god of the gaps.

There's no need to be bugged, because I'm not promoting anti-intelligence stuff. Maybe I'm promoting anti-thinking-i'm-so-intelligent stuff. And isn't the whole argument militant atheists are making is that people of religion are unintelligent?

One big problem in your scenario is you're talking about a relative who merely forgets things. Senility, Alzheimer's, etc. So I guess you still think I belong to some religious cult handling snakes and refusing medical attention?

And as far human advancement coming at a cost, yes, but at who's cost?

What Jesus does do, as far as stepping in, is give us the responsibility to right injustices. For instance, how much do you think sending up one rocket into space costs? Now, how many starving people could have been fed with that dollar amount? If the motivation to send ships into space was because we want to beat the Russians to it, wouldn't you agree that that would be a gross violation concerning justice for the starving? Yeah, it comes at an expense alright.

Yeah, we're human,

Really? Are you now going to proclaim God communicates with you?

Yes, but it's nothing to boast about. If the Bible is true, which needless to say I believe to be the case, God has spoken to you as well since you've probably read the Bible, and in addition have observed nature.

I think the idea of non-communication with the creator is a comfort zone position, because as long as you can do that, you can actually believe you're part of some elite intellectual group that can snub their nose at the majority of humanity. If God revealed himself to you, it may very well be too painful.

wWe can assume two things about God, he is either really smart or really dumb. If we assume he's really smart, then he either makes himself completely indistinguishable from the nonexistent such that humans would never know about him or he would reveal himself to us all. If we assume he's really dumb, then he would be selective with whom he communicated. The former would lead to every human on the planet understanding that God exists, while the latter would lead us to where we are today, multiple religions with humans fighting and killing each other over which religion is right.

Or, can we assume humans are smart or dumb? If smart, they wouldn't invent gods in the first place to subject others to their will or if really dumb, they would. And, here we are today.

That is the easiest thing in the world to know, gods are the creation of humans and have no means of communicating with humans.

No one is communicating with the non existent.

So you know for a fact that there is no creator?

Okay then, change imaginary friend to Thor. How does that change your discussion? You've seen evidence of Thor. Thor exists in many texts. Just so you know, in case you say "Well, Thor's the god of thunder so he shouldn't be giving out medical advice," I can find the gods of medicine for every ancient culture. You're being intellectually dishonest. 

Don't run away, it's unbecoming. Face up to the scenario, show a modicum of courage.

What are you talking about?

Provide a creator from which to seek wisdom.

What do you mean by provide a creator? How can I provide a creator?

To which god was the prayer directed.

Which god received the prayer and which god acted on it and how can you know this?

Of Eden, of course. Christians and the western world say the Serpent is Satan, duh. But it's worth noting that Genesis was not written by Christians. It was written by ancient Hebrews who did not have the concept of the devil that we do now.

In the story, this one creature is responsible for the existence of all suffering. It literally ruins everything. And it knowingly and sneakily causes this to happen. Why? What did the authors intend this creature to be? Where did such malicious intent come from?

And was this supposed to be a real snake, or a representation of something else? Voltaire once wrote:

It was so decidedly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentateuch.

This is a part of the Bible that's a mystery, but with many valid links to consider (symbols of snakes used in different religion cultures down to the medical field, Reptilian Complex, etc. ).

A key ingredient of the serpent in the Garden, and today's deadly snakes is that there's no appeal to human morality or sanity. When a human commits a horrific act, we wonder why. We may appeal to their sanity and lack of human compassion. When a snake attacks a human, the snake is the equivalent of a movie monster for the person being attacked. There's no appeal to reptilian compassion. There's no negotiating with a snake that of course doesn't communicate with us intellectually, just as the serpent in the garden was not one to negotiate with, but who did communicate intellectually with Eve. While we may not know exactly what that serpent was, there's a considerably valid lesson to be learned from that given account whether it was conveyed literally, or symbolically.

I'm just as sure you're not, or anyone else.

Fantastic! We've just had a discussion that provided yet another reason to doubt the existence of gods. They keep stacking up.

I already said, God would communicate with us all.

If he would communicate with us all, then he could communicate with us all. You think (from what I gather) that God would communicate with everyone instead of select humans. Is that because you think God couldn't  be selective, or wouldn't?