I often see debates about the real teachings of Jesus.  This presupposses that there was a real Jesus instead of some composite mythological entity.Jesus thereby becomes more real.  Suppose for a minte that there were four versions of the adventures of Tom Sawyer (the other three authors would be Matthew Twain, Luke Twain and John Twain).  Then there might be discussions regarding the disparities between the three versions with the similarities reinforcing the validity of his existance.  People might start to believe he was a real person.

I saw “The Magdalene Sisters” a lot of times.  I never could understand the ending where it shows what happened to each girl; and the girl whose child they took remained a devout catholic throughout her life…even though she had been hurt so badly. 

The other girl who kept shouting “you’re not a man of god” before they put her in the nuthouse, died of anorexia in that same nuthouse.

What a crock of shit.  This should not be a legal instituion any longer.  What in the hell are we thinking?  There are bad doctors, too?  Wow!  That really helps.  And it was an incredibly ignorant statement.

Saw it. Good movie. What it didn’t tell you was that the girls were not allowed to talk to each other. (There’s also a documentary that clarifies the abuse)

They had to pray all day and ask for forgiveness. Why Catholics can’t see that the structure of the Church will always lead to moral corruption at the top (The top starts with the priesthood) is beyond me. Heard a woman the other day, in response to this, say “oh there are bad doctors too…”...and with that the entire problem was kissed off for her. But this isn’t a bad doctor….this is bad organization that is always ripe for ignoring the wrong doing of it’s members to save face. It happens over and over and over again…yet intelligent sheep can’t see it, won’t see it, and for sure don’t want to think about it. They just want to follow the RC churches recipe for heaven.

In Goodwill, I recently picked up a manual for some Spanish RC religious group. I have yet to read it or reserach it..and it has a 100 pages or so of rules…but did catch one rule…. that if a monsignor dies each person in this organization is to do five novenas in the dead person’s name. That implies that God can:
a. Count to five
b. Has at at least one recipe for entry to eternity
c. That accumulated novenas count
d. That more novenas is better
e. And it implies that this god is an idiot and that given the chance, the normal person would throw Him or Her or It of the house .

If you really want to weep, check out a 2002 movie called “The Magdalene Sisters”!!

Oh wow!  I never dreamt that you meant to read it and “weep” literally. :(  Big tears!

Still, the truth has to be told over and over until the Vatican crumbles all around itself.

I kept thinking that after the earthquake in L’Aquila,Umbruzzo this past month, why didn’t this happen to the Vatican??  I would love to see her in shambles.  Sorry to say..but it’s the truth.

read it
and weep….

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ire land_catholic_abuse

Jarod…thanks…will do…

Also

Perhaps it’s time for many of us to start to visit believer networks and share some of our sources for doubt with them. And compare notes here. After all,  we deserve to have fun too.

Annie and theSned,

It is great to see that you are still around answering the questions of the ‘still(?)’ religiously inclined.
‘Hope for atheists’, interesting subject. It seems to me that if your ‘hope’ is that things get only better ‘after death’, you automatically lower the quality of your ‘present’ life inevitably and considerably.
I have switched my attention to richarddawkins.net some time ago. Interesting things are happening there. A real gem by Sam Harris was in:

Jerry Coyne’s ‘Seeing and Believing’ with responses
by Jerry Coyne, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker
( http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html )

Jarod

Hi Willy C.

What SNED said.    And…

What is hope for the religious?  my guess is that our hopes are not too different with the exception that the atheist bases their hopes on everyday things in the one life we know we have, and not in some hereafter that was spoken of through teachers of a bronze-age whose messages always corresponded with THEIR people’s lives.

But, again, my guess would be that in a religious person’s everyday life, their hopes are pretty much in the here and now (just like the atheist’s), until Sunday morning comes around—OR the right preacher selling the latest scare tactic on the radio.

Ian,

Good philosophical argument against philosophy.  Thank you. :D

This statement sums it up perfectly: “What is important is how it affects OUR reality, and our lives.”

How has religion affected lives in the largest realm of our conscious idea of reality?  We’re not ALL supposing in a dream state that the Inquisition, Reformation and beheading of many people in Islamic countries are just OUR individual reality.  Thus, through LOGIC we can surmise that it is bad for society and does, in fact, do damage and is not good.

Willy…

The Hope for Atheists is that believers spend more than zero time questioning their own religion from a point of view that is more advanced than that of a third grade understanding, and a cave person’s knowledge of science. Then we would have less to fear from the fears and prejudices of believers. Believers justify far to much hatred based on their infantile and unquestioning faith. Want proof? The gay marriage issue. The belief that the whole family structure will collapse if gays get married is ludicrous. And this kind of hate has proven false time and time again..as in mixed race marriage.

The soul, resurrection, miracles and the concept of god itself are all inventions of ancient man. We understand that and deal with it. Believers don’t or can’t deal with it. We read about the formation of religions. The political side of religion. And what causes power to corrupt it as it corrupts all belief and political systems.

We want in our daily lives what believers want. Peace happiness and freedom. The golden rule fits us fine….but even that has never been subject to science. If you are a Muslim and steal…then you must agree that your hand should be cut off by other believers. Is that do unto others?  Yes. Does that belief system fit mine? No. Can we go out and rape and murder just because we don’t worship an unproven god? No. We have the same ability to do that as you do. The highest divorce rate in this country is where people are most religious.

It is interesting that people who are dying in hospitals who are very religious demand the most care…and the most techniques to keep them alive. Apparently when facing death the unproven nature of common religious belief breaks down.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes. But find a atheist soldier in a foxhole praying to god you’ll find not a believer but someone who hopes believers are right.

If your’e a parent you don’t ask your kids to call you every day and thank you for bringing them into the world. We believe that if there is a god, he or she or whatever…will be less infatuated with himself and less prone to allowmankind to decide what He She or Whatever are like.

In closing get this free book from Google books ” Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions” (now available free from Google Books)

If you’re a believer, you’ll be one up on your friends. If this isn’t a good enough answer for you, comment on… others here will try to help you.

Font page news…NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?_r=2&hp;

By Hala, April 19 at 5:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Atheism is a valid choice,”

It’s not a choice.  It is the same DISbelief that you too, were born with.  It is exactly how we come into this world—with zero knowledge of any stories of any gods, monsters et.al.  Only with THEISM is there a choice, and it’s always between who has the “truth” and/or the right god.  Wars are waged for this ridiculous, superstitious cloud guy who has never shown himself.  Many have died and been torn up to bits for believing in the wrong superstition or the wrong sky daddy.  But until you can provide evidence, then my skepticsm remains.

Thanks for joining us. But you needn’t preach about bigotry.  The stats on the religious vs. atheists in regard to bigotry would stagger your mind—in favour of the atheist.

Hala

“I don’t see the difference between atheist fundamentalists and the Spanish inquisition. ”  (Hala)

Now why would you say something that is so fundamentally ridiculous!!!
You can’t compare “but names will never hurt me” to impaling, stretching, breaking, drowning, burning and lord knows whatever else the RCC church did to rational human beings.

The majority of atheists here are open minded individuals…who if a god showed up on their front stairs would probably become believers.

Most of us here have seen no evidence for your god, but can no longer prove that there is no god any more than you can prove there is one. 

You rely on levels of faith that even you don’t discuss in church. You have to believe in what the ancients created. Like the soul, life hereafter, and resurrection, all invented thousands of years before Christ….then you have to believe in the not unique mysteries and powers of Jesus, and then in the writers the earliest of whom never met Jesus,(Paul)  and the faith in all the other writers who never met Jesus and all the .....I can’t go on…. because it’s forever. There were more mistakes in copying the bible in the 2nd and 3rd centuries than there are words in the bible!

Most of us have studied the bible from an objective point of view and are very familiar with its failings. Annie can quote it better than the most educated Christians. If we know more about Christianity does that give us a right to call you naive? Why not?. Or ignorant? Why not?

Name calling isn’t torture. If all you believe is in a book that you accept fully without an ounce of inquisitiveness as to its authenticity factuality relevance and originality that’s your problem. We rely on evidence and searching on a multiplicity of levels. Who invented what and why where and when. Who wrote what and what was their purpose in writing. Where did the concept of power come into play (Read about Constantine)...who lied….why? Where are the contradictions in the bible. Was there a real Jesus?

To jump up and down and say there is no god is one thing. If you want to stay here and discuss what we believe…and why we believe, I’ll assure you will learn that the folks here AREN’T the fundamentalists your refer to. That we have rational reasons….for why we think as we do. And we tend to not abuse people. Now do you have a question?

The issue is Atheist.

This is the final issue I will deal with in this site.

Atheist is a negation that takes on a positive position in presentation of an Atheist Manifesto.

It is quite true that there is no evidence of a God such that mankind, or any other sapient being anywhere, could believe rules a personal existence with a plan of individual redemption in a life here or a life hereafter. Religion relies upon a deep yearning for “Everlasting Life.” The soul of man is tuned to the concept of eternity as a personal experience in the existence of individuals. In our conflict between life and death of the soul we extend our assumption of permanence to include permanence of the present state or something akin to the present state in a life after death with preferences and imagination of comfort and joy forever.

The atheist is committed to reject all deity as personal and compliant with human desire. The atheist does not reject truth or the operation of truth in arguments against God. The atheist could not accept Truth as God, though truth is a higher concept than God. Truth is higher as a nominal being necessary to the existence and all acts of any presumed God. True, as an adjectival modification of a concept of all that is, and as an adjectival modification of a all that is not, rises above God and man. Truth rises above all reality and existence.

Truth cannot be plural, but all that is true involves, certainly, plurality. ‘A truth’ applies to only one condition, true. Even not true, is a form of truth, such that it is true that something is not true. The resolution of the double negation of true/not true, is in truth, positive.

Existence is not a condition of truth, but truth is a condition of existence or non-existence.

Truth is more than abstraction from reality and existence. Truth is a transcendental highest concept of what is. Truth is generic to all that is true. What is true is specific of everything true. Thus, many things are true, but there is only one truth. Truth is tautological, thus cannot be not true.

Fact does not equal true, but all facts are true. The statement of matter of fact that is not true is false.

I have no argument for the atheist or for the theist. My thesis is that truth rises above all that is true, thus above any concept of God, true or not true. Truth is that than which nothing greater could be conceived.

The issue is math and God.

To say that ‘quantum physics’ is proof of God is valid for a physical world. It is more valid than saying that the Book of Genesis is the proof of the existence of and the work of God.

In math and physics, including quantum physics, physical evidence is taken out of reliance upon senses and sense perception for measurements. Math is true, whether any application exists or not in the physical world. By the statement that math is true, I mean that the math concepts validly derived by mathematic reasoning in the form of equations that can be manipulated vigorously in valid configurations. It is true that the human functions in the realm of physical senses subject to traditional analysis empirically applied. Yet there is a higher sense that rules not only the mundane body senses, but the metaphysical and supra-natural. I use supra-natural rather than supernatural deliberately in order to take this out of the realm of superstition.

Atheists have a need to believe that there is no God. Thus any definition of an ultra-existence or condition must be denied as a violation of their reason for being an atheist. Theists have a need to believe that there is a God. Thus any revelation that the evidence is flimsy must be rejected as a violation of their reason for being a theist. Skeptics are on more solid ground, but with greater uncertainty. Apologists are on flimsy ground, but with even more uncertainty.

An examination of the higher truth of all math formulas and symbolic logic reveals a realm of truth not accessible to the physicists, theologists, and atheists. The simple case of an imaginary number in math, which I will not explain lest someone be insulted for ignorance, explains an area of truth such that something can never be physically true in a positive sense. Thus there is never a time when an object in trajectory is above its highest point in a gravitational field. Yet there is a vast area where the object cannot be, not just one point of non-being. The imaginary number combines with real numbers to quantify non-existence in terms of real existence in math formulae. To say that imaginary numbers are invalid to the point of rejection of any significance is to labor the illusions.

Just what is meant by the term in logic, universal negative? To say that the universal negative cannot be affirmed by finding no specimens, is higher level mental acuity. Yet, also of higher level mental acuity affirms the exclusion of the universal negative by the finding of one specimen in the universe.

Atheists, finding no God, cannot conclude no God. But finding no God does not add anything to the belief that there is a God. Defining a human who is presumed to have existed in the past as God, begs the credibility, if not the question. To claim that an object of physical composition is God, also demands skepticism. Now to say that a quantum physics formula is God, or that the greatest physicist of all time believes in God, or to say that some early biologist was a Monk in a Roman Catholic order of men, proves anything, but that he had time to do what he did as a pastime.

Let us continue to explore truth with the aid of mathematic formulae, and to examine reality with the microscope and super magnetic particle accelerator. Let us continue to explore truth with super telescopes in orbit high above atmospheric interference. Let us continue to explore truth in the physical sense, and in the theoretic sense. Let us abandon the supernatural in favor of the supra-natural application of reason beyond the capacity of the flesh and bone to plumb in its true dimensions. The only thing that we can know is that something is or is not true. We cannot know with certainty, if something is true, in fact. And we cannot know with certainty that something is, in fact, not true. We can know in truth that it is either or, but not both. We can also know if it is not both, and maybe neither. All else is science and technology.

Thanks Annie…that was fun!

Enjoy this YouTube series debate between xian apologists and an atheist debater named “Ozmoroid”..  It’s full of fantastic facts, reason and logic.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=593BA5751817A001

The issue is skepticism.

I am a skeptic, not for the purpose of disagreeing, but because I have a mind that demands order and meaning of language. All claims of angels, devils, and other demon and deities require a dose of skepticism.  If something requires faith in miracles or unexpected events and visions, beware.

That is not to say that all knowledge and belief is trivial. Not at all. The matter of credibility is not enough to justify or to deny belief. Who would have believed, much less, have knowledge of DNA, genes, chromosomes, and specific genomes, a thousand years ago? Certainly, no one in the time of Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, or Abraham could have had such knowledge. Superstition was the science of the day. Mythology is the study of superstitious belief in detail with names and descriptions, graphics and gratuities.

Credibility does not require belief, nor belief, credibility. Preponderance of evidence demands attention and skepticism lest one fall into the chasm of errors. Language is only one of the walls of the chasm of errors. Errors of observation and gullibility is the other. There is no bottom to the chasm of errors. Logically, one certain exception denies universality. Thus, one of a kind rules out universal negation, but absence of specimens does not rule in universal negative. Universe means all of a domain of one. Linguistically, there is a higher and a lower criticism. Higher criticism explores universality, while lower criticism explores trivia.  Thus, lower involves the particular, while higher excludes trivial matters. To say that water is water is a lower level tautology. It is necessarily true, but who cares? To say that truth implies and requires something true is a higher level tautology, still lower level. To say that God requires truth, is a higher tautology. Existence of God is not required for that to be true. As Ghandi said, “No God is higher than truth.” Another tautology. To say that nothing is higher than truth, does not say that nothing at all is higher, but that there exists no thing that can be without it being true that it is.

Thus skepticism is deeper than to ridicule the trivial. There is a higher criticism.

The issue is Nazareth, the village.

There are several ideas about the village of Nazareth on the Internet. Here is one. But, there are several more. If you research the matter you will find everything from a Gospel of Nazareth, to this one http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

There is a village in the Northern area near Golan Heights that resembles in literation, Nazareth. It is said to have certainly existed from Jesus’ time. Though there is a question as to the original name of the village now called Nazareth and assumed to be the Nazareth of traditional celebration as the birthplace of the Jesus, it is hard to find an authoritative evidence. Gnostic gospels do mention some evidence, which I once found, but cannot now locate that the Jesus was born in a town distant from his home town of Nazareth, wherever it was at the time of his birth.

The most probable explanation is that he was not a Nazerite, but a believer in ‘Nostre’ doctrine, which gave rise to the virgin birth belief through evolution of oral tradition over time. The term Nazarene does not imply birth in, or residence in Nazareth. Was Jesus a Nosterine?

My take is that these are matters of lower criticism, not higher criticism. Virgin birth is a long standing miracle of various religions of man. Any miraculous birth is taken to be proof of godhood for a man. Miracles themselves of all manner of presentation are taken as proof of special existence and power. By that standard, any circus magician could have become Jesus of Nazareth under sufficient public deception and mass stupidity. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a case in point. My fundamentalist first son believed that he got the message in a double exposure 35 mm film print when he was in the Marines. All Hell and half of Heaven could not persuade him that Jesus had not appeared to him in the medium of the day. The other half of Heaven is where the devils of diversion dwell.

Could it be true? If so, is it true? if true, is it significant? Who cares? I believe that the story of virgin birth is so ridiculous as to require any rational human being to reject it. So is the story of The Prophet, Mohammed, ascending to Heaven on a white horse, and all such drivel. These are not matters of truth, but matters of trivial pursuit in the name of truth. So the issue is not actually, Nazareth, but the credibility of such claims.

There is a higher concept of truth such that it is impossible to lie, even to the self. Truth as the practical level does include trivial details not rising to the level of a deity, but both linguistically and logically, truth is of a higher order. Facts and fancies are of the lower order, but important in their own light.

“The general archaeological picture is of a small village, devoted wholly to agriculture, that came into being in the course of the 3rd century B.C.  Although there are traces of earlier Bronze Age or Iron Age occupation, none of these suggests a continuity of more than a generation at a time.  It is the late Hellenistic period that gives life to Nazareth, as it does with many other sites which have been surveyed or excavated in the Galilee.  People have continued to live in Nazareth from the 3rd century B.C. to the present day.”  The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.4 “Nazareth.”  (1992)

This source doesn’t go out of its way to point out Bible errors, but it is a scholarly source.  Of course, that doesn’t really answer the question as to whether there was a town called “Nazareth” there in Jesus’ time.  Quite likely the association was invented at a later time when the town—now Nazareth—acquired some religious significance, a time when the details of Jesus’ earthly existence were first being formulated.  Note that the genuine, eight Pauline letters, the earliest material on Jesus,  never mention Jesus’ birth place or much of anything else that could pin him down to a particular places and times.

Just for the heck of it I did a tiny bit of research on Nazareth…wikipedia has among other things this

“Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[51] His arguments include the following:
No “ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD].”[52]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.”

It would be interesting to see if archeologists have found new unknown, and unmentioned towns not mentioned in the sources above in that area.

If the answer is negative it adds another point to the likelihood that Nazareth never existed as a town with that name at that time.

Anyone know where to look?

I loved that link, SNED.  There are so many side links that are just as interesting, too.  I saved it to my favourites.  Thanks.

GreenSnake thanks for the addition..I’ll paste it into my copy.

A common (and mistaken) notion is that myths arise after the collective memory gets a little fuzzy, that some significant amount of time, therefore, must pass between events and the mythical versions of them.  Quite often myths will arise in outlying, faithful communities because of their distance (and isolation) from the main center of things.  Distant communities of new converts are generally drawn from people with different cultural backgrounds (from which they will interpret the new religion), and they will add to the story as seems right to them.  The idea, so often brought up by fundies, that the truth would soon get back and crush these emergent versions just isn’t the case.  In one historical instance, even the cult leader could not stamp out emerging myths based on him!  Robert M. Price, a noted scholar who also worked on the Dead Sea scrolls, does an excellent job explaining this point in his excellent book “Beyond Born Again.”  Therefore, myths can arise immediately in many cases.  Decades need not intervene between events and mythical versions of them.

The Exodus is absurd for all the reasons mentioned.  Moreover, based on the inflated numbers given in the Bible, there must have been around 3 million people tromping about the Sinai!  Add to that their herds of cattle, etc.  Lack of evidence is, especially given that the Sinai was given a good going over after the Six-Day war, clear evidence for lack of existence.  Need I point out that 600,000 fighting men was about the best that the Persian Empire, drawing from all their far-flung provinces, could muster in their attempt to conquer the Greeks.  And, one of Egypt’s greatest battles of Old-Testament times involved little more than 5000 soldiers if I recall.  Hey!  Instead of fleeing, the Hebrews would have conquered Egypt with those numbers!

Excellent find, The Sned!  It is not often one can find a summary that is so full of interesting, scholarly details, so nicely put together, with an effort to be even-handed.  I am definitely learning a few things from this summary!  A few interesting points did get left out, which is not surprising for even a good summary.  When the refugees from the north (after Israel was busted by the Assyrians) came south they brought their versions of their religious stories as mentioned.  (It was only natural that the basic, religious accounts should evolve somewhat differently in the northern and southern areas.)  It seems that some kind of compromise was reached to produce one, unified, written account that would satisfy both sides.  The northern and southern accounts appear to have been snipped into little pieces, factoids if you will,  that were skillfully woven together and interpreted to make one account, an account that essentially contained the material from both sources!  Hence, you have this odd doubling of material in the Pentateuch.  For example, the door to the ark gets shut twice; two periods for the flood exist; the flood comes to an end twice, etc.  If you read the flood account, notice how many of these duplications are given slightly different interpretations so that they fit together naturally.  Moreover, these two sets of “factoids” correlate with two, different names for God, the northern and the southern.  And there is much more.  Friedman, a noted Bible scholar, nicely unravels these two strands (and later strands) in his very readable book “Who Wrote the Bible.”

The reason that the Jerusalem Temple was trashed by Nebuchadnezzar is that Judah had forsaken its oath to the Babylonians and revolted in league with several other states, no doubt encouraged by the Egyptians.  I believe that on an early campaign against Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar sent out envoys to secure the allegiance (as vassals) of the nearby towns and cities.  If I recall, a new king (from the local royalty) was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar for Judah, and a number of royal citizens were taken back to Babylon for training (and as security).  That is probably the basis for the later story of Daniel.  Tribute would likely have been paid as well, but the temple was not trashed and there, of course, was no siege at that time. The destruction came about 13 years later when Judah double-crossed Nebuchadnezzar. (An inconclusive battle with Egypt left both powers weakened for a time, the signal for vassal revolt.)

As for Ezekiel, God’s specific (and weird) requirement was for him to bake his bread with dried, human dung—not to eat that dung.  However, Ezekiel protested and God allowed him to use the dried dung of cattle.  (Ezekiel 4:12-15.)

Another great wonderful read!!!!!!!!

I found this web site by accident. It has a 29 page doc that’s very well written concise and easy to read. Oddly enough at the some time I found this had just begun reading one of the books recommended on the site.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

The subject matter ...history of Christianity and an explanation for the Myth of Jesus…though written in what appears to me to be a very objective point of view.

“Truth: The monistic concept of what is true. What is true cannot be not true, a tautology. It is true that any atomic proposition is either true or not true. It is not true that there is any proposition that is not ‘true or not true.’”—Frank

This is not a definition, Frank!  Definitions don’t contain arguments.  Definitions don’t contain factual claims.  The purpose of a definition is to explain what a word means, not to advance an argument or a claim about the nature of things.  Moreover, your statement “It is not true that there is any proposition that is not ‘true or not true.’’ is suspect.  What about a sign that has “The other side is false.” on one side and “The other side is true.” on the other side.  Is the proposition on the first side true or false? 

“Truth: The monistic concept of what is true.” is a start, but you shouldn’t define “truth” in terms of what is “true” or “not true.”  That’s like defining “sharpness” in terms of “sharp” or “roundness” in terms of what is round.  You need to find other words.  Moreover, you need to unpack the metaphysical monistic concept of what is true.  Some concrete examples would be helpful.  Remember, the whole point of a good definition is to make clear the meaning of your word, not to send us on a fishing expedition into some arcane area of metaphysics where many definitions might be had.  Is “truth” merely “existence”?  Is “truth” a quality pertaining to statements?  Does “truth” have some kind of physical existence?  Or is it some kind of spiritual concept?  Are we talking about some kind of intelligent being?  A precise definition should give us the means to answer these questions and others.  I never said it would be easy.  Maybe you should start with some concrete examples of what is true (according to your definition) and then explain how “truth” relates to them.  That might be a good way to get the ball rolling.

The issue is definition and tautology.

Definition of truth as used in my writing was originally and always defined and limited to the usage employed. Since some read only part of what is written and complain that the rest is ‘missing’, I give the defined limits of truth.

Truth: The monistic concept of what is true. What is true cannot be not true, a tautology. It is true that any atomic proposition is either true or not true. It is not true that there is any proposition that is not ‘true or not true.’

The issue is you, Frank.

It is certainly true, as you have pointed out, that the complete meaning of a word, often modified by the context, cannot be captured precisely in a dictionary.  Indeed, foreign phrases often have no precise translation because the cultural context doesn’t carry over.  However, it does not follow that we may dispense with defining our terms simply because a perfect definition is not available or practical.  Given your unorthodox use of many terms and phrases, it is absolutely essential that you define those terms and phrases.  The fact that readers of this forum are generally well educated does not make them privy to you unorthodox usage.  Moreover, as analytical philosophers have pointed out time and again, many common words (that we all think we understand) harbor deep confusions.  That is why good philosophers and scientists alike take the trouble to define their terms, which yields a specialized vocabulary attached to those disciplines.  Careful definitions often lay bare the unexamined assumptions employed.  One of the reasons science is so successful is because scientists are very careful about defining their terms. 

Frank, my disagreement with you is more than just a poke in the ribs with a cattle prod for the fun of puncturing your inflated ego.  Given that you speak in behalf of some rather technical philosophical ideas, your lazy habit of not defining your terms simply cannot be tolerated!  (If anyone here understands your point, they should explain it to the rest of us.)  The problem is not our education, Frank, but the fact that your undefined terms/phrases—and even some of your reasoning—leave few clues as to what is going on in your mind. 

You invited us to study tautology.  What is there about a tautology that cannot be learned in about 60 seconds?  Here, I am GreenSnake and, therefore, I have a forum name.  Wow! Such profound, deep thinking!  Who would have guessed!  A tautology is certain because it doesn’t really say anything.  In logic, a tautological argument takes us into a bit of a technical definition, but the end result is the same—certainty about nothing. 

A study of tautology (and logic) cannot clarify arguments based on fuzzy wording!  The fact that we won’t likely take your advice here is an indication of our intelligence—not a badge of ignorance or arrogance.  Those subjects are irrelevant to the problem at hand, namely your lazy refusal to define your terms. Your other great fault is a refusal to address the salient criticisms; you repeat yourself like a broken record.

The issue is faith.

As with most words and terms, faith has a contextual meaning in addition to and restrictive to the formal meaning. The formal meaning in a correspondence test is that faith implies reliability. In the coherence test faith is mutually meaningful in a tight connection to the meaning.

Dictionaries, thesaurus, and encyclopedia, help sort out the induced ambiguity introduced by loose and colloquial applications. For those loosely attached to their meanings could never restrict meaning to the contextual identity required by coherence and correspondence in any context. In a larger forum of readers, it would be necessary to place restrictions and provide latitude in the intended usage. This forum is generated from a reader class expected to be grounded in the fundamental assumptions of education. Beyond that, dictionaries, thesaurus, and encyclopedia as well as Wikipedia are available to expand the knowledge base needed in the restrictive use of space here.

For those who prefer to disagree just for the fun of disagreement, I refer you to the books of fiction you so much enjoy. Your disagreement can be exercised by closing the book and leaving the scene of your confusion and distaste without damage to your sensitivities.

For those with intellectual integrity and honest conviction of the power of language, I invite a study of the tautology, as well as, other terms that cover the subject of credibility and belief. For those too timid or too arrogant to do that, I suggest that you confine yourselves to your own dungeon of ignorance. You will be happier there.

“I would be the first to admit that credibility is sufficient for most mundane acts and beliefs, but faith in truth is needed for a faith in anything else.”—Frank

“Is it enough for anyone to believe that faith in anything is grounded in absolute truth of truth?”—Frank

GreenSnake:  As I’ve said many times, Frank, if you don’t give a precise definition of your words and key phrases then you are not speaking precisely.  We can only guess at what you are trying to say, because your key words/phrases have no clear meaning to us.  You are just stirring the mud in the pond.

What do you mean by “faith in truth”?  “Faith” has two common meanings: One, a belief in something contrary to the evidence or without evidence; two, a belief in something based on what seems to be a favorable preponderance of evidence, a good track record if you will.  The first I would call “religious faith.”  The second I would call “scientific faith.”  Both deal with models as to how the real world is constructed.  Neither appears to apply to “truth,” which at best is a verification label of some model.  What would even be the point in having “faith in truth”?  Does it confer greater accuracy to a scientific faith?  Faith in a doctor is a meaningful concept; faith in “truth” appears to be an empty concept.  Faith in our reasoning ability or our perception of the world is a meaningful concept; “faith in truth” appears to be a confused or barren concept.  So tell us.  What are you talking about when you talk about “faith in truth”?  Is that your way of saying that we ought to accept that our sensory data are meaningful, that things really do exist more or less as we collectively perceive them?  Perhaps you are saying that we ought to accept that nature is consistent, allowing us to talk meaningfully about it.  Perhaps you are simply saying that we should accept that there are statements about the real world that are true. 

And, what do you mean by the “absolute truth of truth”?  That appears to be a tautology, and tautologies say nothing about anything, let along something useful.  Give me any true statement about reality and I can assure you with 100% absolute certainty that it is true!  Have I performed some great service?  Have I uncovered new knowledge? Hardly!  Therefore, what is the point of your phrase “absolute truth of truth”?  Why does “truth” need the additional assurance of being absolutely true?

“Truth” is merely a label that applies to statements about reality, whether physical or logical.  Such statements can be true, false, or undecidable.  Now, there’s a definition that makes sense!  Everything that we could ever know about reality would be summed up in the set of all true statements, which we could call “truth,” except for conscious feeling/sensation.

The issue is credibility. Is credibility sufficient to justify belief or to sustain action?

I would be the first to admit that credibility is sufficient for most mundane acts and beliefs, but faith in truth is needed for a faith in anything else.

Is it enough for Jews to have faith that their God gave them Palestine as their Promised Land?

Is it enough for Christians to have faith that Jesus is God in person?

Is it enough for Muslims to have faith that Mohammed, the Prophet (PBUH), is a true messenger of God?

Is it enough for Buddhists to have faith that Gautama received his enlightenment as claimed?

Is it enough for Hindus to believe that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of the Godhead?

Is it enough for the atheist to know that Sam Harris resolves the issues of blind faith.

Is it enough for me to believe that there is not god higher than truth?

Is it enough for anyone to believe that faith in anything is grounded in absolute truth of truth?

For practical purposes it is enough to rely upon general standards of credibility. Common sense is the test. But, common sense is not universal and universal tests are not accepted by all. What is common sense one time and place is certainly not common sense here and now.

One such scenario is enough, but here are several: The case of a virgin birth of a child who grew up to be God incarnate. The case of Sarah, wife of Abraham, and her surrogates to birth a successor to Abraham’s estate, raises more issues of credibility than of faith in God. The issue of Mohammed meditating in an isolated cave when he received a visit from Archangel Gabriel is another. The issue is of Moses and his burning bush conversation with Jehovah, who gave Moses a credible list of ten commandments and assured his reality by saying, “I am that I am.” Other issues of credibility arise in the myths, dogmas, and creeds of each religion based upon faith in the truth of the original perpetrator, the universality of God, and threats of punishment for disobedience.

Yet, modern science makes leaps and bounds in the discovery of useful materials, forms, and procedure, all based on credibility and experience in the execution of processes and the product of knowledge gained through research. It is enough that the research results in real things and useful products. Credibility is still based upon probability. Assumptions of evolution are based upon verification of hypothetic constructions of past thinkers. The convergence of the basic knowledge systems of biology, heredity, genes, molecular biology, and a number of other disciplines has resulted in an indisputable ‘fact’ of evolution. Fundamentalist religions cannot match the results of the evolution of thinking and knowledge that went into the ‘theory’ of evolution. Though religion itself has undergone an evolution of its own in a growth from animistic and superstitious belief to practical and beneficial control of human emotional violence, there is continued rejection of science and knowledge that contradicts errors in reason contained in religion and other false beliefs, including scientific errors of our past.

Faith in truth is needed for faith in anything else.

This is a comment, not an issue.

Comment on John W. Loftus’ conversion and deconversion.

The confession of Loftus is revealing in that he describes himself as a gullible and ignorant person with the gift of gab. By that, I mean the ability to use factual and controversial issues to reveal his faith. His lack of faith in Christianity has the same value as his faith in Christianity in his earlier experience. It is all superficial and faith based. Though grounded in better factual evidence, it is faith based nonetheless.

The same goes for Sam Harris’ Atheist Manifesto. It, too, is faith based on reason. Reason can only go so far. For those who view it from a superficial level of belief or disbelief, it is one of credibility, not certainty. I would be the first to admit that credibility is sufficient for most mundane acts and beliefs. But, faith in truth is needed for a faith in anything else. To claim that Christianity represents truth, or that Islam represents truth, or that truth is only to be found in human originated records, is to beg the question. The credibility of the Bible, the Qur’an, Bagavad Gita, Doctor Seusse or Mother Goose, depend upon weight of the evidence, not on absolute certainty.

Des Cartes raised the issue long ago and used the tautology to represent certainty of his own existence. Yet, saying the same thing in different ways does not prove the certainty. The certainty is in the concept, not the description of the facts and acts. Truth is that a fact is either true or not true. Truth is that Truth is true no matter whether a fact is true or not. Fact based faith can never be represented as certainty except in terms of truth, a tautology. Thus it is certainly true that a fact is either true or not true, but certainty cannot be found in the decision that a fact is true, or that a fact is not true.

The certainty of fact is in the existence, or non-existence of the subject of the fact. That can be observed with some degree of accuracy. Thus scientists use statistics and probability to proceed to each level of credibility, though never certainty. Philosophy deals with truth, scientists deal with facts, and mathematicians and logicians deal with verification through the operations of absolute certainty without facts. When math and logic are applied to arguments pertaining to facts, progress occurs. Thus Loftis’ conversion then deconversion is based on credibility of the facts bearing on the case.

The issue is form of presentation of God to man.

Sam Harris destroyed most arguments against the Atheistic Manifesto in his Jan. 26, 2006 Response to Reader Comments and Criticism.

He did not attempt to counter the argument that it is a matter of fact, or a matter of absolute certainty. A credible God would be self proving, not a God who depended upon human Prophets to establish his credibility. Yet, we tend to assume that the message is to human beings, not to earthworms, robins; or enzymatic molecules. Actually, the message is to sapient beings wherever they are found and would apply to all beings and everything true.
The God message would even apply to all that is not true, as well, but true applies to not true as well as to is true, so a self proving God could not justify an atheist as anything but a damn fool. So both theists and atheists could be damn fools.

Though everything that exists proves itself by existing, and non-existence proves itself by non-existence, only truth proves itself in the contrary true/not true. Truth applies to both true and not true, while existence applies only to the existing. God is not a matter of fact, but a matter of truth. As to the fact of God, there are atheists. As to the truth of truth, there are only believers and damn fools.

“Give me a fucking piece of bread because I am starving” - Gandhi

So what?

“This is not intended for those too dense to understand it. Intellectuals with a differing concept, welcome. Those too dense, are already identified. the intellectuals will have to introduce yourselves with qualifying remarks. I no longer respond to individuals, but to raised issues that I can identify. The authors of some are self identified, others are too diffuse to present as an individual.”

You failed to mention that you were the one and only dense one who has been identified by many through repetetive questions and answers for the past year.  Your arrogance is only superceded by your density.  Go figure.  It’s true!  The crazy really DON’T know that they’re crazy.

The issue is the dualist argument.

There are some who assume that because they do not understand, it is false. Others are more democratic and take a vote. If enough people can call you a liar, you are one. Another dualist says that if I believe it, it must be true. A form of dualism has it that if one minor point is yielded, the entire argument is lost. The fool is never right and the professor is never wrong. Finally, if your version is wrong, then all versions are wrong.

Sam Harris did not disprove the existence of God, but that the forms of God and the assumptions of the veracity and existence of God in fundamentalist religions of all varieties justify the atheistic argument. Harris expounded on that at length in his own response to the comments on Atheist Manifesto. He destroyed every argument brought for the traditional fundamentalist response. What he never did do is to destroy the concept that truth rises above God. Ghandi, said, “No God is higher than truth.” I have said in these forum responses, that if there is a God, no matter what the form or concept, that it is true that there is God. But, if there is not God, no matter what the concept, or form, then it is true that there is no God. Truth is self proving, as God should be, if God is, as Anselm said, “That than which nothing greater could be conceived.” The counter argument to Anselm’s maxim is that two God’s would be greater than God, the one and only. Thus a concept of polytheism trumps monotheism in the monotheistic maxim. Even Anselm used a tortuous argument to raise the concept and the assumption to a higher level than the fact. If, indeed, there is God plus anything else, it is true that God plus anything else is greater than God alone.

The only form of duality that is valid in this context is the duality of true/not true. We are back to square one. True or not true. Hence to the monotheistic true there is, or true there is not.

This is not intended for those too dense to understand it. Intellectuals with a differing concept, welcome. Those too dense, are already identified. the intellectuals will have to introduce yourselves with qualifying remarks. I no longer respond to individuals, but to raised issues that I can identify. The authors of some are self identified, others are too diffuse to present as an individual.

It’s called…“crazy person” in lay terms.  :D

Question: I’m don’t even have a modest knowledge of personality disorders…so for those of you who might….what kind of personality lives on rejection?  Why would a person who has been rejected universally by everyone, and who criticized the one person who semi claimed to understand him make every attempt to continue the saga?

Frank’s tactics are different than Glenno’s but the results are the same. He fools no one, he attracts no one yet he wants to play in a yard where no one either cares anymore about what he says or likes what he says.

What kind of person seeks negative attention continually and pounds his head on the same brick wall over and over again with the same result?  What is the gain for someone who engages in fruitless activity?

The issue is the Jefferson Bible.

What do you expect? Jefferson was a Unitarian. He did not believe in the trinity of the God head. In fact, he was somewhat atheistic in his real thinking, though he went to church every Sunday and some Saturday nights. Of course he fathered a Mulatto, helping to spread the superior genes among the lower classes. We are so proud of him, just as we are Barack Obama, who is a real Mulatto.  After all, Jefferson’s daughter and Barack Obama are both part white trash. If we ever clone queers, we will never need the Bible to tell us what not to do.

Frank,

I see you forgot to use spell check and to also revamp your “issue” so that it would look semi-professional.

Your mind wanders.  That’s been evident for a long time.  And that’s fine.  But now you’re just slippin’ up in places you used to be so careful about.  No matter.  It appears to be the more honest side of you anyway.  Indeed truth would be king if you just came out and said what you really want to say.   Instead you hide it under a facade of self-righteousness. i.e. Hey! I am too good to be a real person, so I will just pretend I am above it all. 

C’mon, Frank.  Your ass is showing! :D Truth really isn’t all that important after all, is it?  Hipocrasy is KING.

The issue is clarity of written documents.

It seems that some of our historic documents are unclear for modern readers. I intend to rewrite the Bible and the Qur’an to make them understandable by those who read and write in this forum.

First, though, I will change some of the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Proposed first draft of the first paragraphs of the D of I.

“When it would be better for us and when the fucking people decide, we will fucking change the government of this fucking land. Without the stupid language of them ‘college’ edicarted bastards, we are in charge of all decisions. The fuckin king of ingland can go to hell for all we care.

From now on we’s in charge. We intend to charge everythin on our credit card. No king or queen of inland will set any limits on our rights to charge everything.  No more pursuit of happiness, we already caught it. I’m alive ain’t I? From now on, men are equal, and women almost equal. But, the prezident is more equal than us. We have the right to throw the bastard out.” (To be continued in the next generation of Americans when we will be more clear.)

Now for the Preamble to the Constitution:

“We the fuckin peeple of the united States, intend to change the goverment to a more better form. Ya can’t git anything more perfect than perfect. It ain’t the unions that ain’t perfect, it is the language of them damn fools that rote it over 200 years ago. And this is how it is. We gonna bless the poor and igorant along with them who passed the GED. And by God, this is the law of the land.”

Now to begin the Bible:

“At the git go, God made the sky and the water. He made the dirt, to. Then he put em all together in a garden of evil. He made a man and a woman and told them to have sex every nite so that they could populate the whole shebang. While they was raising cain, he killed his brother because God did not love him as much as his brother, who was a hunter. Ded animals was more better to God than a bushel of corn. God told ‘em if they eat them fruits from one of the trees the would git an instant edication and know truth from lies. They et the fruit because the snake told them to. They immediately realized that they was neked, so they made themselfs some close. It made God mad, so he got even with them. He tossed their asses out of the garden of evil and made em work for a living and let women run the cave. God made women do the laundry and take care of the kids. Now this is more clear than the Bible that was written be some Harvard students and erigant professors. And this is the fuckin truff.”

I have to admit that these proposed revisions are much clearer than the originals.

Bless you Dennis….

To all:

Yesterday on NPR’s “Fresh Air” bible Scholar Bart Ehrman was on NPR for an hour on his new book “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)”

It’s a great listen and is available as a podcast.

Go to NPR.Org…find the show fresh air. or gor to Freshair.npr.org

There’s also a chapter fropm his book at the link below

ttp://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=1 3

Annie ! Hah!!!!

I got a great laugh out of your response to Frank…even the second time.

And Frank, you STILL don’t get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True!!!!!!!

“I tried to lead the vulgar mouthed commenters and the malcontents toward a universal acknowledgement that no God is higher than truth.”

HAHAHA You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.  Oh the piety!  hahahhahahah :D

The issue is “Faith-based unreason.”

“Truthdig asked Harris to write a charter document for his thesis that belief in God, and appeasement of religious extremists of all faiths by moderates, has been and continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a sustained assault on reason.”

The comments in this site now number over 7000 after three years and three months. Most addressed themes about fundamentalist versions of God. I tried to introduce a faith-based version of a reasonable concept that could serve all who seek truth with reason. I agree with Sam Harris that faith-based unreasonable versions of God are not compatible with truth and the power of logic. Though I believe that ancient religions as well as the modern versions of them fail us in the 21st century, there is an anchor to faith that needs to be honored. I tried to lead the vulgar mouthed commenters and the malcontents toward a universal acknowledgement that no God is higher than truth. My thesis is that truth is the highest concept compatible with a belief in God. Though I never attacked anyone in person or with malice, I was accused of malice. I used some of Sam Harris’ own arguments against irrational rejection of faith-based reason. To me, faith in truth is compatible with any argument reasonably presented. I even propose that preponderance of evidence and common sense could dispatch most myths and dogmatic religious beliefs.

I suggest that this site be closed to further comments and a new Dig written by a qualified author to challenge an intellectual exchange without the need to resort to name calling and insults that have become the modus of this forum about the article by Sam Harris.

Good riddance Frank….again…..You have been fooling yourself since you shared your theory with us. You’ve attacked each one of us at one time or another and you’ve set yourself up as an intellectual snob, when no one here, no matter how smart, got your theory.

And still you didn’t get it.

Self publish on Book Surge. It’s cheap…a few hundred bucks and you don’t even have to buy an inventory. Lucky for us we’ll know not to buy one…but there are enough jerks out there that you might be able sell. Then you can them lead to a jungle in Central America and confuse them to death.

This site is not longer what it was. It has come down to a waste of time for any of the thinking people who landed here. The only thing left is a handful of blanks. A waste of valuable space and time.

If any of the former contributors of truly thoughtful reaction to the Dig by Sam Harris happen to peek in, I think this is final sayonara. To the rest you RIP. The entries in response to questions and comments has resulted in a longer work that may find final form and you can purchase it in soft cover at a reasonable price or get it from your local library. If it never gets into print, so be it.

By Dennis Michael Allen, February 23 at 4:04 pm #

Whoa, Dennis. Your post almost got lost in the barrage of Frank Goodman’s Islamic take-over attempt of the thread.

I agree with you whole-heartedly.  Have you ever noticed how the religious will often say “the onus is on you to disprove god since most people believe in him”.  (as if they believe in THEIR specific god).  Anyway, since when was the burden of proof on the person who can’t see the purple dinosaur in the garage and so ignores it?

Religious people are extremely foolish on this account.  The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on those who make extraordinary claims.  i.e….my dad is a giant smurf.  It’s not up to you to disprove that.  It’s up to me to prove such an outrageous statement.

Quoteth Frank

“I will not reply directly to anyone who makes a comment or asks a question. I will deal with matters of general interest when an issue can be identified.”

The only one who has identified issues for you to address has been yourself.

Frank,

You need to be very clear on something.  YOU are not the censorship security guard. YOU do not get to decide what gets censored (everyone else and not you).

From my experience, Truthdig does NOT censor anyone unless they are trolling, and getting off subject, for the purpose of being a nutcase.  i.e. Glenno.  Since I am against any form of trolling, I could have you removed.  BUT, you’re not hurting anything, you’re not insulting anyone….you’re just journalising.  Of course, you’re off subject most
of the time without regard to what anyone else says, and without distinction for anyone elses existence…but whatever.

The point is this:  Censorship is for the birds, and YOU are not going to censor anyone.

So stop being an absurd PRICK.  Thanks in advance and fuck you very much.

BTW: When you do not see me here, be assured that I am looking in and lurking out of reach of the Goons of Goshen.

The issue is censorship.

The topic of this forum is generated from Sam Harris’ Dig and in general terms is Atheism vs. Theism. At the center of the discussion is veracity. Veracity concerns truth and what is true. One writer wants me censored by removal of my comments from this site. Redacted, if you will. I suggest that rather than removal, the entire comments be struck through by a “-” mark. It would show disapproval without outright censorship, which is undemocratic and a violation of freedom of speech. I respect the right of Truthdig to censor libelous, slanderous, and vulgar comments. Truthdig also has the right to refuse to publish any proposed Dig by any author. However, once a Dig is published and an invitation is issued to send comments, respect for the sanctity of the personal opinion requires that only gross violations of freedom of speech rising to the level of shouting fire in a crowded theater should be censored.

For those who may side with the censorship, I ask if they would agree to have their own items censored. I defend the right of all to use this forum to express their own opinions, whether I could agree with them or not. I also include profane, vulgar, and gross violations of common decency. It is enough to ask, as Truthdig does that comments be limited to a certain number of words, and that certain standards be used in the writing. I adhere to those standards and do not impugn the honor and right to publish comments. Even when I suggest that a writer clean up the writing, it is intended to keep gross vulgarity out. I have even suggested that some gross vulgarity used to make a point be permitted for the purpose intended.

I do not use gross vulgarity. I limit vulgarity to what I could use in the presence of my children. I do not impugn the honesty or the decency of any person. I use logic, math, grammar, syntax, and other forms of reasoning to validate my comments. I do not attack the person of any writer. I do question the logic, facts, and math of some comments. This is normal. We all do that. Even when we make errors of logic, math, and grammar, we do not violate the intent of the restrictions. As much as the comments rankle me, I would not suggest removal except for libelous, slanderous, or grossly vulgar content. I do not even agree to punish those who murder the English language and commit homicide on human reason. To those who detest what I write, welcome to the fray. I love it.

Frank…to be honest,  we know too well that you exist..and because you do, I have asked the forum editors to remove your posts from this site because your posts now and for the past months, have had nothing to do with the subject matter and everything to do with Frank Goodman Senior.

Perhaps if others would join me then Frank Goodman Senior might not exist here.

The issue is “Do I exist?”

Writers to this forum have given considerable time to the question of the existence of God. As much or more has been given to the proof that God does not exist.

I will now prove that I exist.

First, let me say that I presume that none of you have seen me, touched me, heard my voice, tasted my sweat, or smelled my farts. You have little to draw on from your own experience, yet each of you who have read my comments and seen my name at the head of the comment, have good reason to doubt my existence. You reason that someone writes these comments. You assume that they do not materialize from nothing, are not transmitted from my computer to yours mysteriously unknown to anyone. How do you know then, or why do you assume that I exist?

The text originates in my mind and by a tortuous rout is transmitted to a keyboard attached to a modern device that encodes the stokes for transmission, first though the air to my wireless router, then the wireless router transfers the code to a modem connected to the cable network I subscribe to. By means of various interface devices it gets to your Internet Provider and down to your computer in similar fashion that got it on its way. It winds up in your own system processor and is decoded to English language text to be displayed on your CRT or LCD screen. You then read it with skills you learned as you aged. You submit it to your own mind analysis and get my raw message in words, phrases and sentences. You then compare it to preconceived ideas and assumptions formed in your lifetime before you ever heard of me. You jump to conclusions that I know what I am talking about or do not. But how do you know that I exist? How do you know that it is I who sent it? How do you know that it was not God communicating with you in your own language? Some of you believe that it is within the power of God do do that. With your own assumptions I can set you free from that. You assume that if there is a God, God would not deceive you by posing as Frank Goodman, Sr. Good thinking! So far so good.

You decide to comment as a response to my comment. You compose it and takes a similar rout to my computer and winds up as a display in front of me. I read it and either agree or disagree in part in whole. All your experience supports the belief that there is another human being interacting with you, though you have never seen me, heard my voice, felt me, tasted my sweat or smelled my farts. Case closed. I exist.

That is close enough for government work. It is probably accurate enough for your purposes. You can assume that I will read your return comment.

I apologize for my awful typos…I need an editor.

Annie…no one knows what happened at the first council of Nicea. My best guess based on a brief book i read by a Christian Scholar (but not the writer’s conclusion) was that Constantine, angered by the various infighting by the various religious sects…forced the leaders of those sects at the time to come up with one universal religion that would make everyone happy by incorporating all the best parts of each including the mystery elements.

Here’s some interesting stuff from the book… ” On February 23,303 there was posted and edict at Nicomedia, ordering that all copies of Scriptures should be surrendered and burned and that all churches should be dismantled. . .” Now that happened more than once in Rome and the Roman provinces. So twenty years later comes the council of Nicea.

Where did they get their texts if they were all burned?  I have read than no NT testament exists that was written prior to 300 AD which puts it in the time when they were all destroyed. Even the oldest Coptic bible found is dated in the mid 4th century.  And it was Constantine who ordered 50 copies of the New testament produced after the Council of Nicea.

Given the destructions (plural) of the ancient texts, Constantine’s desire to keep the people happy, and displeasure with the multiple religions, one can easily assume that Jesus story (if he existed at all) was written for the sake of everyone and everything but the truth. (As defined in the dictionary, Frank)

I believe there was a major book written on Constantine in the last few years. have to read it.

Excellent!  I would love to be able to find any historical books on Constantine and cross reference these.  Oh man! :D

Anytime I have mentioned Constantine and his mad camp of hellions on an atheist blog, he gets poo-pooed as if none of that really happened.  sad sad sad sad….

You’ve been told a zillion times how our Christian ancestors were eaten by lions in the Roman arenas.

He’s a rediscovered list of almost 700 years of persecutions and mayhem brought against of pagans by Christians….something our ministers and priests have little knowledge of….and certainly no want to tell anyone else.

Add these to the list of peoples pillaged,  plundered, and murdered in the name of Jesus. Enjoy!!!!!!!!

http://ethnikoi.org/persecutions.html

Dennis,

If you really want to write a book, you can do it!  A couple of friends of mine, Jeff Mark and David Mills both wrote books regarding the subject of atheism.  David Mills write “Atheist Universe”, a brilliant piece that explains thoroughly how the Bible cannot possibly be right from a scientific viewpoint.  I know David and I know that he’s just a “regular guy”.  He is!

The same is true of Jeff Mark who wrote “Christian: No More!”  He uses a different angle.  His approach is less scientific and more along the lines of reason, logic, and the hard times that religion causes on an individual and emotional level.

Both good reads!  We don’t all have to be Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Hitchens.  Although, I admit they’re brilliant!  You will love “Letter to a Christian Nation.”  It really is only 90 pages.  It’s a plea to North Americans to stop and think about who is really suffering, etc.  The beginning page or two is the missive at the top of this thread.

CunningLingus:  haha You’re so right!  Did you ever notice how when atheists quote their Bible to them, xians always say “you take that out of context”!  Yet, how many times have you seen them just randomly ramble off the happy, clappy verses?  haha It is insane!!!

The issue is honesty.

Some contributors to this discussion impugn the honesty of others. Actually, honesty has nothing to do with whether anything is true or not true. Honesty implies that one believes what she/he believes. There is no good test of the belief system of an individual person, thus we must employ a certain legal standard. Constitutionally, each person is entitled to her/his honest belief. When acts based on an honest belief result in injury to another, another test must be applied. The one most commonly used in American system of justice is the ‘reasonable man’ test. Finding of fact is with a jury or with a judge. Twelve people may have twelve versions of what is reasonable in a test case. The judge may have another, the lawyer for the defense another and the prosecutor another. With multiple lawyers on each side, there are more and the defendant another. It all boils down to either yes or not as to whether some issue is reasonable or not. Adding the yeses and the noes, one gets either 0 or 1. The jury of twelve may split the yeses and noes and the judge breaks the tie, or a new jury is called in for a new trial. Zero sum means not reasonable and one means reasonable. But in the final vote in criminal cases is guilty beyond a doubt or not guilty. If one juror votes not guilty, or when only one votes guilty, there is presumed to be a doubt, thus no result. A new trial or neglect to retry the case are the decisions. 

In a civil case in torts, the verdict is guilty or innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus the unanimous result is not applied. The loss is only money in case of an error. In the criminal case a loss in case of an error is personal harm, so the error is made on the side of safety. Even so, some innocent people are found guilty and many guilty people are set free. Society benefits from the probability of the guilty being punished grievously and the deterrence of some criminal activity, if not all of it.  Justice in civil cases are settled in money, which may be grievous to some, but not so to others. A $10,000 fine to a man who makes only $12,000 gross in a year is grievous. The same fine to a man who receives a million in a year is not grievous. But, it all hangs on the accuracy of the decisions that go into the verdict, and innocent lives may be destroyed in a civil case.

In a forum such as this one, more goes into it than the legal niceties of possible doubt and the reasonable man test. In case of mathematic results, the decisions can be application of arithmetic operations. In logic the decision can be in the syllogism or the conditional argument, or in the application of the law of contrary. Universal positive cannot exist with universal negative or with one case of negative. Universal negative cannot exist with universal positive or one case of positive. So, if one pink pebble is found in the Pacific, it is not true that there are no pink pebbles in the Pacific. But, if no pink pebbles are found in the Pacific, it cannot be concluded that there are no pink pebbles in the Pacific. It is claimed that one cannot prove the negative. On the other hand, if the universe in question is not the Pacific, but a handful, it can be easily concluded that a hand is empty. And if not empty, just how many pebbles are in the hand. But, one must not count marbles or grapes with the pebbles. And the pebbles must be qualified as to what constitutes a pebble.

By nelson, February 20 at 6:26 am #

Still doing it, Nelson?  Still calling names, (foolish) avoiding the big questions and presuming to know what’s on people’s minds?  i.e. Darwin, Descartes, etc. 

Yes, you told me that Jesus never commanded slaves be whipped and I showed you where he did indeed.  You are a consumate liar.  And you’re the worst kind. You’re a liar for an evil cause, and a mythological one.  You speak of the context of “parables” and of “symbolism”.  What do you think mythology IS??

You won’t answer because you can’t without incriminating yourself and your imaginary friend.  And yet you say we are like children.  Well, you’re the one with the cuddy buddy in the sky who watches everything you do because you’re so special.  Meanwhile there’s an atrocious war in Iraq, and the children of Africa are dying off by the truck loads through no fault of their own.  But you’re special enough that your cloud guy with the big book watches you even when you masturbate apparently.  Gee, you’re so special.  *pats Nelson on the head*.  Grow up. 

Dennis,

I don’t know why other atheists are here.  I was drawn by the title of the thread because I have the book “Letter to a Christian Nation”.  A phenomenal read for only 90 pages. 

I have also heard that religulous is great as well as “The God Who Wasn’t There” I (can’t wait to read that one).  But mostly I just love watching all that the other atheists have to say.  Things that bring my disbelief even clearer and help me to step up my game in debunking faithies.  They are ruining the world.  As Hitches says; they are an absurd bunch of lunatics.  And much can be learned from the lunatic, too. :D

Nelson…and friends

US News and World has a special edition out on Jesus with a section that admits that virtually every mystical element of the Jesus story is myth found in some “30-50” pagan religions that preceded Christianity. For example, Nelson…the Zoraster story has the 3 kings following a star la de dah to greet a new baby god. (Nelson it’s worth the 7 bucks)

But the laugh is this. US News states that in spite of the obvious plagarism….that Christianity still has merit…and that the big difference was that Jesus was a man not a myth. Nowhere in the report does it discuss the possibility that Jesus might not have existed at all..or that the writers borrowed from the past to make the pagans Paul was talking to into a bunch of believers.

But to make a claim that that this religion (broadly speaking) based on myth, has merit is simply a device to not offend people like Nelson who have never heard the variety of myths about virgin births, raising the dead, resurrection, crucifixion, and on and on and on….that preceded the invention Jesus. So it’s okay to be ignorant Nelson…US World says it’s okay..therefore it’s okay. And there you go. (Your minister and priest won’t discuss this because they’d be out of a job, or funds in a heart beat…human nature.

Which is why we’re here Nelson….we don’t believe US News is right in saying it’s okay believe in a myth….after informing everyone that that’s what Christianity is.

Dennis:

“But you realize that your argument does little to persuade people to think outside the box. They find it very cozy in there.”

Absolutely!  But I also think they find it a bit frightening in there.  Imagine having to believe that you are being bribed with golden streets and pearly gates into a place after you die—only to wonder if you won’t get the threat of eternal damnation instead. Bribes or threats—what better way to dupe sheeple?  I think that’s why our theist said: “You TRY to shoot down my faith, but you fail to see how absurd and foolish an atheist’s perspective really is! Isn’t that funny?”

I didn’t invite him here.  I didn’t ask him to come to an atheist thread to try and shoot down his faith.  He came here looking for something.  Maybe a way out of the box of bondage that he’s sewn himself into. :D

Now, let’s see if we get an answer on why Jesus’ death made any difference in this world, or what the ten commandments mean.

When xians run out of answers, they often resort to smarmy insults or proseletyzing.  I see this on MySpace all the time.  I’ve never really seen me a good argument yet.  And they all believe something different as to what the Bible even means.

“God” has never shown itself to us so the words of the bible are the only clues to “Its” character. Well, “His” behavior, described in the bible, does not clearly show a good “ultimate standard” to follow toward goodness and just behavior for this year, 2009.

Maybe after our earth and mankind goes “to hell” again – maybe after a few hundred bombs and germ warfare has been utilized and the struggle for life and death, food and survival begins again. Maybe then, humans could dig up an old bible and follow some primitive guidelines again.

See then Nelson, humans will have to change the “standards of morality” for their survival again. If you or I fast-forward to a time like that, we would inevitably change our “rules of engagement” with other human beings. Say that your nephew is still in Iraq. You will admit that his “standard” of human interaction changed drastically. A car speeding up to his checkpoint may “get lit up” if it does not stop quickly enough. O well, a family blown to bits – they should have understood “a different language”.

“Owning slaves is always wrong” – no, I disagree. There is no such thing as wrong or right for us creatures of the night. If we as a society can not agree that “killing an entire family in a car for personal reasons” is wrong or right, then how could slavery be absolutely wrong?

We made laws to obey. It seems simple now to me. Follow the laws and stay out of jail. We are all “stick insects” just trying not to get eaten and also trying to eat another. The bug will feel he was deceived but the stick was just being who he is. When the stick insect starts thinking that he is “a sinner of deception”, he will show a little movement to be “honest”. It is then that the great sparrow will swoop down for an easy meal. But, neither the bug nor the stick will have these kinds of thoughts. They live and die without ever attempting to place a right or a wrong on their actions. Their “way of thinking” brings a peace and form of order to nature – almost like “ultimate standard”. It is human (and even biblical words, stories and God – which is most likely human also) thinking of right and wrong that seems to create an incredible unbalance of nature and instability in the world. We are dead but we do not know it yet. We are that stick insect moving around…and the sparrow is coming fast. And, the sparrow is not God.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Well, pardon my Biblical illiteracy, but as I recall it, Paul was speaking to the church in Ephesus for “the sake of Christ”.  So, again, you have the servants who are lesser than their masters.  Who need to worship the “man” as much as Christ.

This is getting too fun.  I better stop.

Excuse me but one more thing:  Jesus NEVER commanded slaves be beaten?  Who needs to read their bible?  C’mon. 

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

“The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And Nelson, don’t flatter yourself by saying I resent you.  I don’t think I even COULD resent you.  I don’t know you.  You don’t make a good point for your argument, so there’s no frustration. 

I think you’re projecting on that one.

Since I am here, I will respond very lightly to what you just posted to Dennis, even tho’ much of it was aimed at me.

“Study the scriptures and you will find…”  I have heard that all my life from different xians and they have all found something different.

If I tell you to study Darwinism, what does it do for my argument?  Not a damn thing.  So debating the Bible to provide evidence for your god by USING the Bible is kind of foolish, don’t you think?  It’s kind of like me saying “well Tom Sawyer existed.  Just read ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Flynn’ and you will find him on page 71”  It really doesn’t mean he existed, does it?

Poor Nelson.  You have an uncanny ability to a). lie to yourself…or b). just ignore facts and the use of reason.

HAHA Nelson, you’re a funny man!  I have to admit it.

You want to compare me to your god regarding changing my mind?  And I quote: “You telling me that you’ve never changed your mind about the smallest thing? Doesn’t mean your moral perspectives have changed, does it?”  The question really is: If your god is truly omniscient, why would he have to change his mind?  Or why is the Bible (his supposedly divine word) so contradictory regarding whether he changes his mind or not?  Example: “God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done.” - Numbers 23:19

“So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.” - Exodus 32:14

Which one is it? He threatens evil and then changes his mind?  OR…he doesn’t change his mind because he’s so superior to man.  (AHAHAHA)

As far as faith being evidence…you are in WAAAY over your head, Nelson.  Let’s pretend I have faith in fairies.  Where is the evidence that they exist merely because I believe they do?  There is none.  It’s just my belief and nothing more.

”::By the way, Jesus never commanded any slave to be whipped. Again, that parable went over your head. Just as Jesus said that those who are His own, hear his voice.::”

So, if not everyone can hear his voice, what did he die for again?  For the world?  Even the ones who can’t hear his voice.  And why did he die anyway?  He didn’t know that the majority of the world would NOT believe in him?  Knowing this ahead of time could have saved HIM a few stripes.   I’m just sayin’...“For god so loved the world and all…but he just gave it back up to the devil after he was flogged and crucified.”  amen and amen

Ramble on and on about Descartes all you care to.  I never liked the guy nor his philosophy in particular.  So-wrong again, Nelson! 

Here’s something you need to get through your head.  Religious men of Jewish laws wrote the Bible.  Not some deity.  Bronze-age men who taught fabels of burning bushes that don’t really burn having a chat.  Men who believed and printed in said scriptures that women were worth have the shekels that men were.  Men who spoke of donkey’s members and their semen like that of horses.  Horny men who feared the pussy.  That is your god. 

I don’t have any gods.  Science is not my god.  BUT it does provide more evidence in the 21st century than your Bible EVER WILL. 

It was written by primitive men.  Which part don’t ya get?

Nelson, Nelson, Nelson…you always seem to attack me.  I guess it’s all that Biblical illiteracy. :D

Let me set you straight on a few things. ONE: “If my family members insulted God in anyway, I couldn’t expect anything less for punishment. That includes myself. He is a just God and demands justice and payment to be made.”

Please explain to me how the LORD sending the ANGEL OF DEATH to kill the firstborn of every Egyptian child was necessary just because he was pissed off at Pharoah, whose heart was hardened by GOD himself.

NEXT: “Luckily for us believers, Jesus has payed the price for our iniquities. Other than that, you didn’t really give much.”

Well, since I didn’t give much, please feel free to provide evidence for that statement.  I don’t want proof because I know you don’t have it.  Come on, keep up, would you?  Just evidence.

NEXT: “Fact is, muslim terrorist groups have been bombarding Israel with rockets for years and Israel let it go too long. What did you expect them to do, honestly?”

You just simplified an incredibly difficult situation. Surely you jest.  That set aside, where the hell did that come from anyway????

NEXT: “Slaves, servants. That’s exactly what was meant. Slaves were servants. The servant of the high priest was exactly that. A servant. Much like priests today have alter servers. Tasks more than likely changed from than to now. But they were servants non the less. You obviously do not know who Jesus was to even mention such things like he condoned slavery in the sense you are talking about.”

Really?  So, I guess we should get out our whips and beat these servants like your Jesus commanded?

NEXT: “Everything else you mentioned just tells us that there was consequences to the unjust treatment of ones servants despite how lenient you might think it was. It was a different culture and different people God had to communicate with and get his point across.”

Wait, I thought God was the same, yesterday and forever and wasn’t like men who changed his mind.  It’s in the Bible, Nelson.  Again, try and keep up.  Why would Jesus (a non-respecter of persons) have to treat desert dwelling slaves different than today?  Did he chance his mind?  Your trailin….

Now let me puntuate your rambling by saying this: YOU DON’T KNOW WHO JESUS IS EITHER—-OR IF HE EVEN EXISTED BECAUSE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF IT.  ZERO—NONE!!! 

That’s the trouble with you xians. Always trying to make something out of nothing.  In the end you remind me the saying about your ancestor, the monkey.  “The higher he climbs, the more you can see his ass.” :D

Now don’t banter with me about the Bible, Nelson.  You know I will win…just as I always have because I don’t lie about it, and I have studied it much, much more than you have.  That has always been clear to me since the first time you started posting.  It is not I who needs Bible “education” (and by which denom do you think??).  It is you who seems to make up your own truth as you go along, all the time ignoring the heavier questions you can’t answer, like:

WHAT GOOD ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS??????

Start there.  :D I feel sure you’ll come up with some more crap.

By Dennis Michael Allen, February 17 at 9:54 pm #

:D I think that most atheists know the Bible better than xians.  That’s why we don’t believe in god.

I like reading the Bible and the Qur’aan.  It’s easier to punch holes in apologetics. :D

In truth, it’s a lot like that bumper sticker that says: “I think, therefore I am an atheist”.  Or that little video about how xians pick the good bits and leave out the bad bits.  OR…they lie and excuse them like Nelson just did.

If you want to believe something is true to make yourself feel better, that is human nature.  For example, asking someone to tell you everything’s gonna be alright.  People do tell you that even though there’s really nothing they can do to “make everything alright”.  But they say it to make the person feel better.

I see xians do this all the time.  They say things that clearly are not true so that everything will be alright.  The big difference is, they are dangerous because their “feel good” theologies are the cause of so much anguish.

Thank you for the comment Dennis. :D

The issue is deception. Lying and believing what is not true.

To deceive is a sin, if the intention is to deceive. To believe without intentional deception what is not true is innocence.

This is a man made distinction. Not ordained by some man-made god. Obviously, deception is common in the operation of natural law. The stick insect and deceptive marking on products of evolution are common. In fact, man uses deception as a survival tactic in many circumstances. Human laws of ethics and civilized behavior which developed as a survival tactic for people living in close proximity, has resulted in a degree of safety and confidence in human interaction. Yet, violations in spirit and in law are rampant.

It may be propitious that violence is still with us as laws and traditions of gentle behavior may not be maintained if violence were no longer a threat. You will say that they would not be needed. Slavery was not, usually, violent. So long as the slave was compliant, he was not beaten. If people committed no crimes for which they could imprisoned, we would need no prisons. If slaves behave, they would not have to be beaten. Obedient slaves in America were often treated as household pets. It was much as favorite pets were pampered. Of course field slaves could not be pampered. The domestic slaves were of a different class from the working slaves. Slave babies and children were used as pets by the master’s kids. If we all just complied with all rules, regulations, and control, there would never be a need for deception.

The sin of deception includes the excuse for slavery and all forms of threatened violence used to control human behavior. Wars, insurrections, and preemptive defense would never occur if everyone would just hunker down and comply. Then there would be no need for retribution or revenge. If we can maintain the deception of law and order, true democracy would be possible and socialism in its wonderful benefits would be upon us. We could all live in harmony loving Peter, Paul, and Jesus. God would fade away and the Garden of Eden would bloom again. The tree of knowledge would bear useful fruit and the tree of ignorance would wither and die.

We could live in bliss with no blisters.

Hey Nelson!  It’s good to see you again.  I see you’re still falling for it.

Please feel free to show scripture that says that God was against slavery. 

YHWH was for slavery all for it, as was Jesus.  It was never condemned not once.

Which dogma bone do you get thrown that trips you up so bad?  Is it the fact that YHWH supposedly said he WAS evil?  Is it where he called two she-bear out of the woods to tear 42 children apart for calling Elijah “baldy”?  And if it had been your children, would it piss you off?  Or does it make it easier for you to just excuse the writers of the Bible, and their portrayal of their god because you weren’t there being apart of it?  You didn’t have to drown for the sins of others.  You didn’t have fire and brimstone come down on you and your family because of “Sin City”...so easy when it’s not you.

What you’ve spewed is nothing more than the Protestant version of OT dogma that evangelicals use to brush away the ugly and shine it up and make it look less disgusting.  The substance is shined, but the facts remain for any rational person to read.

Slavery is wrong no matter who allows or condones it.  The random killing of children in Egypt because you love the Jews better is never acceptable.  And let’s not forget that YHWH said he is the same yesterday, today and forever.  So, if that’s true you’d better get on your calloused knees (yet again)..and pray that god be fair and just to all…

Demand that your god be as moral as you think you are.  Because if he can’t even rise to YOUR standard, (and clearly he can’t if you must excuse him) then he is not moral enough to be concidered a deity.

Whatever makes ya sleep, Nelson.  But hey!  Read the ten commandments again.  And tell me what good they are.   Sleep tight.

The Rabbincal Laws of the OT regarding slavery:

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

VIOLENCE AGAINST YOUR SLAVES:

Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”
Exodus 21:26-27 “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
NEW TESTAMNET SLAVERY CONDONING:

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in New Testament times:

Matthew 18:25: “But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.”

Priests still owned slaves:

Mark 14:66: “And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:”

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term “servant” in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner’s will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner’s will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.”

There you have it, Nelson.  Excuse that away, please.  I feel sure you can if you want.  But remember, I just may feel like buying you and your loved ones.  I have a big field that needs plowing, and I promise not to beat you with too many stripes.

Not funny when it’s about you, is it?

Yea?  Well, the eagle has landed…so what?