God Is Love—Does That Make Any Sense?

rain lovers

Christians delight in telling us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16), but what does this even mean? We can compare this to other New Testament declarations that God is truthful, faithful, and just, but these are adjectives. This doesn’t help us understand God’s relationship to love, which is a noun. We can find “God is light” (equating God to a noun), but this sounds like a metaphor.

Is this phrase saying that “God” and “love” are synonyms? That makes no sense. Love didn’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah or drown everyone in a global flood.

Or maybe the goal was to assign love as one of God’s properties. Why not then say, “God is loving”? And is love to God what love is to humans? If so, how can these relationships be equivalent when we wouldn’t say “Love is one of Mary’s properties”? No, we’d simply say, “Mary is loving” or “Mary is a loving person” or something similar.

Never mind. The original epistle was written in Greek, which gives Christians some ambiguity to play with as they create their own interpretation. Endless articles have been written about how fabulously loving God is, and I don’t much care how Christians spin “God is love.” What’s more interesting is the tangled tales apologists weave as they improvise their fantasy world.

Love and the Trinity

Peter Kreeft uses love to defend the bizarre idea of the Trinity. He argues that the Trinity is actually an asset to grounding this love question.

If God is not a Trinity, God is not love. For love requires three things: a lover, a beloved, and a relationship between them. If God were only one person, he could be a lover, but not love itself. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit is the love proceeding from both, from all eternity. If that were not so, then God would need us, would be incomplete without us, without someone to love. Then his creating us would not be wholly unselfish, but selfish, from his own need.

So Kreeft imagines the three members of the Trinity loving each other for the eternity before the universe was created. The only thing in existence was the Trinity, but how would that work? There was no development, progress, or even change of any kind, so what would love mean in this static environment? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might as well have been marble statues. Where’s the love?


See also: William Lane Craig Misrepresents Christianity and Insults Islam


Keep these statues in mind as we think about how love works with humans. We’ll sacrifice for our beloved. We’ll forgive our beloved’s errors and trust in the same courtesy in return. We value a loving relationship because it is temporary and uncertain. We contrast loving relationships and feelings of loving bliss with the far greater number of ordinary relationships and periods of time.

None of this is possible for the omniscient, invulnerable, unchanging Trinity. So tell me again how “love” could describe the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. (More here.)

William Lane Craig piles on

WLC has a similar take. Here he’s favorably comparing Christianity’s Trinitarian concept against Islam’s strict monotheism:

If I am right that love is of the very essence and nature of God then when there was nothing (when there were no human beings to love) then whom did God love? There isn’t anybody else to love other than God. . . . And this is, I think, a very good argument for a plurality of persons within God over against Unitarianism which says that God is just one person. . . . A Unitarian God cannot do that; cannot be essentially loving. This gives, I think, a very persuasive reason for thinking that there is a plurality of persons within God himself so that within the godhead there are eternal love relationships that have existed forever and now are manifested toward human beings with the creation of the world.

Uh huh. Show me that you got that from the Bible instead of your imagination.

“Good” emotions like love and compassion and “bad” emotions like jealousy and anger each have their role. We categorize them as good and bad simply because we typically see too little of the good ones and too much of the bad ones.

The palette of human emotions that we have exists simply because it provided survival benefit during our evolutionary path. I’m sure Kreeft and Craig want to imagine that they’re grounded in something less arbitrary than evolution. They have no good reason to say that or to elevate love to the pinnacle of emotions. The naturalistic explanation is sufficient.

Why imagine that love is that big a deal from a cosmic perspective? We think it is, but that’s our evolutionary programming talking. Our emotions and morals make sense to us because of evolution, but they’re in no sense objectively the best. If we were Romulans or Vulcans or Klingons or maybe even Spartans, we’d think differently. Maybe honor would be at the top if we were Klingons, or maybe respect for wisdom if Vulcans.

We can’t even agree among ourselves what the best moral actions are. Why would our morals be universally correct?

It’s like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Humans are like the guy who grabs a leg and says, “An elephant is like a tree.” Okay, from that perspective, it is. And for humans, love might be the pinnacle of human emotional expression. But let’s not take it any farther than that. In a universe that might have millions of independently evolved intelligent species, what is obvious to us is just a relative interpretation.

Concluded in part 2 with more nutty, groundless speculation on love by Peter Kreeft.

We have just enough religion to make us hate,
but not enough to make us love one another.

— Jonathan Swift

 Image credit: t.germeau, flickr, CC

"And even atheist's that you wouldn't respect too.At least some of it...but where does it ..."

Responding to the Minimal Facts Argument ..."
"Thank you. Easier but weird..."

God Is Love—Does That Make Any ..."
"Is it possible there are things outside the realm of the tactile senses?Define "the realm ..."

Scholarly Consensus for the Resurrection? Not ..."
"The whole Trinity Malarkey is nonsense ffs.https://rationalwiki.org/wi..."

Scholarly Consensus for the Resurrection? Not ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • epeeist

    Something I wrote long ago:

    God is Love

    Rather than just dismissing this let us subject it to some analysis.

    The OP obviously thinks that “Love” is concrete rather than abstract, but since this may be difficult to grasp then, for illustrative purposes only, let us replace it with something that we can get a handle on. “God is Laphroaig” will probably do. Now it is obvious that since god is Laphroiag then he can’t be Talisker and “God is Johnny Walker” would plainly be ridiculous. The only way that god could be both Laphroaig and Talisker is if he were some kind of composed class of the two, e.g “God is whisky”, or to make it more abstract “God is ardent spirit” (this is of course not the kind of spirit that theists generally seem to think of god as). To do that in the terms that the OP states we would have to rephrase his proposition with something like “God is emotion”.

    Indeed, why should we not take it as such, after all Jesus after all cursed Chorazon and its inhabitants, a reflection of hatred of those who would not follow his teachings. And as I have pointed out in the past god is responsible for the creation of the Loa-Loa worm, what emotion would one assign to someone who could do such a thing? Finally, given that the only signs god seems to provide these days are dubious faces in Marmite jar lids or the temporary cure for a single case of Parkinson’s disease then perhaps indifference or ennui might be the current emotion he is feeling towards his creation.

    If “Love” is concrete then presumably “Hate” and “Ennui” are also concrete? Or is the OP mistaken, is he trying to reify something that is simply an attribute we can only apply to a relationship?

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      I don’t know why, but the second line of your post makes me want to sing:

      God is Love!
      Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more

    • Kevin K

      “God is Love” is a category error.

      • epeeist

        “God is Love” is a category error.

        Absolutely.

        And yet another way to point out the sheer nonsense of the sentence is to treat the copula as transitive.

  • adam
  • Greg G.

    If I am right that love is of the very essence and nature of God then when there was nothing (when there were no human beings to love) then whom did God love?

    I like how you bring up the bad emotions after that.

    Exodus 34:14 (NRSV)14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

    When there were no human beings, who was God jealous of?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      God was jealous of all those other gods. Y’know–the ones that he created.

      For some reason, Kreeft is eager to show that God isn’t dependent on humans for anything. The Trinity had plenty of love before teh humans, thank you very much. But what about the jealousy? I think you’ve nicely skewered Kreeft’s logic–how could God be jealous of anything (gods, say) before he created them. He’s dependent on something else for his jealousy.

      For some reason, that dependence is really bad, according to Kreeft. There’s so much to be embarrassed about within Christian thought, and yet he’s worried about God’s dependence on someone else. Weird.

      • katiehippie

        Maybe god created a bunch of other gods before he created us and found out that wasn’t such a good idea so he looked in a mirror and created that instead.

      • Kevin K

        If god isn’t dependent on humans for anything, then there would be no need for god to create humans.

        • Rudy R

          And Yahweh cannot be a perfect being, because He felt the need to create humans to share is love.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          He wanted toys to play with.

      • adam
    • richardrichard2013

      is god hater ?
      for example does god hate the action of stabbing, punching and kicking?
      does god take out wrath on jesus in loving way when he transfers all the stabbing, kicking , raping and punching on jesus christ?

    • Bob Jase

      In a trinity someone always gets more attention than the other two.

      • Greg G.

        Maybe that’s why the jealous god had Jesus crucified.

  • grasshopper

    My dad really really loved me, so when he beat me with a prickly plant he always said “Thistle hurt me more than it hurts you.”

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Ouch. I think I’m hurt more by your pun.

    • Bob Jase

      You must have beed quite a burrdon.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

    (How are you notified that it was spam? And why does it work the second time if it rejected you the first?)

    This seems to imply that nothing can exist in a static environment.

    No, I’m saying that nothing can change in a static environment.

    In other words, things could be happening in the
    particular situation or environment, but they are all in synch/in balance/predictable.

    Right, but that’s not happening with the Trinity before the creation, right? There is no change since there is no need/desire for change.

    Or am I misunderstanding the conditions before Creation? I’m sure Kreeft would have some song and dance.

    In terms of what people value, this is not wholly true.

    I’m saying that this often characterizes love for humans. “Love” is defined in human terms. If God does it differently, then that’s not love.

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

    Right—that’s when proto-Judaism was polytheistic.

    I don’t agree. This seems to be equating “good” with scarcity and “bad” with plenty.

    Let me begin by stating that this is just my view on things.

    I’m not equating; rather, I’m saying that we almost always could do with more “good” emotions and less “bad.”

    But, along with emotions, I would think you could say the same about thought, reason and logic.

    In many cases, yes, we have too little of those as well.

    “A possible answer could be that the god of the bible is a
    lot more like us than Christians think. Specifically, like humans, this god
    could be immensely vindictive, sadistic, lazy, but also could be immensely forgiving,
    loving, active. The “all-good” characterization of god by Christians could be a
    misunderstanding or a lack of full understanding of the ir god and their god’s
    “goodness”.
    In other words, this god could be like us in our ups and downs, just
    immensely more extremely/powerfully so.

    I agree. I think this mega-person idea of a god makes a lot of sense as an early version of a god. Increase his strength—like Hercules. Increase his wisdom—like Solomon. Increase his generalship—like Alexander. Put them all together, and you have Yahweh 1.0.

    • skl

      Immediately after trying to post, this appeared at the top:
      “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Cross Examined.”

      Then, when I clicked on my icon to see my other comments, I saw my
      post at the top with a red block that said “Detected as Spam”.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Thanks for explaining how it works from your side.

        On my side, I never get any notification that your comments are in some sort of holding pen, waiting for me to approve them, FYI.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Right—that’s when proto-Judaism was polytheistic.

      There’s also the fact that we aren’t three distinct entities in one, so any attempt to use that line to support the trinity necessitates a failure on god’s part.

    • skl

      “Right, but that’s not happening
      with the Trinity before the creation, right? There is no change since there is
      no need/desire for change.”

      Right, no change, like in a particular
      situation or environment where everything is in synch/in balance/predictable.

      “I’m saying that this often characterizes love for humans.
      “Love” is defined in human terms. If God does it differently, then that’s not
      love.”

      Rather, ‘then that’s not love in human terms.’ I think I may
      have addressed this in my point 6).

      >>Then God said, “Let us make man in our image,
      after our likeness…<>But, along with emotions, I would think you could
      say the same about thought, reason and logic.<<

      “In many cases, yes, we have too
      little of those as well.”

      But that’s again presuming that
      things which are relatively scarce are good. There is no “good” in evolution.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    As a skeptic

    Where is Inigo Montoya when you need him?

  • skl

    Third attempt (first two “Detected
    as Spam”].

    As a skeptic I took issue with a
    number of things here.

    1) “The only thing in existence was
    the Trinity, but how would

    that work? There was no development, progress, or even change of any kind, so

    what would love mean in this static environment?”

    This seems to imply that nothing can
    exist in a static environment. I don’t think that’s true.

    Also, one of the meanings of “static” could be ‘characterized

    by stasis or equilibrium.’ In other words, things could be happening in the

    particular situation or environment, but they are all in synch/in
    balance/predictable.

    2) “We value a loving relationship
    because it is temporary and uncertain.”

    In terms of what people value, this
    is not wholly true. Some

    things are valued largely because they are more lasting and certain.

    3) To the William Lane Craig quote
    about “a very good argument

    for a plurality of persons within God” you say “Uh huh. Show me that you got

    that from the Bible instead of your imagination.”

    He may have got it, at least in
    part, from bible passages such as

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness…”

    4) ““Good” emotions like love
    andcompassion and “bad” emotions like jealousy and anger each have their role.
    We

    categorize them as good and bad simply because we typically see too little of

    the good ones and too much of the bad ones.”

    I don’t agree. This seems to be
    equating “good” with scarcity and “bad” with plenty.

    In which case, the emotion to have sex with animals or be a famous serial
    killer would be considered “good.”

    5) “The palette of human emotions
    that we have exists

    simply because it provided survival benefit during our evolutionary path.

    I’m sure Kreeft and Craig want to imagine that they’re grounded in something

    less arbitrary than evolution. They have no good reason to say that or to

    elevate love to the pinnacle of emotions. The naturalistic explanation is

    sufficient.”

    But, along with emotions, I would
    think you could say the same about thought, reason and logic.

    As well as about science and any sufficient explanations you think it might
    give.

    6) Lastly, to your more general
    point (“God Is Love—Does that Make any Sense?”),

    I’ll repeat a thought I posted here a couple days ago:

    “A possible answer could be that the god of the bible is a

    lot more like us than Christians think. Specifically, like humans, this god

    could be immensely vindictive, sadistic, lazy, but also could be immensely
    forgiving,

    loving, active. The “all-good” characterization of god by Christians could be a

    misunderstanding or a lack of full understanding of their god and their god’s

    “goodness”.

    In other words, this god could be like us in our ups and downs, just

    immensely more extremely/powerfully so.

    Like bipolar to the n-th degree.”

  • skl

    Bob,

    Could it be that when I edit a posted comment for
    spacing/readability it goes into “Detected as Spam” mode? I don’t think I’ve
    experienced this on other blogs.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Disqus says that you have “Low Rep.” That probably enters into the equation somehow.

      It’s the label “spam” that makes no sense to me.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        FWIW, that’s exactly what happened to me when I first started using this site. Edits would get a comment coded as possible spam and then I’d have to wait a few hours before being able to post again.

      • skl

        “Low Rep” meaning what?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Dunno. Maybe find a way to ask Disqus.

          Based on what JAA2 just said, maybe it’s the edits that are your problem. Suggestion: write your comments in an editor on your computer and then paste it into Disqus once you’re satisfied.

        • Susan

          “Low Rep” meaning what?

          I found this.

          =====

          Edit: Click on “this” The link doesn’t seem to be highlighted but it’s there.

          That your comments keep being identified as spam seems to contribute to your status low rep.

    • Greg G.

      The second post showed up.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      No idea, but if editing is the problem, the solution is obvious.

  • Castilliano

    This reminds me of a simple insight I had this week:
    Loving people don’t have a wrath that I need to be spared from.

    One would have to edit out most of Christian lore (including Hell, most of the OT, Revelation, & some of Jesus’ own words) to build a non-wrathful god. There’s no way to reconcile a biblical god with love, unless one can consolidate wrath with love while keeping the integrity of both.

    I’ll add this challenge I may have posted here before:
    Name a loving action done by Yahweh that didn’t involve killing or sparing.
    If Yahweh were love, this would not be a challenge. Oddly, Christians seem to default to Jesus sacrificing himself, which involves both killing & sparing…to avoid Yahweh’s punishment.

    Cheers

    • Michael Neville

      Yahweh strikes me more as an abusive parent than a loving father. According to the propaganda he kills people just because he can, he orders rape and genocide, condones slavery and tortures people for eternity because they pissed him off.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Excellent challenge. Initial creation might be offered, but other examples are difficult to come up with. I may have to steal this. :)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Loving people don’t have a wrath that I need to be spared from.

      Nicely stated. But give this to a Christian, and he’ll try to figure out some blather wherein they can salvage God as perfectly loving and yet a cruel hell-creating bastard, all at the same time. If you don’t get it, that’s your fault.

  • Otto

    ‘God is Love’…is a tautology. Do they really want to reduce God to a tautology?

    • Bob Jase

      Better than a slackology.

      • Otto

        Nice one Chip…

  • Phil Rimmer

    Why is Yahweh’s little menage a trois more loving than the Greek pantheon?

    WLC’s pathetic just-like-a-human, not-a-bit-like-a-human oscillating modes of argumentation are patently expedient and manipulative.

  • Bob Jase

    God is love as shown in an abusive relationship – “I love you, why do you keep making me hit you?”

  • epicurus

    Anyone ever heard this old saw?
    God is love
    Love is blind
    Ray Charles is blind
    Ray Charles is God.

    • Michael Neville

      An oldie but a goodie.

  • Benny S.

    William Lane Craig: “This gives, I think, a very persuasive reason for thinking that….”

    WLC’s reasoning (and not just in this particular instance) is also very persuasive in thinking that WLC continually creates a god from the image of man, which is a no-no for Christians.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      A recent hilarious one: WLC makes the heretical error of Partialism by using the analogy of a triangle (3 angles make up 1 whole) for the Trinity.

      And the guy has a doctorate in theology.

  • Sashineb

    Yeah, this buybull verse really shows a lot of love doesn’t it? “Then I HEARD THE LORD SAY to the other men, “Follow him through the city and show no mercy; have no pity! KILL THEM ALL – OLD AND YOUNG, GIRLS AND WOMEN AND LITTLE CHILDREN. Defile the Temple! Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told by the LORD.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

    • adam
      • C_Alan_Nault

        That’s from the old testament. The Christian ( new testament) view is probably different.

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

        Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

        OK,never mind. The lord loves slaves.

    • Murph

      See it’s interesting. For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history death is not the end. The adults in that story no doubt deserved to die if you understood what they were doing. As for the children again, could it be that if God has them taken out of the world at least they would be spared eternally?

      • C_Alan_Nault

        ” For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history death is not the end. ”

        Wrong. Unless you can prove there is something beyond this life, the best you can honestly claim is ” For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history, they believe death is not the end.”.

        • Murph

          Well it’s hard to prove something if the other person isn’t open to evidence. What about NDE’s the peer reviewed type?

        • Michael Neville

          All NDEs show is the brain pukes up strange things when it’s oxygen starved. There’s the further point that Muslims’ NDEs tend to center around Allah and Hindus’ NDEs tend to center around the Trimūrti, the trinity of supreme divinity, whose individual members are Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer.

        • Murph

          Not peer reviewed NDE’ s that confirm details that would otherwise be impossible for the individual to know. Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples.

        • Susan

          Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples

          For example?

        • Murph

          As The Handbook outlines, by 2005 dozens of studies involving nearly 3,500 subjects who reported having had NDEs had become material for some 600 scholarly articles. Many of these articles are in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, the IANDS house journal—which, the association proudly notes, is peer-reviewed.

        • Susan

          Please provide one.

        • Murph

          I’m not going to do ALL your work for you

        • Susan

          I’m not going to do ALL your work for you.

          It’s not my work. It’s your work.

          And you haven’t done any work so far.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU made the positive claim.

          YOU are responsible to provide SPECIFIC evidence, not a bunch of worthless assertions.

        • Murph

          What do you need me to hold your hand or something?

        • Susan

          What do you need me to hold your hand or something?

          No. Just provide one. That should be easy. You suggest you have so many to choose from. Just one.

          I have no idea what “The Handbook” is.

          Please provide one.

        • Murph

          The Journal of Near Death studies has tons that are peer reviewed you can go read some for yourself. Be a big girl now.

        • Susan

          The Journal of Near Death studies has tons that are peer reviewed

          And what do they say?

          you can go read some for yourself.

          I have. I don’t see the connection. What connection do you think you’re making?

          Be a big girl now.

          Darnit. You are just here to troll.

          And just your first day on the internet. How sad.

        • Murph

          How about you read a peer reviewed study and argue against it, okay?

        • Susan

          How about you read a peer reviewed study and argue against it okay?

          How about you provide one?

        • epeeist

          How about you read a peer reviewed study

          So provide one already, one that you think stands up to scrutiny. The more that you avoid doing this the more we are going to think you are firing blanks.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The advantage of having a big pile of case histories of undefined value is that as soon as one gets rejected, you can say, “Oh, well never mind that. Just go find another one. There are plenty.” If it’s just a big pile of crappy reports, none of which would pass serious scientific scrutiny, then there is no good reason to see anything there.

          I think this is the point Susan is making. And you’re helping her make it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Journal of Near-Death Studies sponsored by the International Association for Near-Death Studies is the only periodical devoted specifically to explorations on the nature and scope of human consciousness as it is affected by the prospect or occurrence of clinical death. The journal publishes articles on near-death experiences and the empirical effects and theoretical implications of such events.

          What is it in the peer reviewed Journal of Near-Death Studies that you think it demonstrates?

          I’ve been interested in this for quite a number years now, particularly anticipating the results of the largest ever research project on the subject ever undertaken. The AWARE project led by Sam Parnia. We were promised some ground breaking results, what we got was a damp squib.

          Dr. Sam Parnia and his 4 year AWARE study produced what is basically squat. Just one dubious result from 4 years of research and thousands of cases. Seriously?

          Skeptical parapsychologist Caroline Watt likewise felt that the verified case didn’t demonstrate anything: “The one ‘verifiable period of conscious awareness’ that Parnia was able to report did not relate to this objective test. Rather, it was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television.”

          Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, writes…

          The much anticipated AWARE study, designed to be the first large rigorous study of NDEs with objective outcomes that could potentially differentiate between the two major hypotheses, is essentially a bust. The study, for the main outcome measure for which it was designed, did not return as much data as was hoped, but the data it did return was entirely negative. This is a negative study.

          Parnia, in my opinion, is desperately trying to rescue the study by falling back on simply reporting subjective accounts of what people remember long after the event. This type of information is nothing new, and cannot objectively resolve the debate. The results are also completely unimpressive, perfectly consistent with what we would expect given what is already well documented about human memory.

          The only relevant part of the study is Parnia’s admission that the results may be due entirely to confabulation. Spinning of this study in the popular press as evidence of life after death is not justified.

          http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Just a link.

          If you can’t show it, you don’t have it.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples.”

          Tons of examples yet you neglected to present any examples.

        • Michael Neville

          So where’s the papers for “peer reviewed” NDEs?

          Steven Novella’s blog “NeuroLogica” [link] has this to say about NDEs:

          The much anticipated AWARE study, designed to be the first large rigorous study of NDEs with objective outcomes that could potentially differentiate between the two major hypotheses, is essentially a bust. The study, for the main outcome measure for which it was designed, did not return as much data as was hoped, but the data it did return was entirely negative. This is a negative study.

          Parnia, in my opinion, is desperately trying to rescue the study by falling back on simply reporting subjective accounts of what people remember long after the event. This type of information is nothing new, and cannot objectively resolve the debate. The results are also completely unimpressive, perfectly consistent with what we would expect given what is already well documented about human memory.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show the studies or STFU and GTFO.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “What about NDE’s the peer reviewed type?”

          All these ( as you put it) “peer reviewed” NDE’s haven’t resulted in any evidence for an afterlife. The only actual evidence they can present is that the person nearly died but was revived.

        • Murph

          Not true. The people are conscious so how do you deal with that?

        • Susan

          The people are conscious

          You mean they’re not dead?

          so how do you deal with that?

          Um.. they’re not dead?

          I’m not sure what you’re trying to support here.

        • Murph

          They’re bodies are dead but their souls are off doing other things that are corroborated in peer reviewed studies. That’s a significant problem for atheists

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, YOU certainly seem brain-dead, at least concerning spelling and grammar.

          All the medical evidence refutes you. A stopped heart doesn’t IMMEDIATELY mean a dead brain, and the body is pretty much designed to protect the brain at all costs, as otherwise the body itself will perish rapidly.

        • Bob Jase

          I wonder if Murph realizes that he’s claiming that everyone who experienced an NDE somehow was resurrected from the dead, something most Christians say only Jesus could do (aside from a few old-time Catholic saints).

        • Pofarmer

          That’s kinda sorta not what the peer reviewed literature I’m aware if indicates.

        • David Cromie

          I would love to see any peer reviewed scientific paper that shows convincingly that ‘souls’ exist. Please cite at least one.

        • adam

          “They’re bodies are dead but their souls are off doing other things that are corroborated in peer reviewed studies. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Deal with what? Can any of these people prove any of the things about an afterlife that they claim they experienced?

          They may sincerely believe that what they say they experienced actually happened ( they may even have actually experienced those things), but they cannot present any evidence to prove they happened.

          Anything someone claims they experienced but that they cannot prove they experienced is an anecdote,not evidence.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You just made an assertion.

          Provide your citations or STFU & GTFO.

        • Greg G.

          A person can have conscious thoughts while not completely, but unable to distinguish dream components from reality. One such phenomenon is called a waking dream.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          NDEs have been studied and determined to be, according to the best evidence, the effect of an oxygen-starved brain defending itself as well as possible from panic that would damage it worse.

        • MNb

          You christians like testimonies so much. I have had NDE’s twice (due to dangerously high fever) and possibly three times.
          There is no light at the end of that particular tunnel.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        “As for the children again, could it be that if God has them taken out of the world at least they would be spared eternally?”

        Not if you believe the Bible story. If you believe the Bible story, the children that god drowned were drowned ( along with their parents) because they were sinners.

        And the animals were ( apparently) collateral damage & were drowned not because they were sinners but because god was apparently too stupid to realize that he could have just snapped his metaphorical fingers & eliminate all the sinners from existence.

        • Murph

          But children aren’t accountable like adults and animals don’t think about death or ponder their existence they’re just machines

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So then your ‘god’ drowned the children, in great terror and pain, for NO REASON, as, per YOU, they were blameless.

      • Sashineb

        And who can prove that “death is not the end”? Just because something is written in a book does not mean it is the truth. Ever heard of fiction?? As for the children being killed by this terrorist god, when it is ever acceptable to harm or molest children? The only answer I can think of is NEVER. And I don’t care whose god said it’s OK, it is NOT OK to do so.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        So? Bad ideas from the past are refuted all the time.

        People used to believe that slavery was ok (with the ‘bibles’ concurrence), that women and children were property, that genocide was ok as long as ‘god’ ordered it.

        We’re growing out of all that nonsense, by IGNORING your book and learning from experience.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Ah, you must just not be reading it right.

      Or something.

      • Sashineb

        Yeah, or maybe God is testing me …

  • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

    I think some literally believe that God is love, etc. in a Platonic essence sense. Heck, even Plato may have. I understand he thought that there was an all-good deity who embodied the Good. Of course, you have to buy both Platonism and theism for that.

  • Murph

    We have to consider that perhaps God flooding the world IS the most loving thing to do. Dan Barker admits this by saying he would rape little girls (see his debate with Kyle Butt) in order to save a multitude of people.

    If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist why can’t God?

    • Otto

      Well let’s see. Dan is willing to hurt a few people if it means to save a lot of people. God apparently has to hurt a lot of people to save a few. If you don’t see the difference I am not sure what to say.

      • Murph

        That’s great you say that because you see what Christians believe is that Christ gave his life so that many might be saved. So evidently you think that’s a worthwhile concept

        • Otto

          No I don’t agree…because with the scenario you have presented far more will be harmed than saved. Not to mention many Christians are convinced even other Christians will not be saved.

        • Murph

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged. I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved. Let me guess you’re having a really hard time understanding the concept of denominations?

        • Otto

          So children were being judged…so you contradict yourself when you say below that …”But children aren’t accountable like adults”.

          >>>”I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved.”

          Really? I hear certain Christians say all the time that Catholics are worshiping the the anti-Christ Pope….and vice versa. That is only one example of many.

        • Murph

          Let me clarify. God is judging the adults but sparing the children by taking their life given they will live with him in eternity (again the children) . I don’t believe all Catholics are going to hell and conversly i dont believe all evangelicals will be in heaven. At the end of the day is the Catholic Christian or evangelical, etc. worshiping Christ?

        • Otto

          So God had to kill children to ‘save’ them….even though he is supposedly all powerful and would have any number of solutions available to him. Seems legit.

          >>>”I don’t believe all Catholics are going to hell and conversly i dont believe all evangelicals will be in heaven.”

          So you admit many people who are Christians will not be saved…which was exactly my point.

        • Murph

          Well if they’re dillusional that’s not my fault or God’s. If someone claims to be Napolean that doesn’t mean they are necessarily. People get into Christianity for all kinds of reasons and not always the right ones.

        • Otto

          So I guess you are able to judge what makes a delusional Christian…just like those Christians who disagree with you think they are able to judge you. Par for the course.

        • Murph

          Well no there’s room for theological errors that’s just silly to think otherwise. But the New Testament is crystal clear about what it means to be saved and how to be saved.

        • Otto

          What you consider a theological error and what other Christian think are a theological errors are in opposition. If the New Testament is so crystal clear how come so many Christians can not agree on that point?

        • Murph

          Why do all MLB teams agree to the core rules but all the teams approach the game differently?

        • Otto

          But that’s the point…not all Christians agree on the core rules…it is not even close.

        • Murph

          Oh okay. All Christians agree that Jesus alone saves. That’s undisputed

          All Christians believe in the worship of Christ
          All Christians believe that God is good
          All Christians believe that forgiveness of sin is only through Christ

          Should I continue?

        • Otto

          Through works…or faith…or is it a combination?

        • Murph

          Faith alone that’s standard. Christians don’t believe you have to work to be saved

        • Otto

          That isn’t true…that isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches.

        • Murph

          That’s their problem. It’s plain as day in Scripture.

        • Otto

          They would say the same.

        • Murph

          But you see that doesn’t change what’s true does it? That’s the great thing about truth is it exists regardless of who believes in it

        • Susan

          But you see that doesn’t change what’s true does it? That’s the great thing about truth is it exists regardless of who believes in it

          That’s exactly what they say. Except they capitalize “Truth”. The catlicks love their capitals.

          So, go argue with them. Good luck. Taking on the One True Church and all.

        • Murph

          Well been there done that 500 years ago and they lost oopsy for them

        • Susan

          Well Ben there done that 500 years ago and they lost oopsy for them

          They don’t seem to have lost. They still exist. Islam won some territory 500 years ago that it still dominates. Is this about military accomplishments?

          You don’t seem to have won and they don’t seem to have lost.

          What rules are you judging by?

        • Otto

          You need to actually demonstrate what you believe is true, and demonstrate the Catholic Church is wrong….not just assert it.

        • Murph

          We did already 500 years ago and we won it’s called history

        • Otto

          That’s funny…cause the Catholic Church is one of the most influential and widespread forms of Christianity. Their leader is probably the most regarded Christian leader in the world. Is the leader of your denomination as well known and well regarded?

        • Murph

          My leader is Jesus Christ not my pastor

        • Otto

          Oh OK…well that settles it….you win and they lose. /s

        • Murph

          Hey if they want to say Christ is their leader thats great! If they follow the Pope or whatever that’s just not Christianity that’s like Popeianity haha

        • Otto

          Nice cop out

        • Murph

          Well if Christ isn’t there supreme leader something else is and if that’s the case it’s not Christianity

        • Otto

          You understood my question and dodged it…that is a cop out

        • Murph

          I answered acurately and you refuse to accept it

        • Otto

          No you did not answer it accurately…or honestly. Don’t feel bad though, the Catholics have the same type of problems.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you bother to read the NT for comprehension, then you’d realize that you’re a ‘Paulian’, not an xtian, based on the ideas you’re claiming are divinely inspired.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          par usual with xtians…

          holding up their invisible friend as an authority.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re CLAIMING truth…

          but you refuse to DEMONSTRATE it, instead demanding we simply accept your idiot hateful superstitious assertion.

        • MNb

          The greater thing about Truth is that the RCC makes exactly the same claim as you – and still contradicts you. It looks like you guys have a problem with truth. Why should outsiders like us choose one over another? I have a better option – neither of you holds the truth (and technically speaking I don’t either).

        • Susan

          That’s their problem. It’s plain as day in Scripture.

          And there you have it. Murph’s plain-as-day understanding of scripture vs. the one true church.

          It might as well be an argument about the mating habits of leprechauns.

        • Murph

          Okay well what is the essence of the Constitution of the United States? This should be easy

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Maximum liberty and opportunity for the maximum number of people, and avoiding all possible harm or hurt.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Greg G.

          All Christians believe in the worship of Christ

          Well, some might be said to follow the teachings of Jesus. If “worship” is loosely defined enough to include that, then yes.

          All Christians believe that God is good

          The Marcionites didn’t.

          All Christians believe that forgiveness of sin is only through Christ

          The author of the book of James didn’t.

          Should I continue?

          Maybe you should learn more about the diversity of Christianity, then start anew.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          re your first point, WRONG.

          Here’s a list of verses refuting you:

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

        • Greg G.

          Christians only agree on enough things to be identified as Christian. It’s like the world championship of football where the Americans are playing with an oblong ball and one set of rules, the Australians have a different set of rules and ball, while everybody else is playing turf hockey without sticks but with a round ball that has geometric polka-dots.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          MLB teams exist in reality, and can be percieved.

          So that analogy fails.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually the New Testament is rather murky about how to be saved:

          Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Rom 4:4-5 (NIV)

          What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:14-17 (NIV)

        • Murph

          Exactly they’re bookended theological statements. Faith and salvation imply good works but good works do not save.

        • Greg G.

          No, James 2:8-10 agrees with Galatians 5:14 that loving your neighbor is a good start but then says that if you break one part of the law, you have broken the whole law. That is James’ whole point. The author of James was a law-following Jew who was a servant of Jesus Christ who disagreed with Paul’s formula.

        • Murph

          If I save some lives by performing cpr on someone does that make me a doctor? No. But if I am a doctor I will perform cpr. This is what the writers are getting at. Works accompany faith but works can’t save you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Susan

          the New Testament is crystal clear about what it means to be saved and how to be saved.

          Lol.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Greg G.

          It seems to me that the first verse listed, Mark 16:16 should be in the second list because it appears to require baptism in addition to faith.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Adult baptism in those days.

          Why would a person be baptized UNLESS they had faith?

        • Greg G.

          Why would a person be baptized UNLESS they had faith?

          If they thought they could improve their chances of getting laid by being baptized, they would.

          The second clause of the verse says that you don’t get in without faith but it doesn’t say that you get in without baptism.

        • MNb

          All theology is erroneous (and that includes atheology) because the first premisse is false – there is no god.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ll agree there’s no evidence for any ‘gods’.

          But I don’t take it as absolute that ‘gods’ don’t exist.

        • MNb

          Neither do I. I don’t even take evidence as an absolute. Some time I might fall upward when jumping off a bridge.

        • Michael Neville

          Some time I might fall upward when jumping off a bridge.

          Somehow I doubt you’ll run an experiment to see if this happens.

        • Murph

          What do you think the essence of Christianity Is?

        • Otto

          Depends on the Christian.

        • Murph

          According to the New Testament what is the essence?

        • Otto

          Depends on the Christian…

        • Murph

          But I’m asking you what do YOU think the essence is?

        • Otto

          What does it matter what I think when Christians don’t agree among themselves?

        • Murph

          I’m just curious what do YOU believe is the essence of Christianity? How would you sum it up in two sentences? Seriously.

        • Otto

          I don’t claim to be correct on the subject…additionally it seems to be a very subjective issue…which is a large part of why I am no longer a Christian. Oh people like yourself say it is objective, and people that disagree with you say the same…therein lies the problem.

        • Murph

          It’s not a problem. Either they’re both wrong, they could both be right or one could be wrong and the other right. Where does the evidence point? Merely panning it off apathetically is intellectually lazy

        • Otto

          According to Christians the evidence points in multiple directions (it depends on the Christian as to what they consider the evidence), a point you continue to miss.

        • Murph

          Again Christians agree that Chriat alone saves, no?

        • Otto

          No

        • Murph

          Umm did I miss something isn’t Christ in the word Christian denoting his importance?

        • Otto

          Yes you missed a lot.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you read the NT for comprehension, you see that the religion is much more ‘Paulian’ than ‘xtian’.

        • MNb

          Yes, you missed some christians I know, who think believing is not about saving.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The word Christ is a title not a name. Jesus the anointed one.

          Though the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, before the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”. Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by his followers after his crucifixion and resurrection. Christians believe that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in his mission, death, and resurrection. The Pauline epistles, the earliest texts of the New Testament, often refer to Jesus as “Christ Jesus” or “Christ”. The word Christ was originally a title, but later became part of the name “Jesus Christ”. It is, however, still also used as a title, in the reciprocal use “Christ Jesus”, meaning “the Messiah Jesus”, and independently as “the Christ”.

          Christians are therefore followers of an anointed one. Of which there were others in the buybull.

          In Abrahamic religions, the Messiah (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ‎‎, translit. māšîaḥ‎, sometimes spelled Moshiach), is the one chosen to lead the world and thereby save it. The term also appears in the forms Messias (Ancient Greek: Μεσσίας), Christ (Ancient Greek: Χριστός), or Al-Masih (Arabic: المسيح‎‎, ISO 233: al-masīḥ).

          The concepts of the Messiah, messianism, and the Messianic Age grew from the Book of Isaiah (4:2 and chapter 11) during the latter half of the 8th century BCE. The term comes from the Hebrew verb meaning “to apply oil to,” to anoint. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel’s kings were sometimes called God’s “messiah”—God’s anointed one. A messiah could also be an anointed high priest or prophet. Messiahs did not even need to descend from Jacob, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.

          Jesus wasn’t Mr. Christ of the Nazareth Christ’s, that well known family who were in the building trade.

        • David Cromie

          What has that delusion got to do with providing the evidence for the existence of your favourite ‘god’, without which all that is left is mere faith and unsubstantiated belief in various imagined supernatural entities having magical powers?

        • Greg G.

          No, james warren has been posting here for a few months, and his position is far different than most Christians.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not even the NT says that.

          Try again.

        • MNb

          No. Not all of them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope…for a supposed Christian you don’t seem to know much.

          Solo fide, by faith alone, and solus Christo, by Christ alone, are not universal Christian doctrine.

          Solo Christo (Latin: by Christ alone) is one of the five solae that summarize the Protestant Reformers’ basic belief that salvation is obtained through the atoning work of Christ alone, apart from individual works, and that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. It holds that salvation cannot be obtained without Christ.

        • David Cromie

          ‘Evidence’ is the crux of the matter, but christers fail, miserably, to provide any irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for their beliefs.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s WAAAAYYYY too general.

          Define your terms.

        • Susan

          what do YOU believe is the essence of Chrisianity?

          I don’t think there’s any such thing. But then, I don’t know what you mean by “essence”.

          Just unsupported claims.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Murph

          There’s no such thing as Christianity? Why would you say that?

        • Susan

          There’s no such thing as Christianity? Why would you say that?

          Clearly, I didn’t. Welcome to the internet, by the way. I see you just joined today.

          I hope it’s not only for trolling purposes.

          We’ve had way too much of that lately.

        • David Cromie

          The operative word is ‘essence’ in your question, not whether christianity exists.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s a superstition called ‘xtianity’.

          Doesn’t mean it’s based on reality.

        • MNb

          You’re shifting the goalposts. There are things that exist without essence. Christianity is one of them.

        • David Cromie

          One word; crap!

        • Michael Neville

          Murph the Durph asked for two sentences so we should expand on David’s succinct yet all encompassing one word description.

          Christianity is based on the thoughts and wishes of a priestly group who wanted power, wealth and a job with no heavy lifting. As a result, they came up with a religion based on promises of “pie in the sky when you die” and threats for those who didn’t support the priests in giving them the good life.

        • David Cromie

          The carrot and stick writ ‘bigly’, as the Orange Buffoon would say!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t care.

          Not my problem.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR religion.

          YOU define it.

          You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof, but it’s not our problem.

        • MNb

          What I think is that christianity doesn’t have an essence.

        • David Cromie

          Easy, it is a con supported by mythological BS, designed to control the superstitiously inclined, and to empty their bank balances!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t care what any ‘essence’ of ‘xtianity’ is.

          That’s YOUR positive position. If you can’t define it coherently, it’s not MY problem.

        • Murph

          Is there a such thing as a delusional atheist?

        • Otto

          Yes, but it is not based on their atheistic belief.

        • Murph

          So how’s come atheists disagree so much on whats right or wrong ethically speaking?

        • Michael Neville

          Because atheists are human with their separate opinions on different subjects. The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing, that atheists agree on is belief in the non-existence of gods. And even then there’s disagreement between strong or gnostic atheists (“there are no gods”) and weak or agnostic atheists (“I do not believe there are gods”).

        • Murph

          More importantly is that being an atheist is a very intellectually dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God does not exist. Antony Flew rightly criticized this thinking.

        • Michael Neville

          What is dishonest about saying “due to the complete and utter lack of evidence that even hints at the existence of gods, I do not believe in gods”? Do you have evidence that any gods (remember there’s more gods than your pet deity) exist? If so, bring it out.

          I personally am an agnostic atheist. I don’t know if gods exist. They might. However because there’s no evidence to support their existence I don’t believe they exist. Similarly every proton in this galaxy could spontaneously decay into a muon, a pion and a scattering of neutrinos in the next ten minutes. I don’t know that won’t happen. But I don’t believe it will. I think that the possibilities of existence of gods and galactic proton decay are on the same order of magnitude.

          As for Anthony Flew, who cares about him? As the old fairy tale says: “Not I, said the little red hen.”

        • Murph

          It’s self refuting. Only one God can be God. Think about it. There can be higher beings but only one God. Are you tracking?

          You can have multiple government officials (higher ups) but only one president (the highest up). It’s the same concept. If there are higher beings which one has the most power? That one would be God.

        • Michael Neville

          I was imprecise. I should have explained that while Christians believe in three gods (and one goddess if you’re Catholic), other religions have other gods, often a slew of them. Muslims believe in Allah, who has similarities to the Jewish god and a remoter semblance to the Father god of the Christian Trinity. Hindus claim there are some 30 million

          Vie
          gods, but they’re all aspects of one god or maybe they’re not, depending on which particular branch of Hinduism you’re examining. Some animists think that gods exists in every plant, animal, and certain inanimate objects. In short, the human imagination has devised a plethora of gods.

          Your favorite gods, i.e. Dad, JC and the Spook, are three such gods, only Christians pretend they’re one god even though none of you can explain how that works. Incidentally the Trinity didn’t become Christian dogma until the Council of Nicea in 325.

          Anyway, your song and dance about “only one god can be a god” (let’s ignore the 30 million Hindu gods, only Hindus believe in them) doesn’t even attempt to answer my question about what’s dishonest about not believing in gods. Do you want to take a try at actually answering the question I asked you?

        • Murph

          It’s a softball question I already answered. Only one God would be worthy of worship i.e. whichever one is the most powerful. That God would be God. There simply cannot be “30 million gods” in the same way that you cannot have 30 million presidents.

        • Michael Neville

          That still doesn’t answer my original question to your dumb ass (and if you keep blowing me off I’ll become fucking rude to you). Since you obviously have the mental acuity of a concussed dung beetle, I’ll repeat it:

          What is dishonest about saying “due to the complete and utter lack of evidence that even hints at the existence of gods, I do not believe in gods”?

        • David Cromie

          Anyone could dream up other supposed ‘gods’ with much better attitudes and attributes than Yahweh any day of the week! I leave out JC because there is no contemporary, 1st cent. CE evidence, whether written or archaeological, for the existence of this particular a god-man.

        • Bob

          Haha you’re a mythicist? Do you realize what a laughable position that is?

        • Greg G.

          The gospels are fiction contrived from the literature of the day. The early epistles never speak of a teacher/preacher. They only mention Jesus from Old Testament passages. Paul says he got his revelation of his gospel from the prophetic writings. We know this is true because everything he tells us about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. Paul never saw Jesus, yet he claims his knowledge is not inferior to the knowledge of the super-apostles’ knowledge. That would make no sense if he knew they got their knowledge first hand.

          What evidence do you have for the existence of that historical Jesus besides a consensus based on the consensus?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Statistically, a mythicist is the only tenable position.

          Unless you have some evidence to refute the statistics showing that nothing supernatural has ever occurred, especially not repeatably and reliably.

        • Greg G.

          He is referring to Jesus who could have been an unsupernatural person. It’s just that the gospels are complete fiction and the epistles don’t talk about a first century Jesus. There were lots of Jesuses in first century Judea, maybe some from Galilee, and maybe one got crucified but the New Testament is not about that guy. Paul got the crucifixion idea from the OT as he presents in Galatians 3:6-14, or in that range, by citing OT verses.

        • MNb

          Complete fiction like in 100%, every single word of it?
          I already knew that JM’s tend to be stupid fanatics, but if you mean this exactly like you write it you beat everyone of them.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          False in every assertion made not backed up by evidence.

        • MNb

          That’s not what my question is about, It’s an interesting principle, that should make you conclude that Diogenes of Sinope was false as well. However that’s something I won’t pursue any further this time.

        • Greg G.

          Complete fiction like in 100%, every single word of it?
          I already knew that JM’s tend to be stupid fanatics, but if you mean this exactly like you write it you beat everyone of them.

          A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it? “Every single word” is a straw man. John 18:13 says Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas which is plausible. The gospels mention places and people who actually existed but so does Gone with the Wind. Luke used Josephus for verisimilitude. Some of the quotes of the Old Testament are accurate.

          But if Jesus did not exist, then everything in the gospels about him is necessarily fiction. Paul tells us he got his information from the scriptures. He proves this because everything he says about Jesus comes from the Old Testament. The fact that the early general epistles also never mention Jesus as a first century entity because every mention of him is also found in the Old Testament. The epistles tell us they were about a hidden mystery in what they considered the prophetic writings.

          Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?

        • MNb

          “A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it?”
          Yes, it can. Check the Harry Potter novels. Quite a few words can be taken out of context and will remain fiction.

          “Every single word” is a straw man.”
          No, it’s the logical consequence of “complete fiction”. Thanks for admitting that you exaggerated.

          “Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?”
          No, because I don’t know what pericope means and don’t feel like looking it up at the moment.. But I can formulate a statement (several actually) from the Gospels that is not fiction, even according to your prejudiced standards. If you can’t yourself I’ll have to conclude that your prejudiced standards have affected your cognitive skills and that you’re well on your way to become a stupid fanatic indeed.

        • Michael Neville

          Pericope is what a sumarine uses to look above the waves.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          that’s a periscope. a pericope seems to be something else.

        • Michael Neville

          Submarines use periscopes, sumarines use pericopes.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          lol … touché.

        • Greg G.

          MN is retired Navy and he worked on submarines. If he says it’s a pericope, then I believe him.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not going to drag the joke out any further.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          also on sumarines? anyway, yes, it makes sense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Could be a peech impediment.

          This is a real issue in NT studies…we shouldn’t be taking the pish….it’s…hmmmph…chuckle…chuckle…not funny.

          Pericopes and periscopes

          When I am reading manuscripts or editing or examining, one of my favourite typos is “periscopes” for “pericopes”. The word pericope is a favourite among Biblical scholars, for a unit of text, a passage, especially in the Gospels, especially in contexts connected with form-criticism. Even as I type this entry, “pericopes” is getting underlined in red as a spelling error, while “periscopes” is not. Since the advent of spell-checkers over the last generation or so, I suspect that this typo has become much more common. The eye misses the extra “s” and it is not, of course, picked up by the spell-checker. The other day I glanced at my hand-out in class and saw the word “periscopes” there where it should have been pericopes, so I had fallen prey to the same error. Perhaps this is a reason to stick to the slightly affected plural “pericopae”?

          http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/pericopes-and-periscopes.html

        • Greg G.

          Perhaps this is a reason to stick to the slightly affected plural “pericopae”?

          “Periscope” also comes from Greek roots so the plural should be “periscopae”.

        • David Cromie

          A passage taken from a longer piece of writing, usually from the so-called ‘bible’.

        • Greg G.
          “A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it?”

          Yes, it can. Check the Harry Potter novels. Quite a few words can be taken out of context and will remain fiction.

          “Every single word” is a straw man.”

          No, it’s the logical consequence of “complete fiction”. Thanks for admitting that you exaggerated.

          Is your argument that the mention of, say, “Jerusalem” means that the gospels are not complete fiction? Does that mean that Spiderman is not complete fiction because it mentions New York, that Superman is not complete fiction because the backstory mentions Kansas, that Sherlock Holmes is not complete fiction because he has an address that corresponds to reality and he works with Scotland Yard?

          “Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?”

          No, because I don’t know what pericope means and don’t feel like looking it up at the moment.. But I can formulate a statement (several actually) from the Gospels that is not fiction, even according to your prejudiced standards. If you can’t yourself I’ll have to conclude that your prejudiced standards have affected your cognitive skills and that you’re well on your way to become a stupid fanatic indeed.

          Pilate was governor of Judea and he probably washed his hands at some point in his life. Is that the point you are trying to make? It’s like you are making the case that the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer is a partial documentary! It’s like arguing that a fantasy about Angelina Jolie is more real than a fantasy about Lara Croft, a fictional character played by Jolie. It’s like arguing that a prayer to a real milk carton is more real than a prayer to an imaginary milk carton.

          Some people might say you are nit-picking but I say that this is the most substantive point you have made about the Jesus Myth theory, to date.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          … that Sherlock Holmes is not complete fiction because he has an address that corresponds to reality …

          an interesting little detail: the full address of sherlock holmes, 221b baker street, didn’t exist when his stories were written, according to wikipedia at least, only the street itself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Everyone who is not a Christian, and even some that are, are mythicists in that the gospel Jesus is a myth.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory#The_historical_Jesus_spectrum_or_color_me_completely_confused

          It’s just that some of us are of the position that there is no actual person who is the kernel of the myth. And there is no evidence that demonstrates there was, either.

        • Pofarmer

          Is it more or less laughable than believing God impregnated a virgin with himself to torture himself to death to atone for some sin he created?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Can you prove that Jesus wasn’t just legend, all the way down to the person himself? The best answer I’ve seen from your side is that the consensus view of NT scholars is that Jesus was a real person. That’s an important data point, but it hardly shuts out the possibility of the other side.

        • Luvin’ it

          It shuts it out unless you subscribe to extreme scepticism

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Some religions trace their origin back to a real person (Joseph Smith, for example), and some have a legendary founder. No, extreme skepticism isn’t required.

        • Luvin’ it

          So you are a mythicist then? Or do you not understand one of Bob P’s make arguments? He says we obly have a bible because Jesus was a myth not because he existed. He says if Jesus existed he would be who the Gospels say he is. Too bad for you if you think Jesus existed it makes you look dumber given what you said not smarter

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nope, not a mythicist. And no, I don’t understand the mythicists’ argument. It’s intriguing stuff, but it’s tangential for my purposes. If I embraced mythicism, it wouldn’t be a useful counter-apologetic argument.

        • Luvin’ it

          But you continually cite Carrier who is one so what gives?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve quoted Hitler before.

        • Luvin’ it

          But you quote Carrier in the affirmative

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No idea what your point is.

          I quote Carrier (and lots of other people), so therefore … ? Therefore I accept every word he says? Therefore everything Carrier writes is true? What?

        • Luvin’ it

          You quote Carrier in contexts where you’re attempting to disprove that Jesus existed. Are you a mythicist or not?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve already answered that question. You think making stupid points will give you a different answer?

        • Luvin’ it

          I’m asking again yes or no are you a Jesus mythicist?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And I’m telling you for the last time: I’ve already answered this question. Why the busywork? You don’t have anything intelligent to say? Just making conversation?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And Carrier cites Bob Seidensticker in both the positive and negative on his blog….what’s your point?

          Arguments should be assessed on their own merits, not solely by the virtue of the person that makes them. Doing otherwise is to employ the ad hominem fallacy.

          That’s not to disregard the authority of the individual making an argument should not be taken into consideration when it’s a toss up. But the veracity of any argument should take precedent over the person making it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Define mythicism?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haha you’re a mythicist?

          Define mythicism?

          Do you realize what a laughable position that is?

          And yet one that has not been refuted by scholars to date, funny that, isn’t it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me some evidence for this ‘god’ of yours.

          You’re using something in the argument that you haven’t even defined it.

        • Greg G.

          God is not an elected position. There are more than 30 million people in California. There are more than 30 million stars in the galaxy. There are more than 30 million galaxies in the universe. There may be more than 30 million universes. There is no reason there could not be over 30 million gods except for the lack of evidence for even one of them.

        • MNb

          Then which one? The father, the son or the holy spook?

        • Greg G.

          If humans can exist with an omnipotent being, then it is logically possible to exist with an omnipotent being.
          If an omnipotent being cannot exist with another omnipotent being, then it is not omnipotent.

          If a boron atom has five protons, which one has the most power? The protons have exactly the same properties but are different protons. Omnipotent beings would necessarily have the same properties, because lacking any property means lacking omnipotence, but not be the same being.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Again, you’re saying that your ‘god’ is limited by the laws of logic.

          Sooooo, NOT omnipotent.

        • RichardSRussell

          I myself won’t say that superhero-style gods like Thor or Zeus can’t exist. (No evidence that they do, of course, but not impossible in principle.) However, that possibility doesn’t exist for any supposed deity alleged to have some kind of ultimate power like omniscience, ominipotence, omnipresence, or omnibenevolence, because it’s always possible to construct a scenario where 2 such omnipowers are pitted against each other (or even one against itself, as in “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”), and at least one of them must fail, thereby disproving the “omni” part. Thus I state with absolute assurance that such a critter not only does not exist but cannot exist.

          Nonetheless, that makes me a gnostic atheist only with respect to that particular type of deity. I remain an agnostic atheist with regard to all the others.

          However, as pointed out by an earlier poster, all that’s necessary to be an atheist is to not have a belief in any deities, for whatever reason or none at all. It’s a popular misconception that being an atheist means an affirmative belief that there is no god, but that’s merely a subset of atheists generally. The vast majority of the world’s atheists are about a billion Chinese who have no belief in gods because they’ve never been introduced to the concepts and thus have no opinions about it one way or the other.

        • Murph

          You’re missing it which is unfortunate Richy. You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest. If there are many gods it begs the question of which one is the most powerful? That one is God. Hmmmm….

        • RichardSRussell

          Would God’s left hand win a wrist-wrestling contest with his right hand? Whichever way you answer, there’s a loser, which makes that hand less than omnipotent. The question is not can Yahweh beat Thor, it’s whether Yahweh can beat Yahweh.

        • Murph

          Well no thats self refuting again because God can’t “wrestle” himself silly. Common you’re better than that

        • RichardSRussell

          Really? You openly acknowledge that there’s something God can’t do? I guess you agree, then, that he’s not omnipotent.

        • Murph

          Haha well he can’t do things that are absurd silly man. He can’t sin. He can’t make square circles and he can’t wrestle himself which is evidently you’re big “gotcha” point

        • epeeist

          He can’t make square circles

          So not as powerful as Pafnuty Chebyshev then.

          So why did you sign up to post on the site Murph (or should I say Ed?)

        • Greg G.

          This guy has a different concept of omnipotence than Ed does. We had a Murph here sometime ago and this guy reminds me of him, to the best of my recollection.

        • Michael Neville

          He can’t sin.

          Your god is a thoroughly immoral character. According to your propaganda your god kills people just because he can, he orders rape and genocide, he condones slavery. That sounds pretty sinful to me.

          But, you’ll retort, “how can you judge Gawd?” It’s easy. I’m sentient and have a workable concept of morality based on the Granny Weatherwax theory of sin:

          And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. –Terry Pratchett Carpe Jugulum

          Immanuel Kant agrees with that:

          Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. —Categorical Imperatives

          Since according to the Bible your god does treat people as things, he sins.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I Kant believe that’s so beautifully succinct!

          (you can clobber me for that when we next meet 😉 )

        • Greg G.

          If Moses can wrestle with God, then so it is logically possible to wrestle with God, therefore God can wrestle with God. An infinite God could wrestle with itself an infinite number of times simultaneously.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your ‘god’ is limited by the laws of physics and logic?

          Then it’s not omnipotent, right there.

        • Greg G.

          He can’t sin. He can’t make square circles

          Those two things are not alike. Square circles are a contradiction of terms where one property is incompatible with the other. But if humans can sin, then it is possible to sin. If God cannot sin, then you have lost omnipotence. Allowing Job’s family to be killed just to win a bet with Satan is about as sinful as it gets. If it is defined as not sin just to say God doesn’t sin, then you have defined away sin completely.

        • epeeist

          He can’t make square circles

          I can, so does that make me more powerful than your god?

        • RichardSRussell

          My point was merely the difference between gnostic atheism (“I know that gods do not exist”) vs. agnostic atheism (“I don’t think that any gods exist, but I can’t be sure.”). I was stating that I’m an agnostic atheist with respect to the superhero-type gods like Thor and Zeus but a gnostic atheist with regard to any deities who are supposed to have some kind of ultimate power. Being omnipotent means you can do anything, which is an ultimate power. It’s claimed that the Christian God (Yahweh) is omnipotent. As you yourself point out, there are things that Yahweh can’t do because no entity can do them (altho I would be pleased to someday demonstrate to you that even a mere mortal like me can wrist-wrestle his left hand vs. his right hand, even tho you think that this is beyond Yahweh’s competence). Thus you are, like me, a gnostic atheist when it comes to gods who are supposed to be omnipotent. You know they can’t exist! As long as nobody’s claiming that Yahweh is omnipotent (or omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent), I revert to just being agnostic on the subject of his existence, which is evidently where you are as well.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why not?

        • epeeist

          Why not?

          Oh, that one is easy. Because it doesn’t exist.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL

        • richardrichard2013

          but one person in trinity makes love to the other persons in trinity and like a ping pong game of love making. and one person in trinity commands and instructs another person in trinity what to do. and one person in trinity rapes jesus with sins from all years. so of course he can wrestle himself.

        • Susan

          You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest.

          Not necessarily. There could be two or more who can lift 30 lbs. over their own weight. Or two or more who can lift 200 lbs. and not a pound more.

          Also, five guys in a room have been demonstrated to exist. None of the gods that humans have ever claimed exist, seem to exist.

          If there are many gods it begs the question of which one is the most powerful?

          If there are many gods, it might raise the question of which one is the most powerful. Or the most wise, or the best dancer or all kinds of things. But only if.

          The real question is “Are there many (or any) things we can call God? That is, do they exist?”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “If there are many gods, it might raise the question of which one is the most powerful. Or the most wise, or the best dancer or all kinds of things. But only if.” If we ever find some, i want to study/know which ever one grows the best weed.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that any gods exist? After you’ve shown that gods exist then we can discuss whether or not your god is one of the existent ones (it’s unlikely because of the problems of evil and suffering but it is possible).

        • Greg G.

          You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest.

          Your reading comprehension is not up to par. That is nothing like any point RSR said. He said that he was an agnostic atheist about that type of being but he was a gnostic atheist toward the omnipotent kind. If you have five guys in a room, it does not follow that one of them is omnipotent.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. YOU can’t prove there’s anything in the room to begin with.

          So your superstition is no more powerful than any other, although your superstitious delusion may have some of the most deadly violent victims.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          this reminds me of those comic book discussions about who would win in a fight. can spider-man defeat the hulk? can batman defeat superman? even in those cases is mere strength or the general power level just one factor (and depends on the writer).

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Every day in World of Warcraft various ‘heros’ beat the shit out of each other to see who is the most powerful. One of the reasons I don’t get into pvp is that no matter how good your gear, no matter how well planed your rotation, there is always somebody who can clean your clock. Or, you might just get some real shitty RNG. (;

        • epeeist

          Flew became a deist, he didn’t believe in your god.

        • David Cromie

          Flew, who was struggling with Alzheimers at the time, later denied this claim.

        • epeeist

          The Alzheimer’s I knew about and the rather dubious nature of the book he wrote with Roy Varghese, but I wasn’t aware he denied his conversion to deism.

        • Bob

          Source?

        • Greg G.

          The Wikipedia page says he denied becoming a deist in 2001 but the later conversion to deist was around 2004. He seems to have fallen for the argument that Dennis Gilman has been posting. Flew seems to have forgotten that it is always premature to jump to a supernatural conclusion without evidence of the supernatural.

        • Greg G.

          being an atheist is a very intellectually dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God does not exist.

          That is a dishonest claim. Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence that gods exist. All you have to do is provide sufficient evidence for the existence of one or more gods.

          Theism only provides excuses for the lack of evidence.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re stating that gnostic atheism is the only kind.

          Demonstrate that or retract & recant.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s sure evidence that the buybull big “G” God doesn’t exist…it defies logic.

        • MNb

          In my dictionary evidence by definition is derived from our natural reality. You probably think your god is supernatural, hence “evidence for/against God” contradicts itself. There are sound logical arguments against your god.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          ALERT ALERT, EPIC FAIL! ALERT. Sorry troll, you have shown just how stupid you really are. Atheist simply do not see any evidence FOR THE EXISTENCE of god(s). Not the other way around. Huge difference. Just like you ijits say that since science aint proved that god didnt make the earth we have to believe genesis. Either try and learn some logic or head back under your bridge. For now, gonna just hit you with Mr. Block Button. Bye bye.

        • adam

          “More importantly is that being an atheist is a very intellectually
          dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God
          does not exist”

          There is sure evidence that the God of the bible does not exist, Antony Flew agrees with me.

        • Greg G.

          Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably maintain the proposition that one or more gods exist.

          Ethics and morality do not come in a can. They have to be worked out. They are not absolute nor objective, either.

          Which brings us to “why theists disagree on what is right or wrong, even from the same theology?”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Raelians. Done and dusted.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep…there is someone on these boards at the moment claiming to be an atheist who is as delusional as any deluded.

          Atheist’s come in a spectrum of stripes…all atheism means is a lack of belief in gods.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody gets into Christianity for the “right” reasons, unless one enjoys ice cream socials. They join because they are delusional or gullible.

        • Bob

          Riiiiiiight

        • Greg G.

          Is there a right reason for you being a Christian? Was it an unevidenced fear of eternal punishment? A fear of death? A wish for an imaginary friend?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sounds like apologist bullshit to me.

          Kids weren’t just blinked out of existence, per the story, but drowned, in horribly terror and suffering.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          All hail the mighty murph who alone will decide which xtian gets into heaven. Make sure you have been kissing his ass or you might not get in.

        • adam

          “Make sure you have been kissing his ass or you might not get in.”

          That might upset Hank, and you know how Hank gets…..

        • adam

          ” God is judging the adults but sparing the children by taking their life
          given they will live with him in eternity (again the children)”

          Citation needed

          ” At the end of the day is the Catholic Christian or evangelical, etc. worshiping Christ?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9944dcd24aca60f5c4f74e6f5cd43b9ce0e02c90bb9195db332c6b0bb15465ca.jpg

        • David Cromie

          So, being drowned never hurt anyone! Could I plead in court that I drowned my neighbour for his own good, or is murder reserved absolutely to a ‘loving god’?

        • Bob

          God can take life as he sees fit you however cannot

        • Greg G.

          God cannot allow suffering if he is both omnipotent and benevolent. Suffering exists so we can rule out the existence of an omnipotent benevolent being.

        • sandy

          Correct. At best, god just sits on the side lines…not sure who he/she is cheering for since we have no interaction

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Demonstrate this ‘god’ of yours exists before you attempt to conjure fell and malign magicks with it.

        • Michael Neville

          So you’re saying your god works on “might makes right”. That doesn’t sound very loving or very moral to me.

        • Otto

          ‘Do as I say not as I do’ is a terrible foundation.

        • Greg G.

          It seems that Christians understand that there is always a tacit “except Me” on all of God’s commandments and moral prohibitions.

        • MNb

          Like Hitler and Stalin you mean. They could as well.
          Yeah, they weren’t gods. It follows that according to you there are different morals for you god as for us humans. Ie morality according to you is subjective.

        • Priya Lynn

          Your morality is subjective.

        • epeeist

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged.

          Stalin killed roughly 10% of the population of the Soviet Union, we rightly judge him to be a monster.

          Your supposed god purportedly killed 99.99996% of the whole human population, so much more of a monster than Stalin.

        • Bob

          Stalin isn’t God non sequiter

        • epeeist

          Stalin isn’t God non sequiter

          Didn’t say he was. It also isn’t a “non sequiter (sic)”. If you want it laying out in canonical form

          P1: Those who kill large numbers of people are moral monsters
          P2: Stalin killed a large number of people
          C: Stalin was a moral monster

          Simply replace “Stalin” by “Yahweh/Jesus” in the above syllogism.

        • Priya Lynn

          Irrelevant. Wrongdoing is determined by the action, not who performs the action.

        • Greg G.

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged.

          An omnipotence could judge people without making them suffer. A benevolent god would not make them suffer.

          Let me guess you’re having a really hard time understanding the concept of denominations?

          Jesus didn’t grasp the concept of denominations, either. Thus, we have the greatest prayer failure of all time.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          Jesus prayed that his followers would be so united in their agreement that the rest of the world would be impressed. But we see disagreement between Paul and the circumcision faction, led by James, John, and Cephas, and it has gotten worse.

        • Bob

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

        • Greg G.

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

          There are 45,000 different denominations within that one third. That is pretty disjointed.

          But the unity has to impress the rest of the world. Read it again and pay particular attention to the beginning of verse 21, the end of verse 21, and the beginning of verse 23.

          That one third of the world is nominally Christian is a prayer failure by Jesus himself.

        • epeeist

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

          Which means that two thirds of the world is not. Arithmetic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

        • Halbe
        • MNb

          That’s as meaningless as saying “well, about two third of the world is non-christian, that’s even more unified.”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          No, the 2/3 of the world that thinks you are full of shit is much more unified.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved.

          You really don’t know much then….

          They [The Westbro Baptist Church] believe that God chooses some to be saved, and those lucky few cannot resist God’s call; but God chooses not to save most, and these unfortunate souls will burn in hell forever. The “Frequently Asked Questions,” or FAQ section of the WBC website explains: “Your best hope is that you are among those he has chosen. Your prayer every day should be that you might be. And if you are not, nothing you say or do will serve as a substitute.”

          ….

          “We told you, right after it happened five years ago, that the deadly events of 9/11 were direct outpourings of divine retribution, the immediate visitation of God’s wrath and vengeance and punishment for America’s horrendous sodomite sins, that worse and more of it was on the way. We further told you that any politician, any political official, any preacher telling you differently as to the cause and interpretation of 9/11 is a dastardly lying false prophet, cowardly and mean, and headed for hell. And taking you with him! God is no longer with America, but is now America’s enemy. God himself is now America’s terrorist.” — Fred Phelps, “9/11: God’s Wrath Revealed,” Sept. 8, 2006.

          https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/westboro-baptist-church

        • Greg G.

          I hear bagpipers approaching…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Porridge for breakfast it is then.

        • Michael Neville

          I knew Goldilocks and the Three Bears were Scottish. “Who’s been sleeping in my porridge?”

          But hark, there are other types of bagpipers besides the Scots.

          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DzkdKj1Fgus/hqdefault.jpg

        • Greg G.

          But hark, there are other types of bagpipers besides the Scots.

          But the other types aren’t true™ bagpipers.

        • Michael Neville

          The Irish originally gave the pipes to the Scots, who still haven’t understood the joke.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Irish originally gave the Scots to the Scots.

          This term of course refers to someone from Scotland, but did it start out that way? The term Scot, Scoti, Scotti, or Scotia was used by the Romans to describe the Gaelic raiders from Ireland. The poet Egesippus describes how the Scot tremble at the news of Roman legions. Orosius, a geographer in the third century uses the term Scoti to describe the people of Hibernia.

          We must go back into the mist of time, back to a kingdom in Ireland called Dalriada which is thought to have been in Antrim (Ulster) Ireland. In the sixth century from the kingdom of Dalriada came Fergus, Mor Macerc descendent of Carbi Riada. With Fergus came his two brothers Loarn and Angus. They brought with them many followers to the west coast of present day Scotland. This first intrusion into Alba was in what is now Argyll. Their main town or fort was at Dunadd in present day Scotland. And during this time the Dalriadic Scots (Irish) were at war with their Pictish neighbors.

          http://unknownscottishhistory.com/articlesix.php

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “The Irish originally gave the Scots to the Scots.” but who was the awesome dude that first gave the world Scotch!

        • David Cromie

          As well as the kilt. Even the Stone of Scone (the coronation stone) was borrowed from the Irish and never returned!

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Hittites circa 1000 BCE were the true bagpipers apparently.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course there are….I know some of them, soldiers in the British army …The Band of the Royal Irish Rangers….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Wgot_WDq8

        • Michael Neville

          I love the khaki kilts.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Michael Neville

          Okay, I love the saffron kilts.

          Here’s something to play with: Design your own tartan [link].

        • MNb

          If you think they were not being harmed I suggest you to try it out yourself.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          ” I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved” HA HA HHA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Oh wait? You’re serious?

        • RichardSRussell

          I never got that whole thing about why somebody had to die in order for everybody else’s sins to be forgiven. That’s like saying your little 4-year-old draw all over the walls with his crayons, so you cut off his 8-year-old sister’s hands so you wouldn’t have to punish him. Why not just forgive the little kid in the first place?

        • Murph

          Well you’ryou’re analogy is way out in left field for one. Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right? I mean someone pays for it in the end. Somebody takes a loss for it. And so Christ’s death and resurrection “pay the debt” that we could never pay

        • Otto

          You make God sound like a predatory lender.

        • Ignorant Amos

          With extortionately high interest rates too.

        • Greg G.

          Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right?

          No, the debt could be forgiven.

          The debt analogy doesn’t even work at all. If God had everything, he would always have everything in the end.

        • Bob

          Than the person who is in debt is essentially getting away with theft. Should we just forgive theives or ?

        • Otto

          It is an option.

        • Greg G.

          Forgiving a debt is like a gift. Accepting a gift is not like theft. Rejecting a gift is not like theft either.

        • Priya Lynn

          If someone else “pays the debt” the “thief” is still getting away with it. You’re just forgiving the “thief” whether someone else “pays the debt” or not.

        • Max Doubt

          “Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right?”

          Well, certainly not if you didn’t make some agreement to owe it.

          “I mean someone pays for it in the end. Somebody takes a loss for it.”

          But this Jesus debt thing can’t be objectively distinguished from a figment of your imagination. So maybe someone imagines they pay for it in the end, and someone imagines they take a loss for it. That has no effect on those of us who aren’t playing along.

          “And so Christ’s death and resurrection “pay the debt” that we could never pay”

          Using quotes around “pay the debt” makes it seem like one of those phrases you mutter now and then because it feels meaningful to you, but you probably can’t even define it in an unambiguous way. Oh, and I don’t owe any debt that could be reasonably paid by some dude dying.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, and I don’t owe any debt that could be reasonably paid by some dude dying.

          Vicarious atonement really is some repugnant shit alright.

        • richardrichard2013

          why would your god need to receive his own punishment by raping himself with sins from all years? does any of this make any sense? what did a god raping himself with sins from all years clean up? did it cool of your god or did it clear his memory of sins? paying a debt has to come from the one who owes the debt , it seems useless your god raping himself with sins from all years. at the end of the day only the guilty can pay, jesus can rape himself with sins thousands of times, but only the guilty has to do the act of finding the money and paying .

        • MNb

          If I have a debt to the christian god that needs to be paid, something I deny.

        • RichardSRussell

          The analogy is nowhere near left field. Person X does something that Person Y doesn’t like, so Person Y makes Person Z suffer for it rather than just forgiving Person X. Show me where the analogy that I cited about the crayons and kids and dismemberment differs from the ludicrous idea that Jesus had to die for my sins. Be specific. Just saying you don’t understand the analogy isn’t the same as pointing out where it went wrong.

        • adam
        • Cozmo the Magician

          Yeah, an immortal being spends a lousy time on nailed to stick. Is taken down and tossed in a cave where he chills for a few days. After that he goes back to fun and sun in the sky. This pays for all sinsgives special people a get out of hell free card, but still makes the rest of us suffer for evars.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Oh and if peep are just allowed to make up debts.. Hey shithead, your great geat great greatx12 granddad never paid my next door neighbor’s cousin(7,000 times removed) for a blow job, so you now owe me $12,786,374,182.47 (interest adds up). Pay up now, or my invisible pet dragon is going to burn your ass for at least 12m years. (i’m letting you off easy since im not as big a prick as your god)

        • adam

          ” Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right? ”

          Actually financial debts can easily be forgiven by the debt holder without killing anyone

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30b33306f99e73e286217bc4a1289abbde6a857fe9e5c0346f51bdc8295878ee.gif

        • MNb

          So what? I don’t have any problem christians believing that – as long as I don’t have to believe and appreciate it.

    • Susan

      We have to consider that perhaps God flooding the world IS the most loving thing to do.

      Sure, I’ll consider it. Give me your best pitch.

      Dan Barker…

      Who knows what Dan Barker said? I don’t trust your framing of it and I’m not going to go watch a debate just so I can address what YOU claim Dan Barker said.

      Let’s say his point is as horrible as you suggest it is, though.

      Dan Barker is not Yawhehjesus.

      If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist, why can’t God?

      If by “God”, you mean an agent who pulled reality out of some metaphysical orifice, then “God” has no justification for being a “situational ethicist”.

      Whereas mere mortals are left with imperfect solutions in extreme thought experiments and often, in real life.

      That is because they don’t have the option of pulling reality out a metaphysical orifice.

      It depends on what you’re claiming when you say “God”.

      What are you claiming?

    • Greg G.

      If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist why can’t God?

      Dan Barker, or any human being, is not omnipotent. His options are quite limited. Why would God have to choose between the lesser of two evils?

      • Bob

        To not overide human freedom for one

        • epeeist

          To not overide human freedom for one

          Ah, being deliberately drowned in a global flood doesn’t override your freedom then…

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You are conflating freedom with autonomy.

        • Michael Neville

          It strikes me that being dead curtails one’s freedom in a big way.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Haha… point taken. How would a resurrection change the formula?

        • Michael Neville

          Resurrections are few and far between. Jesus managed it, so did Lazarus.

          Osiris was killed and his body parts scattered all over Egypt but his wife and his mistress (the wife of his killer) found the parts and put him back together again except for his penis, which was eaten by a fish. The gods were so impressed they made him live again (sans penis).

          Tammuz, a Sumerian god; Dionysus, a Greek god; Attis, a Phrygian god; and Persephone, a Greek goddess; are examples of fertility and vegetation gods who die and are reborn every year.

          There are some other gods who do the death and resurrection thing but it’s not common. Lazarus is the only human I can think of who got a second chance.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Another way to look at it is that poor Lazarus had to die twice.

          I agree it is fairly rare, but the death and rebirth pattern is woven enough into nature that a few folks seemed to have picked up on it. I actually think it a strangely intuitive and apprehensive concept that resonates with many people even before they have been exposed to the concept. I believe it is part and parcel of the mystery of existence itself, the kind of thing that once understood, leaves one with the sense that they knew all along. But opinions are not debatable so I digress…

          When I dealt with this topic 17 years ago, I found C.S. Lewis’ observations indispensable for my own understanding. it will start right at the main point at the 5:50 mark, and the argument continues for 4 minutes until about the 9:50 mark. I cannot say it any better, and in spite of some crying foul, why not just quote the source directly, especially when modern technology makes it so easy for both of us?

          https://youtu.be/Uv4kx2QP4UM?t=350

          Also, there is a series of short videos that deal with most of the individual cases you’ve brought up. I use them in my own class at the local jail when the question arises which has happened only once.

          This one concerns Dionysus:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq8fFw-oV3w

        • Greg G.

          Don’t forget the Raising the Ruler’s Daughter, Matthew 9:18,23; Mark 5:22,35; and Luke 8:40,49 and the Raising of a Widow’s Son at Nain, Luke 7:11. When somebody was being buried, his body accidently touched Elisha’s bones who happened to have been buried there before and the man came to life.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I ask because if we wish to critique a theology, it should be judged in its own context.

          For instance, people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.

          We may scoff at such an absurd and frightening concept, but that IS the context for the justice in the story.

          If the context of the story is the act of a Just God, then any interpretation should at least attempt to see if that can be done consistently.

          But if our intent is to try and find injustice, we will never look for justice in the way I just described.

          It’s very important to at least be conscious of what we assume about the text and expect to find because of that bias.

          If the text resists our context, we may be attempting to read into it something that is not there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.

          That’s one interpretation. Doesn’t really say that, though.

          But let’s accept your story. It must be a bitch to be omniscient and omnipotent and yet your ant farm gets out of control so badly. You’d think that such a being would’ve seen that coming and avoided the problem.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lBwmBnOg2WE

          That’s one interpretation. Doesn’t really say that, though.

          It’s actually the traditional and most widely accepted interpretation. Would you like to see the relevant verses from Genesis, Jude, and.. I think Peter?
          It’s been awhile since I have had this come up, but its fascinating material, albeit terrifying.

          But let’s accept your story. It must be a bitch to be omniscient and omnipotent and yet your ant farm gets out of control so badly. You’d think that such a being would’ve seen that coming and avoided the problem.

          A man calling himself Nerdsamwich brought this up a couple weeks ago at the friendly atheist. Hasn’t spoken a word since. Smart kid.

          I suppose it is useful since it is part of difficulty in your criticism of Lennox in your article with the missing link (pun intended).

          Now that you mention it, my synapses are refreshed and it occurs to me that this is actually the linchpin of any theodicy. The whole difficulty of morality and justice hinges on it.

          Free will necessitates the possibility of evil, but it does not necessitate evil. According to the story (so that’s the context we’ll use) a 3rd of the angels rebelled and were cast out.

          Then, one of those angels, identified by John in Revelation as ‘the serpent of old who is the devil’, tricked mankind into taking his word (by faith) over God’s

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          It was a very good trick. Hume even recalibrated it for his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He must not have been awate that the idea was quite ancient or where he got it. It was a revelation.

          Bear with me, I’m getting there…

          Just as the angels were expelled, so was humanity, but from the garden.

          So, God DID do something about it and was not caught off guard. He was quite prepared and keeps us confined in a large fishbowl we call the universe. I like to think of time as the glass, but perhaps a more fitting example is that horizon before Planck time that we cannot seem to intuit.

          I think the existence of the garden is a clue that the world outside the garden was already a cage, fallen as it were, ready made for what might happen depending on our choice.

          But God, knowing our ignorance, decided that he would take responsibility for his kids. It is after-all his cross to bear. He may not have sinned, but he created the world and evil.

          The angels would not have the excuse of ignorance. They were created in the very presence of God in the truly objective world of heaven. They had all the evidence and proof they needed and still denied it.

          Jesus warned the religious leaders about this eternal sin because they too saw him in the flesh and witnessed the miracles. But some of them still refused to relent. It would appear that seeing is not believing. Motive determines our perceptions.

          So God prepared a place for those who condemn themselves, and also knew that things would be remade at the resurrection.

          Logos is more competent than we could ever have imagined on our own. Fortunately, he is eager to make sense of it if we are willing to take the time to listen. Individually, our motives will determine if we do.

        • Greg G.

          Then, one of those angels, identified by John in Revelation as ‘the serpent of old who is the devil’, tricked mankind into taking his word (by faith) over God’s

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          If the serpent in the Garden was Satan, why did God punish serpents? It would mean that the serpent was innocent. How could an omniscient being fall for the framing of serpents? God owes serpents a sincere apology.

        • David Cromie

          If a supposed ‘god’ created everything, then it must have created the ‘heaven’ in which the ‘rebellion’ is said to have taken place. This would indicate that even that, later much vaunted, ‘ideal place’ was imperfect, if not purposely designed to allow insurrection, resulting in the creation of ‘god’s’ rival, Satan, about which an omnipotent ‘god’ could do nothing at the time, other than promise to vanquish it at some indeterminate later date.

          Thus a supposed perfect ‘god’ is seen not to be perfect, much less omnipotent, after all, and when looking at its handiwork it could never have declared, in all honesty, that all was perfect both in heaven and on earth. In the meantime, we are supposed to sit around waiting (praying, and worshipping on pain of everlasting torment in a lake of fire and brimstone if we don’t) for the ‘second coming’ when all will be made ‘perfect’ for eternity, as this supposed ‘god’ works to a revised plan, thousands of years too late for the vast majority of mankind!

          If any otherwise sane persons believe this bucket of BS, then they need their heads testing!

        • Greg G.

          Exactly! If spiritual beings can sin in heaven, what would keep resurrected humans from sinning? Do they get kicked out, too? Humans can’t go a day without committing some sort of sin. Eternal life would be limited to a few hours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Especially with all that free will stuff knocking abut the place.

        • Cozmo the Magician
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s actually the traditional and most widely accepted interpretation. Would you like to see the relevant verses from Genesis, Jude, and.. I think Peter?

          (1) I don’t much care if it’s widely accepted. Christians accept that Isaiah 7 has a virgin birth prophecy of Jesus, when it has nothing of the kind.

          (2) Why quote anything but Gen. 6:1-4?

          It’s been awhile since I have had this come up, but its fascinating material, albeit terrifying.

          What’s terrifying? A nutty god gets mad at everyone? It’s just a story.

          I suppose it is useful since it is part of difficulty in your criticism of Lennox in your article with the missing link (pun intended).

          It was on Frank Turek’s blog. Don’t blame me that they’ve lost the link.

          And I’m missing the difficulty. Explain.

          According to the story (so that’s the context we’ll use) a 3rd of the angels rebelled and were cast out.

          According to what story? Are we still talking about the Nephilim? That’s just Gen. 6.

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          Why are you relating a Bible story? Do you think I’ll find it authoritative?

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          Have we moved on to the Garden of Eden?

          It was a very good trick.

          What was the trick? The serpent was right. Indeed, the serpent is the hero of the story, the Prometheus of Genesis.

          So, God DID do something about it and was not caught off guard.

          So the flood was in the cards from Day 1? I think a better explanation is that “God” evolves with time through the Bible. Polytheism and a limited god is first, then henotheism, then monotheism, then God is omni-everything.

          I think the existence of the garden is a clue that the world outside the garden was already a cage, fallen as it were

          Genesis has just-so stories. It’s kind of hard to look down on the wisdom we’ve gotten from the Tree.

          But God, knowing our ignorance, decided that he would take responsibility for his kids.

          Not really. Adam and Eve had less moral wisdom than a one-year-old, and they get punished through the generations for failing a moral test they couldn’t understand.

          Fail.

          Jesus warned the religious leaders about this eternal sin because they too saw him in the flesh and witnessed the miracles. But some of them still refused to relent. It would appear that seeing is not believing.

          Jesus did miracles? Big deal. There were magicians on every street corner. The pharaoh’s wise men could duplicate many of Moses’ tricks.

          So God prepared a place for those who condemn themselves

          But he gave us an out so we could get into heaven anyway, right? If it requires belief, I’m afraid this option doesn’t apply to me.

          Fortunately, he is eager to make sense of it if we are willing to take the time to listen.

          I have no respect for any belief system that requires faith. There’s no faith required for me to believe that my PC mouse is black or that my wife exists. That Christianity demands belief without evidence shows that it has failed its burden of proof.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jesus did miracles? Big deal. There were magicians on every street corner. The pharaoh’s wise men could duplicate many of Moses’ tricks.

          Dynamo, and his fellow illusionists, pull off better miracles magic, than those in the tales of Jesus.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO8Nsx7MN6c

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkDIv4nsf84

        • Chad Courage DeVillier

          That’s a statement I’ve yet to see a compelling apologetic response to– how did God not see the situation coming and make mankind better? Free will only allows for violence if you create beings with violent tendencies.

        • epeeist

          I’ve yet to see a compelling apologetic response to

          Have you considered that this may be because there isn’t one…

        • Chad Courage DeVillier

          That there doesn’t exist a compelling response to such a glaring logical hole in the Christian’s portrait of their god is my primary theory on the subject, actually

        • epeeist

          You are saying they don’t have a compelling riposte?

          I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.

        • David Cromie

          Of course a beneficent, omniscient, and omnipotent ‘god’ would have recognised this problem as innate to its design. So, instead of deliberately fashioning mankind in its own image, with all the allure and morals of a rattlesnake, it could have desisted, and thought up some other blueprint for a peaceful/harmonious, and kind/loving set of humans. The fact that it did not, but was so egotistical, and cruel with it, just shows that it is an evil, twisted, ogre of immeasurable proportions, and humanity is supposed to thank and worship it, or else!

        • adam
        • richardrichard2013

          in the story was noah genetically corrupted?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          According to Robert Lockett, the Nephilim corrupted everyone.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…all that incest that was permitted before the big clean out…he had to have been genetically corrupted.

          Then the angels came along and fucked the whole fucked up thing, even fucking further.

          Ask Robert, I think he knows all about inbreeding.

        • adam
        • David Cromie

          “If the text resists our context, we may be attempting to read into it something that is not there”. Is this not what the so-called ‘bible’ forces christers to do all the time, as they flail around for confirmation for their particular context/world view?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No, its what the mystery of existence does to materialists.

        • adam

          “No, its what the mystery of existence does to materialists.”

          As opposed to magicianists?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Bob is the one with the magical UNCAUSED universe.

        • adam

          Nope, religion.

          Without magic, religion is fairy tales.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Without magic, religion is fairy tales.

          Without magic, religion is just legend. But with all that magic, it becomes fairy tales.

        • adam

          You are correct, my bad, thanks!

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I think you meant that religion is magic and fairy tales. Gairy tales are generally synonymous with magic.

          Without magic, religion would be science. I’ve heard the rumor. Used to pass it on myself. So thanks for nothin’.

          It may not be a fairy tale, but I find conscious activity magical in the everyday sense of the mysterious and unknown. And that’s because it is unpredictable, with QM or anything else that is presumably scientific.

          The daunting questions surrounding OOL and cosmological causation tell me thete is more than enough everyday magic and mystery for every philosophy, but especially materialism.

        • adam

          “but I find conscious activity magical in the everyday sense of the mysterious and unknown.”

          Finding ignorance ‘magical’ is the source of many of our problems today.

          ” but especially materialism.”

          So then where is all the evidence of magic in materialism?

          Definition of magic – Merriam Webster

          1 a

          :the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

          b

          :magic rites or incantations

          2 a

          :an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          “The universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” -Carl Sagan

          As an adolescent, I found that quite charming (as in, a charm). I dod not notice that was not a statement of science but is materialistic philosophy.

          I was held under that spell for at least a decade and you were my tormentors until a friend brought me back to sanity.

          And it was a struggle, and you’re toast

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI

        • adam

          I have no sound, your videos have no power over me.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That’s why I share it publicly, because I don’t care who gets the point or if you do

        • Ignorant Amos

          His videos just demonstrate that he can’t separate the fiction from reality of his life.

          They have no power over anyone, because they are the musings of an airhead living in cloud cuckoo land.

        • Michael Neville

          No, Bob is the one who doesn’t know how the universe was caused.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          My point exactly. Thanks for playing 20 questions…

        • Michael Neville

          As usual for a Christian apologist, you got it wrong. Bob and I and other people don’t have a “magical uncaused universe” nor do we have a magical caused universe like you do. Instead, we don’t know what caused the universe and, what’s more, neither do you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So you’re open to all the options, and do not require an impersonal cause before the facts are in?

          Different topic same dilemma: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PHoMWIlklA

        • Michael Neville

          Do you have evidence for a specific cause of the universe? I didn’t think so. When you’ve got that evidence then we can talk about being open to options. Until then, it’s obvious to everyone except your dumb ass that you don’t know what caused the universe.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I mentioned to Robert earlier what an enormous asshole you are. Not that it’s not obvious.

        • Michael Neville

          Pardon me, Sirrah, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a rat’s ass about your opinion. Now be a good twit and fuck off.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re just mad that I made you look like the confused asshole you are. I would shit on a plate and hand you a fork. Fag.

        • MNb

          Honourable people would rather be a confused asshole like MN than be someone like you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The fact that you put a “u” in honorable tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

        • epeeist

          The fact that you put a “u” in honorable tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

          Just goes to show that someone with English as a second language still has a better understanding of it than you.

        • Susan
        • Baby_Raptor

          This is America.

        • Susan

          This is America.

          This isn’t. This is Canada. And “this” isn’t the U.S.A for MNb either.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I’m talking about the only one that matters. Get a grip.

        • Susan

          I see you’re here for the troll convention.

        • Baby_Raptor

          If you’ll recall, you replied to me. Nobody was looking for you to get involved.

        • Greg G.

          If that bothers you, then don’t post in public forums.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It doesn’t bother me, Greg. I appreciate your concern though

        • Susan

          If you’ll recall, you replied to me. Nobody was looking for you to get involved.

          And if you’ll recall, you just showed up here trolling. No one asked you to do so.

          It’s a public forum. You can scatter troll poo around until you get banned or forever, if you don’t.

          But anyone whose contributions to the conversation consist in saying things like “I would shit on a plate and hand you a fork. Fag.” and “This is America” on the internet has raised their troll flag up high.

          Trolls and sockpuppets have dominated this site for the last few weeks and there’s nothing special about you.

          You’re just another one. You’re not fooling anyone.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks for your insight, Susan. Are you done?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Spoooiiiinnnng!

          I see you don’t do irony very well, ya fuckwit cunty ballix.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re an annoying asshole.

        • epeeist

          Or for me.

          Could I ask, do you have a passport, I am assuming the answer is yes. The same is almost certainly true for MNb and it is true for myself.

          What are the odds that Baby_Raptor doesn’t have one?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve got two….belt and braces.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me? Even though it’s an idiotic question. I’ve been to several countries, and guess what, this is still the best one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a doughnut.

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me?

          It was a rhetorical question ya Coco. Punting towards yer red neck. You would’ve lied about it anyway.

          Even though it’s an idiotic question.

          Nope…even if the intention was to make a judgement on the probability you have a passport, from your participation here so far, you fit the profile of a knuckle dragger who wouldn’t own a passport.

          Around 64% of American’s don’t own a passport, so the odds favour it not being so idiotic as an idiot might think.

          I’ve been to several countries, and guess what, this is still the best one.

          I’ve lived there, among a number of places, and I’m here to tell everyone else reading that it is not. Of course the states is a very diverse country going from one end to the other, but unless you’ve been everywhere in the world, you can’t claim it’s the best. But it only takes having been to one place that I deem better, I can get to say it’s not the best.

        • Baby_Raptor

          64%? Where is that number from? 86% of non-Americans are mutants. I can make up numbers too. Name one country that can compete with the United States in any category. It will never happen. America is the pinnacle of mankind. Roaches like you have been bellyaching since 1776, but it means less than nothing.

        • epeeist

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me?

          Fuck off shitface, my post wasn’t addressed to you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It was about me. What is your problem? We can agree to disagree, but I can’t have you disparaging me.

        • MNb

          Our problem is that you are a shitface and perhaps even a waste of oxygen.

        • epeeist

          And a special snowflake, dishes it out but can’t take it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Dishes what out? Dickhead. You haven’t made one single point.

        • epeeist

          And there goes another irony meter.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Enough. We said what we had to say. I’ve accepted you apology. Let’s just keep it moving. It’s a new day.

        • epeeist

          I’ve accepted you apology.

          Ah, so your reading comprehension is below par too.

          Or to put it another way, you’re talking bollocks, I’d never apologise to a shit like you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Good, then go fist your own ass. Old fool. Stop replying to me and eat shit.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As if I care what some Mexican rabble rouser thinks. You’re a piece of shit. The bark of my dog is more intelligent.

        • epeeist

          It was about me.

          So? It wasn’t addressed to you so stop fucking butting in.

        • Baby_Raptor

          What are you? A fucking parrot? How would you like if I went around shit talking you and asking stupid questions that have no relevance. I have a passport, dummy.

        • adam

          ” I have a passport, dummy.”

          Yeah?
          We have an accord, dummy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I’m sure many rent boys have seen the backseat of that accord. And knowing what a creep you are, probably the trunk too.

        • adam

          No, I dont let your daddy anywhere near my family.

          And no, you can’t blow me in the back seat, or the trunk.
          Let your daddy do it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Let my daddy blow you? You really are a little homo.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Why would you tell my father to blow you then?

        • adam

          I wouldnt, he was talking about blowing you, something about the ‘good ol days’.

        • Baby_Raptor

          That might be more convincing if you wiped your chin first. Cupcake.

        • adam

          Nothing to wipe from my chin, that’s a mirror in front of your, or maybe your ol daddy…..

        • Baby_Raptor

          So, you’re admitting you swallow your lovers?

        • adam

          No, you are just fantasizing.

          I am not interested in you, quit coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You just said you like to blow rent boys but you claim there’s nothing on your chin. Only one other explanation.

        • adam

          No, you just fantasizing about me again.

          “Only one other explanation.”
          You are on the wrong website to pick up men.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You are the expert.

        • adam

          And you are the stalker…

        • Baby_Raptor

          Believe me, nobody in your life cares enough about you to stalk. People leave the room when they see you enter. They vomit when they hear your name. You’re a loser’s loser and that’s how you’ll remain. Clown.

        • adam

          “Believe me, nobody in your life cares enough about you to stalk.”

          yeah, yeah, yeah that’s why you cant keep from coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I have a dress that will match your heels. Your tricks will think you’re adorable when they turn your mouth into a toilet.

        • adam

          I dont have heel, and not interested in your nasty dress either.

          “. Your tricks will think you’re adorable when they turn your mouth into a toilet.”

          Unlike your daddy, I dont do tricks.
          And your daddy says your mouth is already being used as a toilet.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Lol. It’s so obvious I’m right on target. Everyone can practically smell your cock-shit breath through the computer. Disgusting.

        • adam

          ” Everyone can practically smell your cock-shit breath through the computer.”

          that’s YOUR breath, idiot….

        • Baby_Raptor

          Lol. everyone knows when they look at you. You’re only lying to yourself.

        • adam

          “You’re only lying to yourself.”

          While you are lying to everyone, including yourself.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I think you’re more upset that I’m the woman you’ll never be. Just because you take random cock in every orifice, that does not make you a woman. It makes you gross.

        • adam

          “I think you’re more upset that I’m the woman you’ll never be.”

          I dont care if your a ‘bottom’, Im not gay or interested.

          Quit trying to come on to me.

          “Just because you take random cock in every orifice, that does not make you a woman.”

          Nor does it make you the woman I’ll never be.

          Still not interested.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As you sprint to your grinder account.

        • adam

          I dont have a grinder account, remember Im NOT gay.

          So quit coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sure you’re not. How long has that been your mantra? Most guys who say they’re not gay probably don’t have cock-shit breath like you.

        • adam

          “Most guys who say they’re not gay probably don’t have cock-shit breath like you.”

          Again, you are smelling your own breath bouncing back from your monitor

          Still not interested in you, but you still keep coming on to me like a crazed stalker.

        • adam

          “Lol. It’s so obvious I’m right on target.”

          Right on target to smell your own breath as you lean into the monitor hoping your come ons will be accepted by me.

          They wont.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Why are you sweating and red faced then? I can only imagine how many hands are on your shoulders right now. Fairy.

        • adam

          “Why are you sweating and red faced then?”

          Im not, your looking at your reflection, what a rube.

          ” I can only imagine how many hands are on your shoulders right now. ”

          Yep, you can’t stop yourself from fantasizing about me, can you Ted?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/72c069edcaa6b8c91ae94bd51ee881bbaedd43e62460cbafa407975f525af8aa.jpg

        • Baby_Raptor

          It’s real normal for you to have all these pictures of some old queer you have a massive hard on for. You don’t seem creepy at all.

        • adam

          “It’s real normal for you to have all these pictures of some old queer”

          I dont have any pictures of you or your daddy, and frankly, dont want any.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I can only imagine the type of pictures you have. I’m sure the FBI wants to know. Fairy.

        • adam

          “I can only imagine the type of pictures you have.”

          You spend way too much time imaging me, still not interested

          ” I’m sure the FBI wants to know.”

          Dont they already know about your daddy?

        • Baby_Raptor

          That will give you something to think about when you’re biting the pillow and some strange man is losing his wristwatch up your ass.

        • adam

          Never happens except in your fantasies of me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Then why do you have a permanent shit ring around your mouth from where you French kiss men’s assholes?

        • adam

          I dont.

          You must be seeing your reflection, AGAIN.

          Still not interested.
          Quit stalking me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My email inbox smells like cock and piss. Stop breathing on the messages.

        • Susan

          Adam, I’m begging you This place has gone to hell lately. It’s been overrun with trolls and sockpuppets in the last few weeks.

          At least most of them have gone through the motions of pretending they’re interested in the discussion

          Baby_Raptor is pure troll. He hasn’t even bothered to pretend he’s come to discuss the topics.

          You’re feeding him and the recent comments are full of exchanges of who’s more into gay sex (which is obnoxious and beneath you).

          E-mail Bob. Please. Bob is a writer and thinker and doesn’t have moderators to take control of this stuff. If we point it out, he can assess the situation and respond as he sees fit.

          Baby_Raptor just shouldn’t be here. He’s a shit-disturbing asshole troll who needs to be banned.

          Don’t engage. It’s hard enough following real discussions under the Patheos-Disqus nightmare of late.

        • adam

          ” It’s been overrun with trolls and sockpuppets in the last few weeks.”

          It cycles

          “Baby_Raptor just shouldn’t be here.”

          Bob will take care of him.
          Especially now that he is wearing the mask of Kodie, another contributor.

        • adam

          Thanks!

          but see Bob took care of it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Enough with the weird gay references.

        • David Cromie

          You really are a nasty, self- oppressed, closet queen! Do you frequently experience these flights of fancy? Do something about your twisted mental state before it is too late.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Your family no doubt has a bottle of champagne on ice, praying for the day they get the call saying you’re gone and their burden is over.

        • adam

          Quit coming on to me, I dont swing that way.

          Not that there is anything wrong with your homosexuality, or your father’s for that matter.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Being gay would be too normal for you. The never ending parade of strange men and day laborers that spitroast you day in and day out is as close to normal as you’ll get.

        • adam

          “The never ending parade of strange men and day laborers that spitroast you day in and day out”

          Dont worry, I know that this post was meant for your daddy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As you gag on the next Mexican in line.

        • adam

          So you saw your daddy gagging

        • MNb

          Given your idiotic comments you only can expect idiotic questions about you.

        • Greg G.

          The is the internet, also known as the World Wide Web.

          PS: MNb is in South America.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My condolences to MNb.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Get a grip. Your life hasn’t changed one iota in the last year. Except you’re more of a drama queen.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Zzzzzzz….

        • adam

          Zzzzzzz….

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is the World Wide Web ya rhubarb.

        • epeeist

          This is the World Wide Web

          Invented in France/Switzerland by someone from England.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha….what a retard.

          Or just an ignorant child…

          http://wikidiff.com/honourable/honorable

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks. I wasn’t questioning his spelling, I was questioning why anyone would still spell it that way in this day and age. Do you still write “ye olde”?

        • Greg G.

          It’s how the rest of the English-speaking world spells it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It’s like putting a “u” in color. It’s asinine.

        • adam

          No, it’s British, your asinine.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colour

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks, professor. In America, “you’re” is the contraction for you and are.

        • adam

          No, it’s British and YOU ARE asinine.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re just an embarrassed dummy.

        • adam

          No, I am not embarrassed by grammar on the internets.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Clearly.

        • adam

          Clearly.

          And clearly you not the best choice to defend your own point of view.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Maybe I should try posting a bunch of gay pictures with witty slogans as opposed to having a real conversation.

        • adam

          You might as well,

          Since you dont seem to have the capability to have a real conversation.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I just prefer to cut out the small talk. Eat shit.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Worry about your bitch tits. You have bigger problems.

        • adam

          “Worry about your bitch tits.”

          Keep my wife out of this and go eat your own shit again.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As if you could ever get hard for a woman.

        • adam

          Oh, quit coming on to me, will ya.

          I dont swing that way.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The rent boys chained in your dungeon beg to differ.

        • adam

          I have no dungeon or rent boys,

          You must be thinking about your daddy again.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My daddy also knows you’re a self hating homo.

        • adam

          His rent boys are lying to him.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Nobody had to lie. Everyone can smell the cock on your breath. That’s one of the many reasons people laugh at you.

        • adam

          “Nobody had to lie”

          but they obviously did.

          ” Everyone can smell the cock on your breath.”

          You’re smelling your own breath.
          Or maybe just your daddy’s.

        • Baby_Raptor

          If it’s not your cock breath, why do you think people laugh at you? Is it your limp wrist?

        • adam

          “If it’s not your cock breath, why do you think people laugh at you?”

          For putting up with IDiots like you.

          ” Is it your limp wrist?”

          I dont have a limp wrist, you must be thinking of your daddy, again.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6941d9ab8453b45e9aa78eb967f81068e082466fe2f48eeed3f2ed0a7748dab7.jpg

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sorry. What’s the technical term for limp wrist? Fagatosis? You have that. In spades. Fuck your own face.

        • adam

          “Sorry. What’s the technical term for limp wrist? Fagatosis?”

          You keep coming on to me, fantasizing about my mouth, my face.
          I am NOT GAY, so quit coming on to me.

          Go down to your daddy’s dungeon and borrow one of his rent boys for what you obviously want.

          I am not interested in your homosexual fantasies.

          Not that there is anything wrong with that………..

        • Baby_Raptor

          As your breath continues to smell like the Knicks locker room.

        • adam

          That’s your own breath from frenching your daddy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Glad to see you’re ok. Everyone told me you died.

        • adam

          No that is just what your daddys breath smells like.

        • adam

          That your breath, you just keep sucking, cock or not in your mouth.

        • Baby_Raptor

          That makes sense. Retard.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The rest of the English speaking world does a lot of dumb shit.

        • MNb

          Really? For instance you don’t need to know that English is not my native language?
          That again tells me that my previous comment was right.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Don’t tell me your problems. Nobody is stopping you from learning the language properly.

        • MNb

          Really? According to you being a non-native English speaker is a problem?
          And you are the Ultimate Arbiter of what constitutes Proper English?
          My only problem in this subthread is you being an utter piece of shit, who suffers from lastworditis.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A Trumpeter for sure.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I don’t play any musical instruments.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You did not answer my question and that really hurts Michael. But I will answer yours because I am a kind man.

          No I dont. By definition, supernatural causes (be it a multiverse or God) are not within the scope of empirical inquiry. Jastrow knows…

          We’re in the same boat. I am forced by present circumstances to interpret abundant though limited evidence, and extrapolate philosophically through various lenses like theism and materialism and must trust logic by faith, that the most sensible of those lenses is the correct lens.

          Actually, we are not in the same boat depending on your as yet evaded answer to my last question. I am left to conclude their is only one lens you will allow for yourself.
          Some of us call that a priori bias.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m sorry, I thought your question was purely rhetorical. In fact, I still think so. But since I hate to see a grown man snivel I’ll give you an honest answer.

          I don’t require any causes for the universe, impersonal, personal or something else. The universe probably requires a cause since it had a beginning. I literally do not know what the cause of the universe is. I rather doubt it was an Iron Age Middle Eastern tribal god but I can’t rule that out. It’s entirely possible the universe created itself.

          I do not believe gods as usually defined as causing the universe for the simple reason I’ve been given no reason to believe those gods even exist, let alone created anything. It’s possible a vague deist deity kick started the universe and then faded into the background, never to manifest itself again. But an absolutely hidden, non-interventionist god is equivalent to no god at all.

          Certain cosmologists like the multiverse idea but it’s a hypothesis without anything but some mathematics I don’t understand to support it. There’s no consensus among cosmologists as to the cause of the universe so I can’t look to them for an answer, only speculation.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Thank you Michael.

        • MNb

          “So you’re open to all the options, and do not require an impersonal cause before the facts are in?”
          I am.
          First fact: according to Modern Physics our natural reality is not causal but probabilistic.
          That rules out quite a many gods, including yours as “creating” according to christians is a causal and even teleological act.

        • MNb

          Physicists are the ones with the non-magical uncaused atomic decay.

        • adam
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sauce for the goose…

          Theology is too complicated for you to undetstand, so you think a witch’s brew of chemicals and directions can make a universe and a cell.

          Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about. I talk about it in my essay. Link in my profile.

        • adam

          “Theology is too complicated for you to undetstand”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/984030700e86062e2deb26f5244a20edfd5d804ca6e1cfaafac40f75368cdb20.png

          “so you think a witch’s brew of chemicals and directions can make a universe and a cell.”

          And you think a Magical Sky Daddy can?

          “Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about. ”
          All religions are primitive and based on magic.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d3325b25ec97b41acfa8e3d49e9bb6970a5e3b57e7870a0b70a33474b8f4c612.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hence materialisms categoery, as philosophy. Worse still, empiricism is a philosophy.

          Not because I have a problem living by Faith in a philosophy, but because you do.

        • adam
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Philosophy IS religion Adam.

        • adam

          No, it isnt. rOBERT.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yes it is adam… philosophy IS religion.

          Apart from omniscience, the thing Adam went for in trying to be God via the empirical fruit, you are FORCED to live by faith. God left you no choice kiddo, “The righteous will live by Faith.”

          To say you have no faith requires omniscience. You are conflating blind faith with evidence based faith.

          The beginning of this video explains the difference. For those with sound anyway… it starts midway so you’ll have to scroll back to the start.

          https://youtu.be/HaQpENJLx-I?t=1040

        • Michael Neville

          Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Religion comes under its purview, as do other forms of mythology and superstition.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • Michael Neville

          You found the first sentence The second sentence is all my own work. If you disagree then give your reasons for doing so, otherwise acknowledge that I’m right.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Michael, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The belief that everything can be explained via empirical science OR mechanically is ALSO a rough matrix for the philosophy of materialism.

          There are various schools of thought within those fields, and they are all philosophical fields.

          All you need to do is a basic Google search for naturalism and materialism and see for yourself.

          There is nothing for me to explain if you are that ignorant of what philosophy is.

          Also look up emericism, because those were the boys who ignited the scientific revolution. They were philosophers who deluded millions into believing that we don’t have to live by faith.

          The worst part is we believed them. They never proved and still can’t.

          They would have us believe that everything can be explained by natural phenomenon. But until that is accomplished and we have omniscience, it is believed by Faith.

          I think you have a bad concept of what faith is. It is actually gairly reasonable to belive that natural processes can account for everything given the sucesses of science. But the induction, that because so much has been demonstrated to be a product of natural processes, that therefore everything can be explained by natural processes is a genuine leap of faith no matter how you slice it. It remains to be seen.

          Your conviction that it is unassailable is a testimony to the seriousness of your blind belief. If you cannot, or will not recognize even an iota of belief, you are in serious intellectual jeopardy.

          You don’t have to believe in God if you don’t want to. You can still hold him to be a delusion. But for the love of reason, at least appreciate the limitations of every philosophy including atheist philosophy.

          EDIT- Atheism is not a philosophy in the positive sense, it is a negation that logically necessitates materialism, because if there are no deities, then nature is all that remains, and must be assumed to be responsible for the origin of all things. Therefore atheism = materialism = Philosophy = faith = religion.

          This slight of hand (hiding the philosophy) is so clever, that it was recorded in the book of Genesis as the fall of man.

        • Michael Neville

          As it happens, you patronizing prig, I do have an understanding of philosophy, perhaps not as pretentious as yours but workable. But I wasn’t writing an essay on philosophy, I was responding to your STUPID (as in IDIOTIC and COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG) comment that philosophy was religion.

          Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of trying to teach me things that you vaguely understand, you might have understood my point. But probably not, you’re too involved in teaching the apostates and atheists about what you think we need to learn from you.

          I’m going to bed now. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll respond to your ramblings about faith. Or maybe not, it depends how I feel. But I will leave you with one thought on faith. Religious faith is what you resort to when you don’t have evidence. If you had evidence to support your beliefs then you wouldn’t need faith.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          My intention is to challenge and enlighten not to upset you. But if
          you do become upset, I must disregard it. It is not my problem, unless of course it implies harm. But since I am already on death row, it still remains in the category of, not my problem. If you were not so sure of yourselves about the idea that Jesus failed, you might begin to recognize his resolve, and that he wasn’t bluffing. But I digress…

          A New York Times article for you about science and faith. Its by the physicist Paul Daives

          https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

        • Michael Neville

          Your intention may have been to enlighten me but your comment came across as condescending, patronizing and arrogant. Furthermore it was evident that you were not responding to my comment about philosophy not being religion. While philosophy of religion is a valid field of study, it is by no means the only thing that philosophy studies.

          Atheism is not a philosophy in the positive sense

          Atheism is a statement of belief. It is not and does not pretend to be a philosophy. If you knew as much philosophy as you like to think you do or if you knew anything about atheism you’d realize this.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You might want to look up atheism, because it is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of denial. I’ll help you…

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

        • Michael Neville

          Atheism is a statement of belief. “I do not believe that gods exist” is a statement of belief. If you were half or even one-quarter as smart as you think you are this would be obvious. But you’re trying, and failing, to show your superiority over me so you have to contradict everything I say.

          Robert, you are a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          LOL, works for me, atheism is a religion. I have no problem with that. But it’s been awhile since someone tried to get in my head with Dunning Kruger charges. Meh…

          What you don’t know is how hard atheists have worked to word it the way it exists in any dictionary or encyclopedia to cover that. I have been debating these subjects for 17 years. Many, but not all make it very clear that it is a position of ‘disbelief.’

          So, I figured I would accept that starting a couple years ago, because it’s a religion no matter how you slice, as I have already explained.

          Geez, I go to a meeting for a couple hours and you start to get all full of yourself. Relax Michael. It’s only 2017. We’re a LONG way from being finished.

          Projecting your own self doubt and lack of knowledge onto me is not uncommon. But it’s futile. Do you take me for a grey wizard???

          I was once…
          http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=421713#m421713

        • epeeist

          Michael gave you some of the fields of philosophy, you responded with a reference to materialism. This is known as a category error.

        • MNb

          Then again Robbie doesn’t exactly excel in philosophy, given his

          “To say you have no faith requires omniscience”.
          Despite its ultimate failure we understand thanks to logical positivism the importance of good definitions. To paraphraze Bertrand Russell: had Robbie adopted a good definition of faith he would have understood that he wrote nonsense in the most literal meaning of the word.
          I have concluded that apologetics – which unfortunately is also a field of philosophy and probably by far the least respected one – lags a couple of centuries behind.

        • epeeist

          I have concluded that apologetics – which unfortunately is also a field of philosophy and probably by far the least respected one – lags a couple of centuries behind.

          Is apologetics done by philosophers; philosophers who have a religion; the religious who are philosophers; or the religious.

          I would argue it is the latter two.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          He left out the other categories by falsely defining philosophy.

        • epeeist

          He left out the other categories by falsely defining philosophy.

          He gave you a non-exhaustive list of subjects within philosophy, you gave a position in one area of philosophy namely ontology. As I said, a category error.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Oh, so he gave a position in one area of philosophy, namely epistemology. For me it is a category error to point out the other side, but not a category error for him?

          How WILL I go on?

        • Michael Neville

          I see that reading ability is not one of your attributes, and your thinking ability is weak as well. I did NOT falsely define philosophy, in fact I got a definition from an internet source. You’re the one claiming that “philosophy IS religion” which it most certainly is not.

        • David Cromie

          Are you are thinking of ‘metaphysics’ (look it up), which is really concerned with theorising about (religious beliefs) magic in the present context?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Oh, you mean like multiverse theory.

          Dude, let epeeist handle this.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you honestly think that atheists will be impressed by an evangelical Christian apologist’s dislike of us? For an intelligent, educated man John Lennox certainly has a lot of misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

        • adam

          Learner’s definition of RELIGION

          1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods

          2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

          I am without theism = atheist

          ” you are FORCED to live by faith.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

          Nope, I have no biblical faith.

          “God left you no choice kiddo,”

          Imaginary characters from mythology have no power in reality.

          “The beginning of this video explains the difference.”
          I have NO SOUND

          Your video are powerless against me.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d360dbdac4554ea3d3a53fbe596125243d1ef0a144d7640eebf3f98f77e896e7.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Do you remember that scene when Morpheus told Neo what the Matrix was? Do you remember how badly he wanted out, and that he refused to believe? Do you remember him puking because the cognitive dissonance was so bad?

          Well, then you need to read my response to Michael here: http://disq.us/p/1mb2izv

        • adam

          Learner’s definition of RELIGION

          1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods

          2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

          I am without theism = atheist

          “Well, then you need to read my response”
          No I dont.

          I dont need to follow all your vacant rabbit holes.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/baadaf4c80c33c90acdc126c5bea5ae76ecbf62299c02cb86c7d7be47c668796.jpg

        • David Cromie

          Where is the ‘evidence’ that you christers bleat on about?

          The deluded Irishman in the video neatly sidesteps the fact that he was indoctrinated into his beliefs by his parents, and probably his grandparents, if he knew them. He also forgets that he was, just as everyone is, born an non-theist. Hence his tirade of culpable ignorance and deluded BS, coupled with a lack of critical thinking, even though he is a mathematician (he does not divulge whether he is of the pure or applied variety), albeit one with a very blinkered superstitious vision/world view.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98d6f0128b8af0c7099d981d0028fdce9cf890c7b4e1a4e7b8c1d16db7e1572d.jpg?w=600&h=480

          I think just the opposite is true. When men understand that they have faith, they can take pause when challenged. But if they operate with a sense of certainty, that their beliefs are not beliefs but true, then they cannot be reasoned with. They are the brood stock of zealots and terrorists whether they wear the badge of Jesus or Stalin. Zealotry is in fact synonymous with thoughtless and venomous certitude. A logical man is considerate. Not in the sense of being nice, but careful that he knows what he’s talking about.

          “the righteous shall live by faith”

        • adam

          ” When men understand that they have faith, they can take pause when challenged. It keeps them humble.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c7795336a2f3648c20693fd615ca36d67490293ddcff9e024299acfaf4b24f9.jpg

          “But if they operate with a sense of certainty, that their beliefs are not beliefs but true, then they cannot be reasoned with.”

          You mean if they are sure of what they want to believe.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

          the biblical definition of faith.

          “Zealotry is in fact synonymous with thoughtless and venomous certitude. ”
          As is faith, by biblical definition.

          “”the righteous shall live by faith””

          And AGAIN, that IS the problem.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • Bob Jase

          We understand theology.

          Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about while theology is what complicated nature religions are all about.

        • Michael Neville

          Theology is the study of an imaginary being, its makeup, its wants, likes, dislikes, and opinions, all justifying its spokescritters’ constant need for money and power.

        • MNb

          Of course theology is too complicated to understand. I mean, some theologians conclude that christians are allowed to own slaves while others preach the rebellion of the suppressed!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Capitein

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero

          No mentally healthy person can make sense of such contradictory outcomes.

        • epeeist

          No mentally healthy person can make sense of such contradictory outcomes.

          It could lead to an explosion

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Its no more of a mystery than examples of others who desire a particular interpretation that suits their ambitions. They will do almost anything to maintain the illusion that that is what the text, or the book of nature is saying. That is what people who play God do.

        • MNb

          So I suppose you deny that nuclear bombs work as well – they were developed thanks to a scientific theory (you would call it magical) based on probability, ie an acausal one. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945 will feel comforted.
          That or you are just another christian hypocrite who only accepts science when it suits him.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So I suppose you deny that nuclear bombs work as well – they were developed thanks to a scientific theory (you would call it magical) based on probability, ie an acausal one. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945 will feel comforted.
          That or you are just another christian hypocrite who only accepts science when it suits him.

          Probability did not cause the nuclear bomb any more than it caused your dice to come up snake eyes with this comment. It was caused by conscious entities who chose to roll the dice.

          It is Logos that gives science its power. Apart from logic for you to follow (as opposed to manufacture), science would be impossible. In the one book of Polkinghorne’s that I have, he lays that plain.

          Speaking of Einstein, “I think he overdid it a bit, failing to do justice to the fact that the ‘feel’ of science is discovery, not invention – as Newton acknowledged with the metaphor of his being a child on the beach finding pretty pebbles (not sculpting them!).” – John Polkinghorne / The Way The World IS pg. 5

          The fact that epeeist upvoted your comment certainly confirms his association (by reading or in person) with Peter Atkins.

          Nothing wrong with the willingness to investigate and find out if logic is reducible to mathematics. Its the desire that it be so that interests me, particularly desire so powerful that one will invent (as in manufacture) an illusion to persuade people that it is so.

        • Michael Neville

          Robert, I make a strong suggestion that you do not argue physics with a physicist. MNb is such a one.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I am not arguing physics Michael, or even physics with a physicist. I am arguing philosophy with an arrogant and inferior philosopher. Eppeist is a sophist, and I will run him through. Not with my own knowledge, but with objective logic that is not man made, but the very word of God. The simple fact that I understand that logic is not a human convention (and understand it well) is the only knowledge I need.

          You better hope he runs.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9ztvh8Ac8

        • Michael Neville

          No, Robert, you were trying to argue physics. Quantum theory works on probability and you tried to deny that nuclear weapons weren’t based on probability.

          Friendly word of advice, you’re not as intelligent or knowledgeable as you think you are. You might do some reading on the Dunning-Kruger Effect and consider how it applies to you.

          Not with my own knowledge, but with objective logic that is not man made, but the very word of God.

          See, this is evidence that you’re not as knowledgeable as you think you are. Formal logic was invented independently by the Greeks, the Chinese and the Sanskriti Indians. The three systems of logic are similar but not identical. However they are complete, sound and consistent, which means they are valid.

          Aristotelian logic is based on the three Laws of Logic. These aren’t actually laws like the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of planetary motion. Rather they’re axioms, propositions which are not proven but assumed to be true. No gods or other supernatural nonsense were required for these axioms to be formulated. So your pretense that “objective logic is not man made” is complete and utter bullshit. But then I’ve noticed that when you start waxing philosophically you spew more bullshit than anything else.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Aristotelian logic is based on the three Laws of Logic. These aren’t actually laws like the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of planetary motion. Rather they’re axioms, propositions which are not proven but assumed to be true.

          Let’s just use one, the law of non contradiction. The law of non contradiction basically says that the same thing, in the same sense, at the same time, cannot have contradictory answers.

          So if a police officer asks if you have a gun, you can’t say, “Yes… I mean, no.”

          The law is the either/or kind of law. Either this, or that, but never both unless the meaning is qualified. You could then explain to the officer that you have a heat gun, and that that is what you meant..Do you follow me so far?

          My question to you is this..

          Is the law of non contradiction objective OR is it Not?

          Think carefully about your answer, because unless you say “both”, you will be USING the law to prove that the law is not objective.

          This should help a lot if you will slow down and do thing you accuse me of not doing and listen for understanding before criticizing.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVsNEIOXTQc

        • Susan

          And as usual, you ignored the substance of your interlocutor’s comment and posted a video.

        • Michael Neville

          The video explains the Law of Contradiction (as it’s usually called) but it doesn’t prove it. As I said, it’s an axiom, something assumed to be true but not proven to be true. Every logical system must start with at least one axiom. If you knew anything about Gödel’s work on mathematical logic you’d know this. My statement about logical systems having axioms as a basis is an axiom since I haven’t proved it.

          Incidentally the guy giving the video doesn’t understand the Marxist use of the dialectical which looks for a synthesis of two competing ideas. He should stick with Christian apologetics and improbable stories about confusing a PhD philosopher with a softball question.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It’s a divine comedy.

          It is usually me, explaining to others what an axiom is. That it must be assumed true, otherwise one cannot argue anything, we can only make assertions.

          And I do so for a REASON., because all science and mathematics are dependent of logic; to demonstrate that all our science, be they empirical or philosophical, is done on faith in these axioms.

          It is the fact that logic is an axiom that tells me we will never prove logicism. Any proof will be built on the thing it is trying to prove and will result in arguing in a circle.

          You don’t prove that logic & math is a tautology. It must be taken on faith.

          I had a rough day. Not enough sleep and the like. But Ironically, it now dawned on me in my weakness that I have been arguing for the wrong thing. I took mathematics to be manmade (subjective), but I hold logic to be objective (and necessarily so). But I was wrong. Your search is a divine search actually.

          I’m talking to Everyone now including Susan.

          There is a problem epeeir has challenged me to solve. I am beginning to think that its the same basic problem.

          But trust me, it’s not the thing you’re looking for. It’s what the apostle John called the Logos.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/853px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

        • epeeist

          I see the reset button has been pressed.

          And I do so for a REASON., because all science and mathematics are dependent of logic

          We have been through this, I explained to you then that there are a number of different kinds of logic, not just a single one. As it science uses induction and abduction much more than deductive logic. Typically this is used by those who adhere to Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model for science or Hempel’s deductive-nomological covering law. Neither of these start from “axioms” of science.

          You don’t prove that logic & math is a tautology. It must be taken on faith.

          Wrong again, this is what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do in the Principia Mathematica and is part of the philosophy of mathematics.

          As for the Scutum, we have been through this too, I have given you two ways that show it to be inconsistent and therefore by reductio ad absurdum to be false.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          We have been through this, I explained to you then that there are a number of different kinds of logic, not just a single one. As it science uses induction and abduction much more than deductive logic. Typically this is used by those who adhere to Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model for science or Hempel’s deductive-nomological covering law. Neither of these start from “axioms” of science.

          But eppeeist… all you are saying is that rather than use necessary truths (deductive axioms that we all accept and must accept in order to DO science), science reaches BEYOND that and uses more questionable methods like induction that are not even necessarily true MORE OFTEN than solid deductive reasoning.

          Besides, you can’t DO inductive reasoning (or any other reasoning like abduction) apart from the law of non contradiction. The law is what reasoning means Example:

          -The induction. BECAUSE science has been successful in explaining the mechanisms of cause-effect relationship, THEREFORE science can account for every cause-effect relationship, is predicated on the deduction if this, then that’ (the law of non contradiction).

          The only difference is that induction does not follow logically by the very law it requires in order to proceed. It MIGHT be true. But to say that a statement of faith is valid, is to say that said statement of faith is your opinion.

          This is why I said we only need to focus on one law, the law of non contradiction, and why I chuckled and said elsewhere to you, “Oh he thought did he?” I wasn’t mocking the man, I was pointing out that having an opinion does not prove anything. Example:

          Wrong again, this is what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do in the Principia Mathematica and is part of the philosophy of mathematics.

          Insert hearty blue-collar chuckle once again. I already know that that is what they are trying to do. And I do not fault them for holding a philosophy and position of faith. Given the success of science, it is not an entirely inductive position, but that is precisely the point, they are making havoc of logic in the process. And that was Hume’s game from the start.

          “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” ― David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

          Hume’s statement is not itself subject to his own criteria. It is neither mathematical, nor experimental. He is making a metaphysical statement, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless. Clever devil that guy…

        • epeeist

          all you are saying is that rather than use necessary truths (deductive axioms that we all accept and must accept in order to DO science)

          Let’s take the classic example from something like Copi and Cohen:

          P1: All men are mortal
          P2: Socrates is a man
          C: Socrates is mortal

          This is logically valid. However you will note that P1 is inductive in nature, we have seen many people all of whom are mortal and we generalise from this to P1. In other words, P1 is not a necessary truth (this is modal , a variant on 1st order predicate calculus).

          P2 is a supposition, there is little evidence for the existence of someone called “Socrates”, he appears only in the dialogues of Plato and Xenophanes and the plays of Aristophanes. He may be an actual historical figure, he may not. In other words we are inferring his existence, it is again not a necessary truth.

          This is true of anything a posteriori. Or to put it another way, deductive reasoning is only as good as its propositions.

          if this, then that’, the law of non contradiction

          Can be stated as:

          ¬◊(∃x)(Fx ∧
          ¬Fx)

          So nothing to do with the material conditional.

          The only difference is that induction does not follow logically by the very law it requires in order to proceed. It MIGHT be true.

          Yep, our theories are both tentative and provisional, the sun might not actually rise tomorrow morning. But here is one I have mentioned before, the measured dimensionless muon magnetic moment is 2.0023318416(13), compared to the theoretical prediction of 2.0023318361(10), or in other words of 1 part per billion. You don’t think that it might just be possible that our theories have some relationship to reality.

          Insert hearty blue-collar chuckle once again. I already know that that is what they are trying to do.

          You have actually read the Principia Mathematica?

          And that was Hume’s game from the start.

          Hume’s guillotine has nothing to do with his position on causality or induction, as anyone who has read An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding would know.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Like I said… ‘havoc.

          Our family has a dog. She is a Yorkie/Chihuahua mix. Though I generally despise the Chihuahua breed, she is a cute little dog. Her official name is Angel. But I also like to call her Logos. I have a REASON for calling her that, because there is nothing like a perfect script.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WqzZ3jxx650

          All of that was great. But it is superflous, because as you said, we’ve covered this. All you have to do is answer my question that I have now asked twice.

          You will find it here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/god_is_lovedoes_that_make_any_sense/#comment-3527912739

          You see, all of that ‘jazz’ can be summarized propositionally as you did as represented by the quote in the link aabove.

        • epeeist

          Probability did not cause the nuclear bomb

          No, but the actual explosion was due to a collapse from a mixed quantum state to a pure one and this was purely stochastic.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true. But if it is not, and there lies behind the curtain of causality, a mind that holds the universe together because he chooses to, then your mathematics will only perceive stochastic probabilities. We’ve come full circle.

        • epeeist

          Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true.

          Firstly, I am not assuming anything by “faith” as the religious use the word. Secondly, I tend towards the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism because the rational arguments and empirical evidence for a “non-material” realm are completely unsubstantial.

          But if it is not, and there lies behind the curtain of causality

          Then it is the burden of the person putting forward such a position to justify it, if they just assert it then why should I treat it as anything but personal opinion?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Now we’re getting somewhere because I do not use the word faith that way either nor does Lennox, WLC, or any other thinker. See illustration.

          What matters is that we have established for men like Michael who were unaware that there is a category called rational faith.

          Michael asked why atheists should be impressed by Lennox.IMPRESSED?

          I don’t expect them to be impressed. I expect them to hate where logic is leading them, because once we admit that faith can be reasonable, we can admit that we are FORCED to extrapolate from the evidence using valid inferences and deductions.

          And of course we can. If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          And in that context, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.

          It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must b justified theoretically. And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.

          Can we agree on at least that?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhAxN4pCjp4

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I forgot to ad the illustration for y last reply. I’ve edited it in there as well.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhAxN4pCjp4

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Firstly, I am not assuming anything by “faith” as the religious use the word. Secondly, I tend towards the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism because the rational arguments and empirical evidence for a “non-material” realm are completely unsubstantial.

          Now we’re getting somewhere because I do not use the word ‘faith’ that way either. Nor does Lennox, WLC, or any other thinker, like the boys who wrote the bible for instance.

          What matters is that we have established for men like Michael who were unaware that there is a category called ‘rational faith’, that said category exists.

          Michael asked why atheists should be impressed by Lennox.
          IMPRESSED?

          I don’t expect them to be impressed. I expect them to hate where logic is leading them, because once we admit that faith can be reasonable, we can admit that we are FORCED to extrapolate from the evidence using valid inferences and deductions.

          And of course we can. If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          And in that context, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.
          It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist. And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.
          Can we agree on at least that?

        • epeeist

          there is a category called ‘rational faith’,

          If one makes a rational argument and the person one is arguing with shows the argument is false then a truly rational person will abandon the argument.

          What tends to happen with those who strongly hold to an ideology (of which religion is a prime example) is that instead of abandoning the argument they invent an ad hoc auxiliary in order to save it. For example the claim that god is omnipotent becomes reduced to god only being able to do what is logically possible. Things that have been shown to be false in the bible (the Genesis narratives, the account of the Noachic flood etc.) are not discarded they become “metaphorical”.

          In other words we don’t have “rational faith” we have “rationalisation of faith”.

          ust the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist

          Nope, what must be provided is evidential backing and the passing of critical testing.

          And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.

          Well I know what metaphysics is, I am not sure whether you do.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist.

          Nope, what must be provided is evidential backing and the passing of critical testing.

          Does mathematical modelling qualify as evidential?

        • epeeist

          Does mathematical modelling qualify as evidential?

          You can regard mathematical models as theories with a semantic content. In other words they need testing against empirical data in the same way as any other hypothesis or theory.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You can regard mathematical models as theories with a semantic content. In other words they need testing against empirical data in the same way as any other hypothesis or theory.

          Is your statement above equivalent or consistent with the part of my original question below?

          “If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.”

          If need be, we can talk about an empirical objective order.

        • epeeist

          If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          Consistency is necessary but insufficient, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, it is perfectly possible to have a coherent fairy tale.

          There is a paper by Ernan McMullan called The Virtues of a Good Theory which I recommend you try to get hold of. Your post touches on a couple of points in it. My very brief summary of the paper is given below:

          Empirical Fit
          Must account for the the data already in hand, though at early stages of the theory development this need not be exact.

          Explanatory Power
          It must attempt to provide further explanation and not simply save the appearances

          Internal Virtues
          Internal consistency, i.e. no contradictions within the theory or produced by the theory

          Internal coherence, i.e. the absence of ad hoc features, the primary example used here is that in the Ptolemaic system each planet had its own set of parameters and these were not linked to the parameters of any of the other planets.

          Simplicity, in the sense of not admitting to the theory anything that does not add explanatory power. The example here would be that of the theory of evolution and the version supported by the Catholic and other churches. The modern synthesis is perfectly adequate, adding an external entity to direct evolution adds nothing to the theory in terms of necessity or explanatory power.

          Contextual Virtues

          * External consistency or consonance

          – First level consonance, fit with theories in other parts of science, an example here might be that biological processes must not break the laws of thermodynamics

          – Second level consonance, fit with broader metaphysical principles, for example no action at a distance or no breaking of causality

          – Third level consonance, independence of social, political and moral issues and convictions which could be distortive in epistemic terms

          – Optimality, in the case of multiple explanations the one that affords the best explanation. This is essentially a restatement of IBE – inference to the best explanation

          Diachronic virtues, ones that manifest themselves over the course of time.

          * Fertility
          – Does it provide explanations over a range of phenomena and not just the ones that it was designed to explain.

          – Does it have the capacity to account for anomalies as they arise.

          – How well does its causal structure become filled in and elaborated upon over time.

          – Does it provide novel predictions and new research programmes (in the Lakatos sense)

          * Consilience

          – Does it provide unification of different classes of phenomena over time
          – Does it bring together domains that were once thought to be dispararate, for example Maxwell’s unification of electricity, magnetism and light

          * Durability, does it survive the challenge of prolonged and ever more stringent testing

        • adam

          “Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true.”

          Not by biblical faith

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

        • David Cromie

          Discard the Book of Enoch, it is just a forgery, pure and simple!

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          C’mon… mockery and assertion? You don’t know how to play….

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2B2gKcLkygI&list=LLMniLNuIraELyIEPa3G7mcw&index=246

        • adam

          “For instance, people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole
          earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted
          genetically by angels.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e284ecfcf8f4a4da8adb8c8992def60d555414158c237b83a5d3f4c4ffb2fa2.jpg

        • richardrichard2013

          “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

          god is afraid that they would eat from the magic tree of eternal life and live for ever. god knows that they have become intelligent, so he guards the tree

          …and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.”

          but before they knew what was good and evil , they chose to eat from the tree :

          So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate

          she did not know that it was evil to eat from the tree. she did not know that it was evil to have delight. she did not know that desire to make one wise was evil.

          she is just a human nature without intelligence. god should have taken it easy on the poor woman.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’m at work so bear with me, but nothing makes me feel more alive than facing another dogpile. Sweet deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a pack of wolves like moths to a flame…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXaRtc1f4I

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “but nothing makes me feel more alive than facing another dogpile. Sweet
          deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a pack of wolves like moths to a
          flame…” And so another troll out and out admits to being nothing more than a troll. Might as well head back under your bridge. Block button gonna hit you upside your asshole or head, they seem to be the same.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • Philmonomer

          I’m at work so bear with me, but nothing makes me feel more alive than
          facing another dogpile. Sweet deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a
          pack of wolves like moths to a flame…

          Do you think your behavior here glorifies Christ?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I do indeed, but like Moses and others, I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job. I was too timid and feared rejection because (as I learned much later) of an old Father wound.

          Everyone focusses on the harmless lamb and forget the lion side of the coin. As a result, Christianity has lost it salt. Time to spice things up a bit.

          Perhaps you never noticed the attention Christ drew to himself as regards his critics, and always publicly.

          He made complete fools of them. That’s why they wanted him silenced and dead. It wasn’t because he was nice, but because he is good.

          Grace to the humble, resistance to the proud. Last I looked this ain’t Sunday school and thse people are not humble sheep.

          I do what God made me and ttained me to do. It’s my purpose. The fact you dont like it is confirmation not disuasion.

          But in case you’re asking as a Christian, think about the parts of the body. I do not in myself need to reflect every facet of his dynamic character, I only need to fill a void left vacant if I am persuaded so by self examination and confirmation.

          These people think they are on the cusp of victory, but Logos awaits…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Ku6Yd9XGE

        • Philmonomer

          I do indeed, but like Moses and others, I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job. I was too timid and feared rejection because (as I learned much later) of an old Father wound.

          Everyone focuses on the harmless lamb and forget the lion side of the coin. As a result, Christianity has lost it salt. Time to spice things up a bit.

          Got it. You are a lion.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No, I am the kid with the sword. The lion is the lion.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bMpymTcEcmo

        • Philmonomer

          Sure. Even better.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A tit would be a bit more like it, me thinks.

        • MNb

          “I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job.”
          And then answered it yourself, deluding yourself that the answer came from the imaginary sky daddy.

        • adam

          “Perhaps you never noticed the attention Christ drew to himself as regards his critics, and always publicly.”

          No, apparently NOBODY noticed.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8e21f4f245797969c0947a765da8794c812826b9b5e6d1a040a884b1ee550af.jpg

        • adam

          ” But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.”

          No orally by a serpent…
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0461e824b813e55655838136eed283929cc1dafcd1df35e526e2692bc407d7a8.jpg

          “If the context of the story is the act of a Just God, then any
          interpretation should at least attempt to see if it can be understood in
          that context.”

          But that is NOT the context of the story
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d3202a656ddb77b015512ec509a77d3d4e3d2e8144963304870975dedea824c.jpg

          Its a story about a God who is too stupid to actually be a God.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Don’t conflate hardware with software.

        • adam

          Is it hardware or software that supports your claim of “corrupted genetically by angels.”?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It’s the biblical context for justice in the story. But since you asked, I find the two compatible.

          You must have a software virus. Have you considered a refresh, a new birth as it were. A little washing in the word goes a long way you know…

        • adam
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I appreciate your sense of humor but… I came to faith as an adult asking hard questions and converted from materialism to pantheism to Christianiy.

          I used to mock Jesus with the same stereotype because I was out of arguments.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_TE9b8IPL8I

        • adam

          So again I ask,

          Instead of being reborn into a system of MAGICAL beliefs, why not just GROW UP?

          I have read the bible, I understand how it ends.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdf1945c329723ddbb7c03a5aa7c5a3ef1bae3c5f93caabe7aed79f438227c78.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Admitting that I was not a superman of any kind, and that behind my facade of playing grownup, was in reality my insecurity that I covered with the fig leaf of projecting strength.

          You know of what I speak, that reassurance that you feed yourself periodically, pumping yourself up like a coach inside your own head. Its called false pride Adam, to protect yourself from the harsh reality out there. Your real self.

          Admitting that is what real grownups do. We confess that we are weak and that if God is there, we need him very much.

          You have a very shallow view of what real strength is, just as I once did. We’re on death row son. You’ll need more than bravado to face reality.

        • David Cromie

          You are terminally deluded due to your propensity for believing that a superstitious bent is the way to attain ‘truth’ and ‘everlasting life’.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Your responses are a riot, particularly the straw man of the God who failed. I own the album. I was their for the concert at THE COW PALACE in San Francisco. I am quite familiar with the concept…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdsj6FPSi9A

          John 10: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

          19The Jews who heard these words were again divided. 20Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”

          21But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

          You are terminally deluded due to your propensity for believing that a superstitious bent is the way to attain ‘truth’ and ‘everlasting life’.

          I have heard that speech before, in the clip that proceeds this one. But I much prefer the ending so we’ll skip the nonsense…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pn7YiEEkKA

        • adam

          ” if God Ganesh is there, we need him very much.”
          ftfy

        • adam

          ” if God Shiva is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Observing this barrage of spiteful potshots is a learning opportunity. Thank you for demonstrating how a grownup reacts to an honest answer to a dishonest question; like petulant child.

          I do not wonder…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIIAOZnkKQ

        • adam

          “Observing this barrage of spiteful potshots is a learning opportunity. ”

          Just pointing out your stupdity.

          “Thank you for demonstrating how a grownup reacts to an honest answer to a dishonest question;”

          yes, by demonstrating the errors of your childish claims

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b771a4ec57ad060b4acaad214ae436df6fd8facae4a468d9a6df580cb6f8dc21.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Haha that is an insult not an argument And it is a systemic contradiction, so it’s not even a coherent assertion. I hate to see men like Einstein make basic logical mistakes, but they do so to insulate themselves from the abuse of men like you.

          It’s sad really. Not grown up at all.

        • adam

          “so it’s not even a coherent assertion.”

          But of course it is.

          “Not grown up at all.”

          Religion tends to stunt intellectual development.

          Once someone is convinced of magic, they lose touch with reality.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’ll get back on this… its a good one for you to learn from

        • adam

          Sure………

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sure………

          You guys refuse to believe me when I say I don’t bluff. Its amazing.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

          This reminded me of a serious question I had at one time. And it seemed no Christian could answer it for me, partly because I assumed there was no answer and rarely brought it up. It concerns the following verse:

          Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.

          My problem (in my mindset then) was, what kind of insecure God is this? In my own mind the question was really, “What kind of God who presumably has everything, and knows everything, and needs nothing from me, demands that I worship him. does he need to be worshiped?

          For years that troubled me as I am sure it does you. Then one day I was in the Bay Area and was listening to the mad man, the radio host Michael Savage, and to my surprise he brought up a story in which this came up. He had asked a Rabbi in New York the same basic question. The Rabbi laughed and said, “God doesn’t need you to worship him, you need to worship him.”

          I was a long way from being a religious man before that moment, and a long way after. But I got the point. I do need to pay heed to many things in my life, like my boss at work and had already put the principle into practice.

          Now, years later, I am far more philosophically astute and I recognize what begging the question is. And I know that in question form it is a complex question. A debatable assumption was packed into my question. I assumed a false context.

          I took God’s command for my own good to mean he was insecure. I was actually projecting my own insecurity onto God. The same goes for his jealousy. I have a daughter, and she is very cute. I know what her mother looked like as a teenager, because I fell in love with her then. And I can see that my daughter is going to melt hearts and I am insanely jealous for her.

          That does not mean that I will try to control her in the abusive sense of jealousy (at least I hope not). But the thought of some snake in the grass (or garden) wooing her with slick packaging only to use her and break her heart? THAT is the good side of jealousy. Once again, I was projecting my own derogatory jealousy onto God. Not because God was corrupt, but because I was.

          Now I am in a position to answer your question. Can you see why I could not do this at a traffic stop or quickly at a jobsite? I had to go pick up an excavator this afternoon in the mountains with no cell service. Mind your manners kiddo, I’m working here.

          Of course god does not need me to speak for him or argue his existence.

          I

          needed to. In fact, when I came to faith, one of the first things God impressed upon me was that he was sending me to preach. I was like YOU adam. I knew full well how crazy that sounded, and I knew exactly how my family and friends would take it “He’s lost his ever lovin mind!”

          And I told God, the same as Moses did, “You got the wrong guy. I can’t do that. They will not listen to me.”

          We live in a culture that is ruled by tyranny adam. Political correctness in various forms, hangs like a shadow over everyone and dares them to speak up with it’s neuronic gaze. Fear, coercion, peer pressure. Don’t you dare step out of line.

          God needed me to speak for him so that I could learn to be a man, NOT because he cannot speak for himself. He chooses to use people, so that not only can he be known, but so that they become strong warriors of impeccable intellectual character, under impossible odds.

          Of course, the toothless, thoughtless, and nice Jesus kind of religion abounds. And you have your way with them just as I did. Great, because whether you know it or not, that is what happened over an d over again in the Old Testament. The people lost sight of the true strength of their philosophy, they became complacent in the majority. They even became abusive and corrupt.

          And so God had to allow their enemies to overrun them, so that if they wanted to hold on to their faith, it would have to be genuine. It would cause them to think, and dig, and examine themselves. It was to purify them.

          God is training an army for battle adam, an intellectual battle that some call a spiritual battle, same difference. And you are part of the process whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. Our delusions of autonomy are ridiculous. We barely have any freedom at all.

          In the end, we can only choose what side to be on, and you should reconsider your current vector. But that is not my responsibility. In fact, if you choose to stay where you are, I don’t even care. Its not my job to convert you. That’s your responsibility. I will not hesitate.

          Have your way with them adam. They still think they are supposed to convert you into their fantasy story by being nice to you. Purify them. You are doing God’s work.

          Just don’t try to purify me. Your father’s already have:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdi1dhXQs8

        • adam

          tldr

          “God is training an army for battle adam, ”

          Why?
          Why does a REAL God need an army?
          What kind of “God” is THAT weak, then why call it “God”
          Why doe God’s army need training?
          Why does God need a battle.

          You know why?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

          No sound, your video is powerless against me.

          ” And you are part of the process whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. ”
          Only in your psychopathic mind.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You are slow to catch on. Same dilemma. God doesn’t NEED an army. He wants US to be capable like him

          WE need to be in the army. And so you are.

          The videos are for everyone. Whether you watch and listen is utterly beside the point.

          You argue like we’re having a private exchange. That’s how imprisoned by self you are.

        • adam

          “He wants US to be capable like him”

          Why?
          Why didnt it just make us that way?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0448eba69db49e807bec179970f830b0e42028a0c8c2c1ffa23cfab9dba3693e.jpg

          “And so you are.”
          No, I am not buying into your “battle”.
          You havent demonstrated that you are not DELUSIONAL, and your battle is not IMAGINARY.

          ” Whether you watch and listen is utterly beside the point.”
          Then dont try and make video points with me.

          “You argue like we’re having a private exchange.”
          By telling you I dont have sound and therefore get NOTHING from the videos you post.

          That’s how imprisoned you are by your own imaginary battles.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          He did make us that way Adam, and the irony of your name cannot be lost on anyone.

        • adam

          So if we are already capable like ‘him’
          Why does he want us to be?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are we fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I did not mean fully trained, I meant like God and in his image. We were made with the capacity.

          If you’ve ever seen the movie Thor, why don’t YOU figure out why for yourself.

          Why did Thor throw a tantrum when his power was taken?

          And why was it taken to start with?

        • adam

          “I did not mean fully trained, I meant like God and in his image.”

          So?
          Your God is not fully trained.
          Why does he want us to be something he aint?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are we fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

        • adam

          “Why did Thor throw a tantrum when his power was taken?”

          Because it adds drama to the story line.

          What kind of drama does the bible use in this case?

        • adam
        • adam

          No sound at my end

          Your video is worthless to make any point to me.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That’s why it’s public. So you can’t manipulate me… like a child.

        • adam

          then grow up and stop acting as a child.

        • adam

          ” if God The Invisible Pink Flying Unicorn is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

        • adam

          ” if God Santa is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

        • adam
        • adam

          “Admitting that is what real grownups do. We confess that we are weak and that if God is there, ”

          REAL adults deal with reality, they dont hope and wait for a Santa Claus like an immature child.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a29efcba0ee94d4f84d4a43b6bc78a04d7180523d05f7132222fdad4c7046acd.jpg

        • MNb

          We need your god because we are on death row?
          As far as I’m concerned exactly the opposite – because I’m on death row I need your god the least of all.

        • adam

          ” We’re on death row son.”

          As is everything and everybody since life began, that’s just reality, and some immature child like people can’t be adult enough to deal with that reality, and find it necessary to buy into or create an ‘alternative reality’ – called a LIE or DELUSION to make them ‘feel’ better.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00dc38cb29f7a43641c9538a5e4c29a4f010f2b7bfe73b1efa9f33d5e9cb6e2a.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd86b396150dc2e11b7542790ee0d34f2a9d437b2262747fb7047679f85e9cec.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I want to add to my last response now that I am home…

          I left off by saying you will need more than bravado to face reality. You will need an honesty and courage you do not yet know.

          Today was an interesting day. What was it, 6-8 against 1? And what I notice is that a few of you have very sharp intellects. And I mean that. You’re one of them adam and the others know who they are.

          All of you that I speak of understand logic very well without having to dive into the minutia that epeeir tries to use to intimidate his opponents. To hell with the fancy terminology, you understand and construct logical counterarguments that confirm you understood the point.

          I see a lot of wit and a lot of will. Very clever bunch you boys are. Do you feel the but coming?

          But, you know what is lacking according to my analysis? The moral aspect of what we call ‘moral reasoning’.

          When it comes to constructing and finding logical avenues of objection and criticism, you guys are at the top of the class. Technically, your minds are logic machines. But technicalities are not what real logical thought is about unless you are designing software or working out abstract mathematical functions. There may be no moral or ethical component in many of those cases.

          But if we begin to work out a philosophy as regards worldview, with all the complexities involved that encroach on meaning, purpose, value judgments, and the rest, we cannot escape the need for honesty. In this realm, logic devoid of brutal honesty is for machines, not real grown up men.

          What is the cliche… the truth hurts? It’s not just a cliche, it is the brutal and honest truth. And if we attempt to manipulate people with cheap technical logic in the form of mockery, we are missing the mark. We might get a technical win like a smart ass lawyer impresses himself with, but it wont be a sit your opponent on his butt kind of punch.

          If you want to make a real argument it will need to be both logical and true. And that cannot be manufactured adam. It is an objective argument through and through.

          The nice thing about not having to manufacture our arguments is that we don’t expend energy trying to be clever. We can take on 12 combatants at once with energy to spare. It’s actually energizing rather than draining. Telling the truth is easy and drives the opposition mad. No extra energy wasted trying to keep track of my lies or create elaborate justifications to reconcile contradictions.

          That is how I do what I do, and I don’t mind showing you my hand. Epeeir is right. I don’t know much. Not compared to him at least if he is all he claims to be. And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          Now, don’t think I am trying to show false humility. I’ve been debating like this for about 14 years. And I have learned a lot, so like Paul said in one of his Epistles, “I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.”

          A lot of people turn to God as a genie. They are looking for a hero to save the marriage, find them a job, save their child from cancer. And of course, all of those are legitimate concerns. But if we simply read the gospels we will see that the disciples were no different. They did NOT understand Jesus’ message. Not at first…

          They were arguing about who would be greatest in the kingdom and presuming that Jesus was going to conquer the Roman’s and displace the corrupt religious leaders. That is what we all expect from what we think a real god would do. But when he told them he would be crucified and raised, they didn’t know what he was talking about.

          Peter is even recorded as rebuking him for saying such a thing. It was unthinkable to him that what he assumed would be their conquering king, would be humiliated like that. The concept of the resurrection went right over their heads. They could not relate. Can we blame them?

          Peter kept fighting for his delusion (literally) right up to the night before and tried to defend Jesus with a sword. Peter had a lot of bravado and was willing to fight for what his ambitions dictated.

          But once Jesus was arrested Peter lost his faith along with the others. This outwardly strong man full of false pride crumbled when questioned by a little girl and denied knowing Jesus. Thomas flat refused to believe nonsense about Jesus’ resurrection when the reports came in. And can you blame him? He was in it for the theocracy the same as the others. The rebellion had failed. He was a pragmatist and would have none of these fairy stories about Jesus being alive again.

          Contrast that with Thomas’ reaction when we are told he saw the risen Lord. He fell to his knees and declared, “My Lord, and my God.”

          It was only after they were totally defeated and had seen their own weakness that they were humble enough to have a truly objective and open mind. Truth became more powerful than their biases and ambitions because they were broken.

          And here you are adam, talking about growing up and implying we need to toughen and thicken our skin. You don’t know the first thing about thick skin. But you can learn. But not by being tough, but by being honest. Then all of that natural intelligence will be free to move effortlessly through very difficult terrain without wearing yourself out.

          This came up in the jail last week because naturally some of these
          guys with sentences hanging over their heads would love to escape reality. One kid wanted to know if the Christian life was easy. And the answer is yes in one sense, because God gives us his own mind (or in Christianeze, His Spirit). We don’t just work out logic after that, we know it. More to the point, we know HIM, and recognize that his voice was always as close as our own consciousness we just did not recognize it.

          God wants to give us rest in that way that carries us through the fire and the death and the heartbreak, he does not deliver us from it.

          That is not what this kid wanted to hear. But I was not about to sell him a characterization of God that was not biblical and would let him down as it has so many others, and leave them hating themselves, and God, and religious people. Its the real deal or nothing. People pray a lot of vain prayers.

          Do you think you are grown up adam? Are you a strong man? How much strength would it take to let go of control of your own life, your dreams, your ambitions and say, ‘God, I’m yours to do what you will’? You don’t have the kind of strength to trust that God is in control no matter what the circumstances. Don’t even pretend to.

          It is much easier to cope with the pain of loss and anxiety by simply defining the problem out of existence so we don’t have to FEEL the existential and emotional sting of reality. It is so much easier to be angry than broken and in tears.

          A mature man allows himself to feel the hurt and not just the anger. Its something I only learned somewhat recently. God has a hard time teaching me because I am as rebellious and resistant as they come. I still want a genie too sometimes. But God is no genie. He won’t save us from the cross, but lead us through it. Every good teacher does.

          And he did not expect that from us and consider himself too holy and pure to reduce himself to that level. He led the way. You want to see what a grown up looks like adam? Take a good look at God on a Roman cross.

          All the mockery, all the torture, all the torment and force of will they brought to bear on him without mercy. They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated. And not because he is sadistic but because he knows our true strength and how to breed it in us. He is the ultimate special ops instructor.

          I play a lot of games and try to have fun because this immortal combat we have engaged in can be pretty intense. There are a lot of bruised egos. I don’t want to hurt you guys. I want se if youre as tough as you pretend. You’re not btw.

          But if you are strong enough, you’ll put your ego to death and show your true weakness and be free to run like the wind. And to find that strength, we need God’s strength. Will power is not enough. Honesty is the name of the game.

        • james

          “All the mockery, all the torture, all the torment and force of will they brought to bear on him without mercy. They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated. And not because he is sadistic but because he knows our true strength and how to breed it in us. He is the ultimate special ops instructor.”

          poor god. allowed himself to be raped by the romans because he was sick and tired of butchering people without mercy.
          they did break your god. would you identify the dead body in the tomb as “god in flesh ” ?

          the jewish tell us that you christians can never break them because they died believing that yhwhs laws dont have a sell by date. when the jews were being murdered by the christians , they say torah was coming from their lips.

          so many stories of martyrs and how they did not become cowards like jesus who knew when, where and how his suffering is going to stop.

          nobody needs to willingly get beaten the shit out of to teach how to live a good life.

          poor god. he taught you how he created easily corruptible creatures and then willingly went to commit suicide. poor god.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated.”

          A thick skin?

          Bwaahahahahaha!

          Robert has been whining about being bullied and being picked on, amongst other things, since he got here.

          A thick skin, my arse.

        • epeeist

          Not compared to him at least if he is all he claims to be. And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          For what it is worth, I have a doctorate in physics (in particular the quantum mechanics of small molecules), while I was taking that I also took adjunct courses in philosophy of science and logic. The philosophy of science leads to epistemology and hence on to perception and philosophy of mind, so I have a nodding acquaintance with these two subjects as well. Given that I am an atheist I obviously don’t accept so-called “Christian ethics”, as much as anything because they are crude and inadequate, so I have find my own way on this, I tend towards Rawlsian contractualism. If you want more, I am a fencing coach, moderate photographer and have an interest in early music (which means everything from the 12th century to J.S. Bach).

          And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          I think this merits an Isaac Asimov quotation:

          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

          EDIT: correct a copy-paste

        • adam
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Impressive resume. John Polkinghornr was a quantum physicist too, and an Anglican priest. His resume is even MORE impressive.

          Obviously, an appeal to authority would be fallacious, and it is of no use appealing to consensus either as that is the ad populum fallacy.

          His rejection of relativism is spot on, but don’t try to use the Asimov quote to conflate rejection of materialism with rejection of intellect. You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

        • epeeist

          Impressive resume.

          It was meant to be informative rather than impressive.

          John Polkinghornr was a quantum physicist too, and an Anglican priest. His resume is even MORE impressive.

          Certainly in science Polkinghorne operated at a higher level than I, there is no problem admitting this. There are always people higher up the pecking order, I have met a couple of Nobel laureates (one a theist, one an atheist) both of who operated at a higher level than Polkinghorne.

          Just as an aside, it was Peter Atkins who taught me the use of Feyman diagrams and their mathematical representation.

          an appeal to authority would be fallacious

          Certainly an appeal to improper authority is fallacious.

          It is of no use appealing to consensus either as that is the ad populum fallacy

          One has to be careful here, certainly the claim that a book must be good because it has been on the best seller list for several weeks or that gods must exist because most cultures have a belief in a higher power are examples of ad populum.

          However this is different to scientific consensus in subjects such as climate change or evolution, here the consensus comes from the fact that theories have properties such as strong explanatory power, good empirical fit and improved consilience over time.

          His rejection of relativism is spot on, but don’t try to use the Asimov quote to conflate rejection of materialism with rejection of intellect.

          The Asimov quotation says nothing about materialism, methodological or metaphysical.

          You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

          If you look at the development of logic in the 19th and early 20th centuries you will see it was done by people like Boole, de Morgan, Frege and Russell, all of whom were primarily mathematicians. As it is mathematical logic is well developed field hence books such as this one.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Just as an aside, it was Peter Atkins who taught me the use of Feyman diagrams and their mathematical representation.

          Brilliant man with some of the best selling textbooks in the world. That does not mean that he is infallible. He in fact makes very basic logical errors, perhaps because he is so far out there in his thinking.

          Genius needs to be careful because one mistake on the tarmac can lead to disaster 100 miles out if you are on autopilot and not paying attention. Pride precedes a fall.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

        • epeeist

          That does not mean that he is infallible.

          So where does he claim he is?

          He in fact makes very basic logical errors, perhaps because he is so far out there in his thinking.

          Does he? Perhaps you could identify some of them.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I did not, and do not need to without plagiarizing someone else’s material. WLC did a fine job of it decades ago. I remember seeing that show as a kid. Buckley always came across as pretentious, but then again so does Atkins.

          I didn’t know what they were talking about then. But I do now. Maybe you missed it then and now?

          Again…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

        • Michael Neville

          You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

          This tells me that you’re nowhere near as knowledgeable about philosophy, particularly logic, as you pretend you are. Most of the work in logic in the past 150 or so years has been mathematical logic. Do the names Boole, Frege, Schröder, Zermelo, Russell or Gödel mean anything to you? They mean something to me and I’m not a mathematician.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          “One of the boldest attempts to apply logic to mathematics was the logicism pioneered by philosopher-logicians such as Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Mathematical theories were supposed to be logical tautologies, and the programme was to show this by means of a reduction of mathematics to logic.[3] The various attempts to carry this out met with failure, from the crippling of Frege’s project in his Grundgesetze by Russell’s paradox, to the defeat of Hilbert’s program by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          so? modern mathematical logic has its origins in the attempts of frege and hilbert, no doubt about that, but mathematical logic didn’t end with hilbert’s program, frege’s attempt or gödel’s incompleteness theorems, to the contrary. maybe you should read on (then it describes what the article calls the “second area of mathematical logic”. see also the wikipedia article about hilbert’s program, especially “hilbert’s program after gödel”, for starters).

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sew buttons on your underwear… All you are pointing out is that the quest for the holy grail continues. That’s not news friend. Thanks SO much.

          The context for my point is that it has not been demonstrated. Epeeist was trying to hide behind his physics degree to say it has been.

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do. That is the importance of accountability (peer review). Without it, people can overstate their case and hide behind the label of ‘expert’, and then beat everyone else down as ignorant and heretical.

          Your late to the game, so crawl back into your hole, because I love playing ‘Whack a Troll’.

          Epeeist has this handled and is smart enough. You’re not.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          the holy grail? proving theorems to try and understand mathematics better? you don’t seem to care about that (which is rather sad).

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Still don’t get it? It has nothing to DO with a value judgment about science and math being bad.

          It has to do with overstating the case and acting like it’s IN the bag. The bag is still empty, but good luck. You have more faith than I do I assure you of that.

          Good flipping grief!

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do. … Without it, people can overstate their case and hide behind the label of
          ‘expert’, and then beat everyone else down as ignorant and heretical.

          hm. you seem to agree that you are ignorant, that you don’t need to “know the math”, and you accept the judgement of “experts” (if they are “men like gödel”, for some reason). mathematics is very much a cumulative enterprise. how you can think that “the bag is still empty”, in the case of math at least, i don’t know.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Good point. Damn good point actually. Glad I apologized, your
          smarter than I thought.

          Fortunately, when pressed, epeeist confessed that the search was still on. He has more honesty than many. And he also noted that appeals to authority are reasonable within the given fields. We all know that already.

          But you’ve given another illustration of just how much faith people place in experts today as our knowledge increases. We’re forced to by time. Very dangerous…

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          i’m not that pessimistic. yes, our knowledge increases, but we were often able to reorganize and reformulate our knowledge in such a way that it’s still teachable (and understandable to people like me who are not “like gödel”). for example: the original proofs of theorems are often somewhat unwieldy or difficult to understand. then other mathematicians rework those proofs and are able to streamline the arguments, introduce appropriate notation, and so on. a nice example for this (in physics) are maxwell’s equations:

          “The vector calculus formulation below has become standard. It is mathematically much more convenient than Maxwell’s original 20 equations and is due to Oliver Heaviside.”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hey, go for it. Don’t let my skepticism stop you. I understand the cliche’ that hope springs eternal, and I do not mean that derogatorily.

          I don’t mock people for having faith (so long as it is not blind), nor for having hopes and dreams or ambitions. None of those are bad in and of themselves.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hey, sorry for those last two replies. Its not your fault. I did not have to say it like that. Been working 12hr days and did not sleep well last night. Just be careful of the context when you jump in. Peace..

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          ok, just ignore my comments if you think they don’t adavance the discussion in any way. i don’t mind.

        • Susan

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do.

          You need to know what Godel’s math showed.

          What did it show?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Aren’t you a sight… I always loved those who jump in only when they think someone else has them trapped. Must be a girl… -wink-.

          You will find your answer in this comment to Michael (and you are named in it): http://disq.us/p/1mc6yyc

        • Susan

          Must be a girl…-wink

          Well, aren’t you the clever one. What gave me away?

          You will find your answer

          Nope. I asked you a specific question.

          You said we didn’t need to understand the math. I assume you meant Godel’s theorems..

          I asked you what it showed.

          And you linked me to your standard bloviating.

          ====

          Edit: To add link

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You need to understand it first, so you can tell me what is wrong with it… remember?

          But when you understand it, you will understand the video.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICsIG4d0S0E

        • Susan

          And as usual, you have nothing.

          Plus a video.

          You can’t answer my question.

        • Joe

          I’m reminded of another poster who was active a while back. When pushed, they responded with non-specific brush offs and a music video. Can’t remember who it was, but it seems like they’ve returned with a new sock puppet.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          As the video illustrates, I gave you an answer. But not hardly the answer you wanted. And my answer is your undoing

        • MNb

          Polkinghorne ceased to be a quantum physicist the moment he became an Anglican priest, so the relevance of this remark is not obvious.
          Worse, big chance that Polkinghorne and Epeeist are fully part of the consensus within the field of physics. The appeal to authority called Epeeist regarding Modern Physics is not fallacious at all:

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

          “Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.”

          So you’d better not dispute what Epeeist writes about Modern Physics. When I write about it (as a qualified teacher I’m also a kind of authority, though of course on a lower level) I always look with half an eye to him whether I’m correct. He usually remains silent, so apparently I don’t do too bad a job. The reason I don’t leave Modern Physics to him on this site is his understandable tendency to get technical and abstract. I think it’s easier for me to formulate the core in daily language. When I was trained to become a teacher in the 1980’s this was an important topic. Of course I’m also aware of the danger than simplificaton might become incorrect; I put quite some effort in avoiding this.

          “You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Never heard of mathematical logic, apparently.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.
          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          “One of the boldest attempts to apply logic to mathematics was the logicism pioneered by philosopher-logicians such as Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Mathematical theories were supposed to be logical tautologies, and the programme was to show this by means of a reduction of mathematics to logic.[3] The various attempts to carry this out met with failure, from the crippling of Frege’s project in his Grundgesetze by Russell’s paradox, to the defeat of Hilbert’s program by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

          Pretty simple history.

        • David Cromie

          You need the ‘honesty and courage’ to face the fact that you read a book of myths, legends, and folklore (based mostly on Pagan beliefs) as though it were the ‘truth’, but at the same time cannot adduce any irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’, outside of your own head!

        • adam

          “I left off by saying you will need more than bravado to face reality.”

          Yes, from someone who claims to have gone from reality to christian magical thinking.

          “You will need an honesty and courage you do not yet know.”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/984030700e86062e2deb26f5244a20edfd5d804ca6e1cfaafac40f75368cdb20.png
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04570f3531aa4e675333fdcce29973e95d6ad5b518125333d607badb96b99c03.png

          “The moral aspect of what we call ‘moral reasoning’.”

        • MNb

          “If you want to make a real argument it will need to be both logical and true.”
          How exactly do you determine whether an argument is true? By praying to god and deluding yourself that what you make up yourself comes from the imaginary sky daddy?

        • adam

          “How much strength would it take to let go of control of your own life,
          your dreams, your ambitions and say, ‘God, I’m yours to do what you
          will’? ”

          It takes a lack of strength to not accept responsibility of your own life and give to some sham artists view of mythology.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58c98177e9a1a7ae07e001d683408f75f5baca0b8a84815ce64907c32b1e4a03.png

        • adam

          “Take a good look at God on a Roman cross.All the mockery, all
          the torture, all the torment and force of will they brought to bear on
          him without mercy. They did not break him, ”

          but they did break him,

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0aee113f03ff7b59f981eb711cc71164d897bbcf1295cbc7e0203249d0745753.jpg

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Instead of being reborn into a system of MAGICAL beliefs, why not just GROW UP?

          Would you be surprised to find out that Robert was maybe lying when he said?….

          “I came to faith as an adult asking hard questions and converted from materialism to pantheism to Christianiy[sic].”

        • MNb

          “I came to faith as an adult asking hard questions”
          Such as?
          And how exactly is “god” an answer?

        • David Cromie

          Just mere myth, as found in the Book of Enoch, for example.

        • epeeist

          You are conflating freedom with autonomy.

          Your supposed god took away both the freedom and autonomy of people to live their lives as they saw fit. Further it did so in a singularly nasty way, simulated drowning is classed as torture, consider what real drowning must be like.

          A statistic I keep rolling out, we rightly regard Stalin as a moral monster in that he was responsible for the deaths of about 10% of the population of the Soviet Union. Your god was responsible for the deaths of 99.99996% of the world’s population with the rest of the biosphere as collateral damage. Your god is far more of a moral monster than all of the 20th century dictators put together.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Your supposed god took away both the freedom and autonomy of people to live their lives as they saw fit

          We never HAD autonomy any more than my goldfish have autonomy. Now my fish can rightly be said to belong outside an aquarium. But you sir behind glass that we call space-time until you can demonstrate humility. If you refuse (and it IS your choice), you will rightly be confined forever.

          A statistic I keep rolling out, we rightly regard Stalin as a moral monster in that he was responsible for the deaths of about 10% of the population of the Soviet Union. Your god was responsible for the deaths of 99.99996% of the world’s population with the rest of the biosphere as collateral damage. Your god is far more of a moral monster than all of the 20th century dictators put together.

          Do you believe it is a woman’s moral right to take the life of an unborn child? It happens by the millions.

          If so, why do you call that her moral right, and call God taking life immoral?

        • epeeist

          We never HAD autonomy any more than my goldfish have autonomy.

          Ah, so we are merely property, your god is a slaver.

          But you sir behind glass that we call space-time until you can demonstrate humility.

          Ah, so your god not only owns us but wants us to be humble as well, a bit insecure your god don’t you think? Actually, looking at the first few of the ten commandments (version 1) would seem to confirm this.

          Do you believe it is a woman’s moral right to take the life of an unborn child?

          Oh look, over there, a squirrel.

          You obviously have no response to my point, so once again you try to change the subject.

          If so, why do you call that her moral right, and call God taking life immoral?

          Given that your god supposedly designed women he did a very poor job, a majority of fertilised eggs don’t implant, they are spontaneously aborted. In other words, your god is the abortionist-in-chief.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s interesting math, thanks. I’d not seen Stalin and Yahweh as such bedfellows before.

        • epeeist

          The figure for Stalin is of the right order, I used Robert Conquest’s estimate.

          The figure for the world population I got from the US Census.

        • Otto

          Explain how that works. Why would human freedom be affected?

        • Greg G.

          If God cannot avoid the choice of a lesser evil without overriding freedom, then he is not omnipotent.

          Why do you think God cares about human freedom? Is it just to have an excuse to torture people forever? Then God is not benevolent.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Yes, precisely. God could get his purpose accomplished without drowning millions. One that springs to mind: he could go back in time 80 years and make all the unworthy females sterile.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “God Is Love—Does That Make Any Sense?”

    Only if it also makes sense to take that definition and say ” I love potato chips, therefore my love of potato chips is god”.

  • Phil Rimmer

    God is Love and S&M its purest expression..

  • Mark Dowd

    My word, the stupid!

    “If I’m right blah blah blah…”

    TL;DR version of that entire dumbass quote:

    If I’m right, things are like this and not that.

    Of course I’m right, therefore things are like this and not that.

    How is it possible that allegedly intelligent people can be that hideously dumb?

  • sandy
    • sandy

      How can an all loving being create Evil…just doesn’t make sense.

      • richardrichard2013

        some theists i spoke to say that god is not infinitely and endlessly loving . some say that he can practice his love when he wants to, doesn’t mean he was practicing it all the time or that he is defined by one attribute.

        • Greg G.

          some say that he can practice his love when he wants to, doesn’t mean he was practicing it all the time or that he is defined by one attribute.

          That sounds like the rationalizations of the victim in an abusive relationship.

      • Sashineb

        I’ve had Southern Baptists (God’s best people) tell me that “evil” means “calamity”. With that, I’m sure we can all agree that 9/11 was a time of true calamity. So, then, God created 9/11. Mystery solved.

        • Greg G.

          Some translations have “calamity” and “disasters” instead of evil there, but then Christians point to that like there is nothing evil about causing calamities and disasters.

  • Doubting Thomas

    The “god is love” analogy works in the sense that love, like all other emotions, and god exist only in the head.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    The existence of the FSM is proven because people LOVE meatballs. It is the love of a good sauce that brings us all together. And it is the cheese sprinkled on top that keeps us together. There could be no love if it were not for the immortal pasta diner. RAMEN!

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou.com

    …not even grammatically.

  • Sophia Sadek

    What they are saying is that they worship Venus.

  • http://spiritualanthropologist.info The Spiritual Anthropologist

    > The only thing in existence was the Trinity, but how would that work? There was no development, progress, or even change of any kind, so what would love mean in this static environment?

    Well, this is an interesting question. Is it static? Something outside or normal view of time is hard for us to understand at all.

    • adam
      • http://spiritualanthropologist.info The Spiritual Anthropologist

        Cool, but that doesn’t really speak to what I was saying.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It never does.

        • http://spiritualanthropologist.info The Spiritual Anthropologist

          Try to process what I was saying and actually respond to that. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I am saying that it is hard to imagine what existence is like outside of space-time. Is it static? Can things “change” without a normal sense of time? What does it mean to have a transfinite existence in such a way?

          Dunno. Just fun questions.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I agree with you. Adam is a parasite.

        • http://spiritualanthropologist.info The Spiritual Anthropologist

          Ah, sorry. Never easy to tell if someone is being serious or sarcastic online. I still think that one day, if text based discussions remain a normal form of communication, English will evolve to the point where emotional tone is included in word inflection.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I was sort of kidding. The guy is unbelievably annoying. He can’t think for himself so he posts childish cartoons in place of any logical discussion.

        • http://spiritualanthropologist.info The Spiritual Anthropologist

          That kind of reminds me of another discussion that I was just having, which devolved into a person basically responding in “meme” format.

        • adam

          Pictures are still worth a thousand words.

        • Baby_Raptor

          And you’re still a jerk off.

        • adam

          No, you cant jerk me off.

          Go back to your daddies dungeon and ask one of his rent boys.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sniff sniff.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Looks like the last thing you saw before the roofies kicked in.

        • MNb

          So you’re the one who has problems with gays. Adam certainly has not.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I have as much of a problem with gays as I do anyone else. I don’t care about them either way. You’re the obsessed asshole who wants to put them on a pedestal. It amuses me to call Adam gay because he’s clearly an uptight self hater.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except you’re the homophobic wankstain that started using being gay as pejorative ya knuckle dragging imbecile.

        • MNb

          Oh jolly, our favourite lying piece of shit has stolen the name of a well respected regular.
          Looks like someone is angling for a ban.

        • adam

          I’ve never been roofied.

          You are reliving your own fantasies again.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sure you haven’t.

        • adam

          Yeah, I’m sure too.

          Do you always have to roofie your male sex partners?

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sometimes. Do you always have to wear your Cub Scout uniform to get your dad in the mood?

        • adam

          “Sometimes. “

        • Baby_Raptor

          How gay. What do you wear the rest of the times? One of his dresses?

        • adam

          Sometimes you have to roofie your bfs….

        • Ignorant Amos

          The first sign of coming out is admitting it. Nothing wrong with that if one lives in healthy environment of course, but something tells me this Baby Clampett is afraid of something…maybe he’s a closet atheist too.

        • Susan

          in place of any logical discussion

          Please link us to a single comment in which you’ve engaged in any logical discussion.

        • adam

          Baby_Raptor has been trying to pick me up since he got here.

          He got real angry when I turned him down.

          Not that there is anything wrong with that, I am just not into men.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Self hater.

        • adam

          I can see you are.

          But I can’t help you, and obviously with your daddy issues your mommy cant help you either.

          Please seek Professional Help

        • Baby_Raptor

          As another tear rolls down your cheek.

        • adam

          Hey dont cry.

          You will find a guy who will love you for who you are.

          On second thought

          Please seek Professional Help

        • Baby_Raptor

          If you keep saying it, one day it might come true. You’re not gay. You’re not gay. You’re not gay. Lol.

        • MNb

          If you’re female I’d rather be gay.
          I’m pretty sure Adam wouldn’t mind to be gay either, so your attempt is nothing but pathetic.

        • Baby_Raptor

          that will give you something to think about on the way back to Tijuana. Vaya con dios. I’m sure there are a lot of things Adam wouldn’t mind. He’s a human toilet.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Like all those closet fundie pastors keep doing.

          Pastor’s like Ted Haggard, Donnie McClurkin, Pieter Niemeyer, Derek Terry, J.J. Peterson, Jim Swilley, etc.

          I can see you are confused too….let it out, you will feel a whole lot better.

        • Susan

          He’s changed his name to Kodie, now.

          He just got banned over on Outshine the Sun.

          http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-moderation-actions-thread.html#comment-3527883194

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha….Andrew G, aka the evil overlord, is way less tolerant than Bob here is…fool’s are suffered way less gladly over on OtS.

          What an absolute piece of shit. Internet stalking creepy bastard. Defo needs professional help…baby Jesus must be gurning his lamps out with arseholes like that trying to defend his corner.

        • Susan

          What an absolute piece of shit.

          Yep. I hadn’t noticed that Bob’s already banned him or I wouldn’t have even brought it up.

          baby Jesus must be gurning his lamps out

          There’s no reason to assume he’s a christian. He never engaged in the topic. Just came here to troll.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep. I hadn’t noticed that Bob’s already banned him or I wouldn’t have even brought it up.

          A just seen that maself. The shitbag has changed his Disqus handle to Kodie too…immature prick.

          There’s no reason to assume he’s a christian. He never engaged in the topic. Just came here to troll.

          I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to peg him as a Christian. He came in here defending a Christian commenting. Isn’t that what they do, jump in trolling while not engaging in the topic? Of course I could easily be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.

        • Susan

          I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to peg him as a Christian

          Not saying it’s not possible. Just that there’s no reason to go there.

          He came in here defending a Christian commenting.

          Just as good a place for a troll to jump in as any. No. I won’t call him a christian troll. Just a troll. Pure troll.

          I could easily be wrong, wouldn’t be fhe first time.

          That must be awful. I’m NEVER wrong. 😉

          Now, we can stop talking about him. It’s so icky.

          I just didn’t want to ignore your comment.

        • MNb

          Is that why you can’t let him go? That he appeals to your darkest desires, the ones you don’t even want to admit to yourself?
          How sad. I would be honored (see, I don’t exactly care about using u’s; only American assholes like you do) if Adam tried to pick me up.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I don’t care what you homos do. Or what foul orifice you cram that “u” into. You’re a cockroach.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You need to bring something besides hatred to the conversation.

        • adam

          Spoofing Kodie and hatred is all he has.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Little Kodie Raptor is now banned.

        • adam

          I could deal with Raptor.

          But trying to drag Kodies good name, is a bit too much.

          Thank you.

        • adam

          ” I am saying that it is hard to imagine what existence is like outside of space-time. ”

          Well of course it is.

          Just like it is hard to imagine that all knowledge has been around forever and is embodied in a Magical Sky Daddy.

          Where does such a Magical Guy actually get it’s magic?
          Where does such a Magical Guy actually get it’s knowledge from?
          Where does such a Magical Guy actually LEARN to create from?

          “What does it mean to have a transfinite existence in such a way?”
          You mean like every other character in fiction?
          All products of human IMAGINATION.

        • adam

          “I all minds ceased to exist
          Would love still be a thing”

          Of course not love is a word we use to describe an human EMOTION.

          The most likely reason for the Trinity is purposely creating cognitive dissonance.

          If you can made to believe that 1+1+1=1
          What can you NOT be made to believe in.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

      • Baby_Raptor

        Way to go, clown. Instead of offering anything of substance, you copy and paste another’s work because you’re too lazy to make your own statement. I’m embarrassed for you.

        • adam

          “I’m embarrassed for you.”

          I’m embarrassed for your mommy.

          Having to put with you and your daddies rent boys

        • Baby_Raptor

          Why do you repeat what I said? I know what I said. I’m the one who said it. Dummy.

        • adam

          Why do YOU repeat what I say?

          You know I am not into you in that way, even though there is nothing wrong with that.
          Why do you keep coming on to me?

        • MNb

          To answer Adam’s question underneat: you really feel attracted to him, don’t you?

        • Baby_Raptor

          1: he’s a homo
          2: I’m a woman
          3: I have no idea what he looks like, retard.
          4: I’m sure he can’t sustain an erection for a man or a woman
          5: you’re a roach

  • al kimeea

    What I don’t love is this new Patheos look. I have to search to find this blog. After clicking on ‘view all nonreligious’ all I see is a rehash of the front page.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Good point. I’ll investigate.

    • Dannorth

      Go to columnist>non religious on the top bar.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Good catch. That does it (though why are bloggers in the columnists category?).

        • Dannorth

          Because it sounds fancier?

        • Greg G.

          For the same reason mahi mahi sells better than its old name – dolphinfish.

  • alexinfinite

    This article does well to highlight the absurd mental gymnastics religious people have to go through to call their god “loving”. You can’t have a coherent god when you go from a pantheon of gods into a monotheism. You clowns can’t reconcile that your god is a war god in one moment and the a loving god the next and back and forth so you basically have to divine him into a trinity. Or just give up and admit he’s a schizophrenic of some sorts. Or even better, cop out completely and just say “derp god is mysterious derp”

    In your religion, hell exists. And god made it. There for he cannot be all that loving. Certainly not perfect