Posts by Viviane

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Viviane

Viviane - I never thought someone could so misunderstand my point of view. I'm not asking anyone to accept truth from a book.

You write this....

Take for instance just one thought from what Jesus taught. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not quote me something else that Jesus supposedly said and you disagree with. Consider just this one part. Is it an idea that can help people? Or is it pure garbage?

So, you DO want me to consider what Jesus said. You see value in it, you think others should also. You ARE cherry picking and asking others to agree, as all Christians do. Why do you claim I misunderstood that?

BTW, Jesus taught that, true, but it wasn't his idea. It was around for thousands of years before him. And it's garbage. It's arrogant and makes assumptions about people.

If because of your past you can't accept anything that is contained in the bible that is fine. Go to other spiritual teachings or go to self-help books and yes go cherry pick. Accept what resonates with you and leave the rest.

And here is an example of you arrogantly and pretending to know anything about me, what I need and how I should proceed.

Arrogance combined with ignorance wrapped in the faux cloak of humility seems to be a hallmark of Christianity, fundamentalist or otherwise.

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Viviane

I'm not sure why "cherry picking" is cast in a negative light.

Because you are asking people to accept "truth" from a book, believe in it and worship invisible people whom you cannot describe in any consistent way and live by those standards as a prerequisite for not dying for all time, being tortured forever or whatever, depending upon which part you cherry pick.

When I go out to my orchard I don't reason "Well I've got to eat every apple out there even if it is filled with insects or I can't eat anything!" Pure foolishness.

It is. It's also not at all the same thing as cherry picking the parts of the Bible you believe and would have us believe.

Does an atheist have to accept every thing that Richard Dawkins has ever said or reject everything he has ever said? Or does he "cherry pick" his statements accepting what makes sense and leaving the rest?

Atheism has nothing to do with accepting Richard Dawkins or what he says.

59

How the human mind processes facts and faith differently

by EdenOne in

i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.

it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.

people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.

Viviane

nic, if you want to see sophistry and obfuscation (s/p) please read viv - I know she isn't going to like this - but I do like to see her in action up to a point especially when she does her pot calling the kettle black thingy. In fact this is how I will reply to her when she appears.

Wow. You went out of your way to 1) accuse of me two things I don't do which means either 1a) you're being intentionally dishonest or 1b) you don't actually know what either of those words means 2) pretend you know I how feel about what you are going to say, in other words, falsely pretend to know things you cannot, to literally be dishonest 3) on a thread I hadn't even commented on.

Quite contrary to your claim, I am am absolutely clear as I can be. I simply cannot make you understand it. And I found your post amusing in it's hamfisted simplicity.

coft, notwithstanding the sophistry and obfuscation in your question, what remarkable solution re Jerusalem does the article in the OP suggest?

Oh, so, it was 1b, she doesn't actually know what the words mean. That's rather sad.

59

How the human mind processes facts and faith differently

by EdenOne in

i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.

it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.

people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.

Viviane

Why is it remarkable that our brains process input from our 5 senses differently from delusions that originated in our heads?

Just as an interesting side point, I was listening to Science Friday on NPR (National Public Radio in the US) and they had on a biologist who pointed out what we've traditionally thought of as our five senses turns out to be way more.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141118-how-many-senses-do-you-have

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Viviane

To be unable to see the unseen does not itself prove that the unseen is a delusion. I recognize the futility of meeting on this subject. I post to hopefully encourage a few Christians who believe in God not to make converts.

But when it is possible to prove that factually the thing unseen cannot exist, as with the god of the bible, then yes, it is a delusion.

Jesus is just, he is moral.

Jesus is drowning is a sea of blood. Blood paid, blood flowing in the streets even as we speak and blood promised.

Jesus is a psychopath.

94

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty in

it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.

i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.

it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.

Viviane

Sheesh, I hate this place. I feel like it's 1980-something and I've been dragged before the JW elders who are dissecting my words all over again. Forget I said anything.

If you truly are a philologist, then you should be absolutely used to this, having written critically peer reviewed papers, a thesis, etc.., and you should have critically reviewed others word. Dissecting words is literally what you would be doing for a living and you should know and value communicating clearly (for instance, differentiating between whether or not you are Jewish ethnically or religiously) and people dissecting words to ensure we are all on the same page with understanding.

So ... what are you complaining about? That someone would try, as you do for a living, to truly understand what you are saying?

It makes me doubt your claims a bit, I must say.

56

Question for atheists and nonbelievers

by pressman in

i profess to teach the truth to you all and get you to all to think and believe.

believing in christ through his words and not through evil religious cults, like hoj and jw, can and will save you.

do you all realize that every time you are victorious and receive something of value through your hard work and sweat, it was our holy god who blessed you.

Viviane

God had absolutely nothing to do with that. do not pin that on my god. our God has nothing to do with that. you must know that tragedies can cause many people, such as you, to question God’s goodness.

Really? So .... God really is involved in much, then. Why do you call it God again?

56

Question for atheists and nonbelievers

by pressman in

i profess to teach the truth to you all and get you to all to think and believe.

believing in christ through his words and not through evil religious cults, like hoj and jw, can and will save you.

do you all realize that every time you are victorious and receive something of value through your hard work and sweat, it was our holy god who blessed you.

Viviane

I also ask you all to please consider this. why do we humans claim to know everything?

Who, specifically, is claiming that?

even if we claim to know only half of everything, how do we know that holy Yah does not live in the half of what we fail to know?

That's called the "god of the gaps" and is well debunked.

Then again most of the scientists and archaeologist cannot give you one scrap of evidence where life came from.

Actual scientists who study this can. I've no idea why you think an archeologist would have any bearing on the matter. Are you actually aware of what science is?

However the evidence for where life came is found in a book that god made humans right. and they in fact got it right. why? because god was behind it.

So, specifically, tell me the details of how life started.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism

Once again... STOP PRETENDING YOU KNOW HOW OTHER PEOPLE THINK.

But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

And now, having been thoroughly debunked and, indeed, unwittingly having had a hand in your own debunking, you fall back to attempting to insult people.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Either you can't read or won't read, Viviane. Go back and read that it wasn't me that was asking for a definition of "god".

I never said it was. Have you tried actual reading?

That is the sort of thing that should be asked to a theist. It's nonsensical to be insistingly asking to a non-theist like me to define a god. It's stupid and obtuse. For the empth time, I don't know.

Exactly. That's my point. You can't possibly assert anything about evidence or knowledge regarding a thing you can't define.

Why are you still going round in this circle?

You need a definition given by a theist so you can then debunk it.

I see you've started pretending to know what other people think again, despite you saying you wouldn't.

But when a non-theist asks you to logically explain how come your so-called absence of belief in deities that stems from lack of evidence for their existence is in itself different than a belief proper, what I observe is some sort of broken record, headless chicken attitude.

Because you can't define "not having money" as "having money". You're attempting to say "!A = A".

And by the way, that's a GREAT use of weasel words, "so-called". It's used by the WT quite often when they are also about to say something utterly absurd.