Richard Dawkins has an atheist line that suggests the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. The proof of God’s existence he means.
It’s an odd contortion that I find somewhat irrational because basically he is saying, I demand God prove His non existence to me. If Dawkins simply did not believe, he would simply go about the business of not believing. He does not, instead he demands constant proof and validation for his non belief and runs around seeking deconvertees, as if the truth of God’s existence can be based on a consensus. He is evangelizing his atheism.
I can think of nothing else in the physical world that works this way, except perhaps global warming. That may well be a bit of science whose truth is based entirely on belief, as in 4 out of five scientists believe, therefore it is. It’s an odd modern phenomenon and reminds me more of faith than actual science. The world has gone a bit nuts when it demands science be taken as a matter of belief, while faith must be backed up by evidence and facts.
There are many things I believe in that are not really based on evidence and facts, and not get too depressing here, but those things are all virtues, having to do with the higher selves of men, things like love, truth, justice, freedom. Rather romantic ideals really, that require a great deal of idealism. If you look about the world, evidence of those things can be hard to find…..unless you develop the eyes to see them and go looking about every nook and crevice. Seek and you shall find.
All in good humor here, but what do you find? An essence, an energy, the footprint of someone else who embraced those values and the ripples in the pond that they left behind. Faith has a genuine evidence and a substance to it, but it can be a somewhat ethereal thing, not unlike a fragrance. That does not make it any less real, electrons, atoms, the sounds that dogs hear, cannot always be perceived by human senses either, but that does not make them any less real either.
Which brings me to that dreaded concept, personal responsibility. I frequently have to sit on some precarious pieces of furniture, the other day a piece of firewood that was threatening to throw me off. I suppose I could say to a three legged stool, the burden of proof for your ability to hold me is entirely on your rickety legs, but that would be somewhat irrational and amusing. A stool of course, is not a sentient being and cares nothing about whether or not I land on the ground. Like it or not, the burden of proof is entirely on me, as are the consequences.
Telling a chair, prove yourself worthy of holding me, is pretty much the last ditch effort of the truly desperate….
The proof, the evidence, the truth of the higher selves of men, as well as the existence and nature of God, are all around us and even within us. The burden of proof however does not lie with the theist nor does it lie with God Himself. He has given us the method, the means, and the madness to pursue Him, but we must each take that first step.
A leap of faith is not always logical or rational, nor is it always based on weighing the evidence, in fact it is often a great gamble, but it is one that we make manifest in the world as surely as we make the higher selves of men manifest in the world. Those elusive concepts like justice, freedom, love, must be dreamed of, imagined, believed in, and pursued. God is like that too, always calling to us, always knocking on the door to our hearts and asking us to just believe.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” That chair I sat on the other day did indeed hold me, but once it did not even exist, it was just someone’s idea, belief, dream of a chair, that they brought towards themselves and made real in the world. That is how that chair came into existence. I know that chair had a creator just as I know I did. I cannot demand the chair prove it’s existence, anymore than I can demand I prove my own. Nor can I look upon that chair and imagine it just sprung forth from nothingness and carved its own self. Well I can, but that would be downright silly.
The burden of proof lies within each of us and it requires us taking some personal responsibility to lend evidence and substance to our own faith, of which there is ample reason and evidence to do so. God is real, even more real than that chair, but each one of must open that door and have a look.
silenceofmind said:
The burden of proof clearly lies with the people who believe with all their hearts, minds, souls and strength, that everything just happened all by itself.
LikeLiked by 6 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Yes, which than begs the question, what’s the payoff there?
LikeLike
Underdaddy said:
Who says there has to be a payoff?
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
There’s always a payoff. For example, I can give you a reason for the hope that is within me, I can tell you how Jesus Christ has transformed lives. Faith serves a valuable purpose in the world, there is a “payoff,” so to speak. Where is the payoff in not believing…. with all your heart and mind and soul? I really don’t know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Underdaddy said:
The idea that there has to be a payoff biases this discussion from the start. Star Wars has transformed lives, the Atkins diet has transformed lives, that doesn’t mean they are correct for everyone. Believing and not believing isn’t a choice, it is an opinion based on your personal evidence. You won’t talk me in just like I won’t talk you out of it. I’ve seen Jesus screw some people over pretty royally but I’ve seen some people cling to religion as a reason to live and that isn’t a bad thing either. We all need something I guess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sarcasticgoat said:
There is no evidence that God or any Gods among thousands created exist at all. Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters, end of story. Religion has invented NOTHING in the realms of medicine or technology (things that created our modern world), science has invented everything in that area. I know you’re talking about God and not ‘religion’ per se, but irrational beliefs are one in the same.
I’m willing to teach you about evolution and about how things don’t just spring randomly into existence if you’d like?
Sorry for being a bit of a prick, but people who downright ignore facts get me all fired up!
LikeLiked by 4 people
David K said:
Dawkins is also not asking “god” to prove himself. He is placing the burden of proof on those who are making the claim. Similarly, turning the global warming argument around… it sounds like the author does not believe in global warming because of a lack of proof yet makes the opposite claim about god?
LikeLiked by 3 people
sarcasticgoat said:
Oh yes, they’ll do that sort of thing quite often – they’re all about confusing and obfuscating the truth any way they can, because deep down, I think they know they believe in hogwash! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
SG,
There is plenty of scientific proof that God exists.
It’s just that for people (atheists) who believe with all their heart, mind, soul and strength that everything just happened all by itself, not proof is ever enough.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RejZoR said:
So, what is that scientific proof in “plenty” quantity? Because if there was plenty of evidence, Dawkins wouldn’t be asking about it. Unfortunately a 2000 years old book passed over generations through hear-tell doesn’t exactly qualify as evidence. Because if that was the case, all the comics also confirm that Hulk and Superman also actually exist(ed). Of course no one seriously believes that, right? Also, burden of evidence is always on the person that makes a certain claim. Science needs a significant evidence to make a claim which then becomes a fact. And even if they later find out they were wrong, they will say that and correct it according to new evidence. If you do that with religion, it’ll simply fall apart. Because if one part of it is incorrect and illogical, then it all just shatters into pieces. Then you can just question it all because everything stands on the foundations of a story passed through generations. You can’t prove anything today anymore. Where with science, every claim can be re-tested today or 200 years down the path or even a millennia later. Just take gravity as example. It was the same 2000 years ago and it’s the same today. It’s measurable and scientifically proven. In the past people thought lightnings are the wrath of Gods, today we for a fact know it’s just a static discharge in the clouds, a scientifically proven thing. That’s why every time someone claims something in science, others demand proof from that person. It has to be testable and reproducible. If it’s not, the claims can be dismissed until further evidence is provided. That’s how science works. And if religions can’t provide such evidence, tough luck. Just because we don’t understand something we cannot call it the work of God. The lightning example is the most vivid example.
And if religion was just a personal belief of individuals, then believe in whatever you want. We’ll still think it’s silly to believe in some invisible almighty force that promises everything, yet fails to prove it even exists, but that would be your belief and you’re entitled to have one for as long as it doesn’t affect me or anyone else. It would pretty much just remain at that. But when religions are affecting lives of “non believers”, then you have a problem and atheists are mostly vocal about this specific part. Separation of religions from government. This especially applies to America which is so influenced by religion and yet no one wants to say it’s actually true. I mean, just try to get openly atheist presidential candidate elected in USA. Good luck with that, because it’ll never happen. he probably wouldn’t even get elected as governor. USA had atheist founding fathers, but in current time, dream on, it’ll just not happen. And because of this, atheists regularly question the whole God thing. Because if you shatter that belief, everything around it also falls apart. Maybe it’s the wrong way to tackle the issue, but that’s what they are trying in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
Rej,
I am going to state two examples of God’s existence being proved by science.
And because you are an atheist and believe with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole soul and with all your strength that everything just happened all by itself, you will just poo-poo the science.
And that is because having such fervent faith in the ridiculous (everything just happening all by itself) makes atheism an utter rejection of science.
1. Proteins prove the existence of God.
2. The Big Bang proves the existence of God.
Proteins prove the existence of God because they are precision-made, software-specified, custom-made, factory-produced, precision tools.
And since, according to science, tool-making is an indication of intelligence, proteins must therefore proof the exist of God.
The Big Bang proves the existence of God because it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe is not eternal, that the universe had a beginning.
Anything that has a beginning had a cause.
What caused the universe was the First Cause. And because there is no cause previous to the first one (by definition of the word, “first”), the First Cause was uncaused.
Therefore the First Cause is God.
Before you begin babbling nonsense about God of the gaps, the logic used in these proofs is a staple of scientists, especially modern scientists.
It is called inference.
Inference is used when what is being studied, cannot be examined directly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
CPaca said:
Silenceofmind : Proteins prove the existence of God because they are precision-made, software-specified, custom-made, factory-produced, precision tools.
Prions.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Silenceofmind: Anything that has a beginning had a cause.
What caused the universe was the First Cause. And because there is no cause previous to the first one (by definition of the word, “first”), the First Cause was uncaused.
Therefore the First Cause is God.
This is, of course, semantic garbage, an attempt to argue by definition using those definitions as proof.
Firstly, you have yet to show the universe had a beginning (see cyclic cosmological models).
Secondly, you have yet to show that anything that has a beginning has a cause. You *assume* this – but, alas, quantum energy fluctuations would appear to be a direct proof that you’re wrong. Things can and do appear to come from nowhere with no cause.
Thirdly, you have yet to show that what caused the universe was “the First Cause”. How exactly do you know that it was not the Second Cause, the Eight Cause, or the One Billionth and Third Cause”?.
Fourthly, you are *defining* this First Cause as “that for which there was no previous cause”, and using this definition as evidentiary proof. If I define “a meep” as a thing that destroys fleebles, can I then use the non-existence of fleebles as evidentiary proof that meeps must exist?
Fifthly, you are assigning your “First Cause” with a whole lot of baggage by naming it as “God”. For all you know, it might be a random, mindless process, an evil demon, or a time-travelling scientist with a bad hairdo and a Delorean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
CPaca,
You are arguing against the obvious and losing.
The existence of prions does not disprove that proteins are precision-made tools and that tool-making are how science measures intelligence.
And the First Cause is what it is, not because I say so, but because words mean things, as in cause means cause and first means first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sarcasticgoat said:
What is your proof that god exists? And why hasn’t the majority of scientists accepted your proof with open arms? I don’t know how the universe came into being, but you claim that you absolutely do know – oh the arrogance and ‘humility’ of religionists. lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
sg,
Just look up the column of comments to see two scientific proofs of the existence of God.
More exist, but since atheists don’t care about science or evidence, I plumb the depths of my Christian charity and cite not one but two proofs.
As to why scientists don’t accept proof of God, that an easy one:
The Left has taken over media, politics, economics, education and science.
Atheism is central to the leftist worldview so instead of teaching that science leads to the God’s doorstep, we are taught hoaxes like global warming.
That’s an example of what Insanity Bytes calls TEH sTuPiD.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
The existence of prions does not disprove that proteins are precision-made tools and that tool-making are how science measures intelligence.
I strongly recommend you look up the meaning of the word “precision”.
LikeLike
brianbalke said:
Your final admission is a common symptom of people that force their heart to suffer the tyranny of their mind. My heart shows me facts that apparently you haven’t experienced, and if you and Dawkins choose not to experience perfect love, that’s your loss, not ours. Yes, I think you understand me: if you choose not to experience it, nobody can prove to you that it exists. Asking us to is like putting out your eyes and telling someone to prove that light still exists.
Faith is a powerful aid to the expression of common human decency, which goes a long way in the world. It brings powers of healing and communication that make “modern” methods look absolutely primitive. I mean, really, cutting somebody’s body open? Forcing them to take medicine that unbalances their endocrine system, creating long-term and permanent side effects? It is not just in our scriptures that such stories are found – prior to the era of modern medicine, many trained healers used intuition in their practice. And communication: I know when the people that I love need me, anywhere in the world, at any time. We have a bond that does not require a cell phone or network.
I hazard that what you are enamored of, sir, is not results but control. You want to be able to turn it on and off when it is convenient to you. It is a defect that is manifested in many institutional settings (not uniquely religious) but it is not a defect of honest faith, which recognizes that to try to control love is to destroy its power to expand our lives into new and unforeseen dimensions.
LikeLiked by 4 people
sarcasticgoat said:
Faith is the only thing that is off the table when it comes to argument – any argument against a faithful person, will, eventually get to the point where the words, “Well, I just have faith”. That’s the end of any argument. We don’t accept faith in any court of law, you can’t just say, “Well, I have faith that he is the murderer”. We use empirical evidence in every facet of our lives, religious people do too, just not in the singular case of their god they believe in.
When you get sick, you seek the best medicine has to offer, you don’t just pray, or do you?
I’m not saying you don’t believe in whichever god you do, I believe that you believe, I don’t understand it, but it is what it is.
Your heart IS your brain/mind. I’m a materialist, because nothing has convinced me that anything exists beyond our universe….I may be proved wrong in the future, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s impossible for some other place to exist.
But all I’m saying, I think, is that I’m not absolutely wedded to the idea that God/s don’t exist, but so far, no empirical, testable, re-testable evidence has ever been found (the type of evidence we use in all other areas). And if you say that God doesn’t need this type of evidence to be proved, then I can’t argue with that, because it makes no sense.
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
brianbalke said:
Christianity is not about having faith in general. Christianity is about a specific faith: a faith in the presence of unconditional love that emanates from the divine source. While I have concluded from my own analysis of the scientific evidence that the existence of souls is not thereby contradicted (being that current physical theory actually contradicts itself – and I have a Ph.D. in particle physics), and even come thereby to the conclusion that this reality was designed so that love works, that is not the basis of simple Christian faith. The proposition that compels most Christians is that faith connects us to a source of psychological strength.
The most common phrase in the Bible is a variant of “fear not.” If you haven’t studied neurophysiology, fear is antagonistic to reason. The rule-based system of laws in the Old Testament was authorized by God after the story of the Flood, where he basically said “I’m tired of managing you squabbling children. It’s time for you to try to manage yourselves.” That exercise in rule-making was a demonstration of the limits of reason. Jesus came along to point this out, confronting the hypocrisy of those that used the rules to separate the people from God, and taught them “OK, you’ve learned how to reason. Now it’s time to think about love.”
Looking at this program of development and the state of affairs in the world, I’d hope that you’ll be better able to recognize those Christian who write here in an attempt to facilitate the same development in those that still struggle with fear and moral confusion. Yes there are those that use “faith” (as they define it) as a way of browbeating others, Christianity contains elements within itself that motivates believers to heal that wrong. IB and I are among them, and you should recognize and respect the intellectual and moral resource that we represent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sarcasticgoat said:
I do respect the things certain many Christians have done throughout history, but Christianity is built on scapegoating – throwing one’s sins onto another, and human sacrifice (Jesus wasn’t all human, but you get it). There are some truly beautiful ideas in Christianity, but for the most part, it’s a genuinely outdated ideology that has had to give up so much ground to the discoveries of science and reason and secular progress – heretics and gays used to be killed outright etc.
I just don’t understand why the best parts of Christianity (and all other religions for that matter) can be compiled together with the best moral teachings we’ve made since biblical times into one ultimately perfect text. Why do the good parts of Christianity have to stay back in the Bronze Age in a Bronze Age context?
Try to make that happen, it’ll be the ultimate interfaith endeavour, the whole world would prosper from it, no? 🙂
LikeLike
brianbalke said:
You’re preaching to the choir, my friend. But you might consider that most of humanity still lives under conditions not so very different from those that held sway in the Bronze Age, and even for those that do, Santayana’s dictum is relevant: “Those who cannot recall there history are doomed to repeat it.”
And scapegoating is not unique to Christianity. It’s a strategy often used by people that want to steal power from others. For example, I was amused that climate change denial, in a comment just below your original remarks, was passed off on Christianity rather than being assigned properly to the fossil fuel industry. That’s also true of climate change: while global warming is predicted in the Bible (Daniel’s Dream of the Four Beasts and among the Golden Bowls in the Book of Revelation), it’s a consequence of the misguided application of scientific materialism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sarcasticgoat said:
No, no Christians (some number of them) aren’t unique to climate change denial, it’s also the fossil fuel industry and just generally ignorant people.
What’s an example of misguided scientific materialism? Science has done pretty well so far. WAY more good than bad.
LikeLike
brianbalke said:
I would assert the same about Christianity.
But: misguided applications of the power unleashed by scientific materialism? Oh, how about weapons of mass destruction, global climate change, and corporate tyranny propagated by ubiquitous communications?
I’ve got a couple of posts on a pertinent book. Check out A Species of Thinking and Welcoming the Light of Love.
And if you’d like to move the dialog beyond Bronze Age Atheism, you might try my book The Soul Comes First. It’s only 70 pages long.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sarcasticgoat said:
Wow, I’ll take a look, it’s nice to talk to a credentialled person for once! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
brianbalke said:
Thank-you for the compliment. The work of healing the world is terribly demanding. I hope that you find courage to persist and experience the rewards of success! President Obama, in interviewing his favorite Christian author for the NY Times Review of Books, speaks about those that quietly go about doing things right. They have much more influence in the world than the media lead us to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sarcasticgoat said:
I am certainly persisting and looking for a success, in my own way, I’m 3 days sober, so I may have typed some snarky things in our exchange, just the irritability, nothing personal! haha 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
brianbalke said:
Well, here’s wishing you strength. I always told my sons that love was the best substitute for substances. Are you getting support? I have a friend here out on WordPress who blogs as TakingTheMaskOff (http://takingthemaskoff.com/) that gets really deeply into that struggle.
Just remember that anyone that falls and is redeemed blazes a trail through human nature. While I know that it’s kind of a Christian perspective, we’re never forgotten or abandoned. It can just take a long time to work our way back out into the light – particularly when we’re carrying a lot of people with us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sarcasticgoat said:
Thanks, I’m looking at going to a thing called SMART Recovery soon. My family is behind me and I’m heavily into the Reddit community #stopdrinking threads, made lots of friends on there.
Even if I was abandoned or forgotten, I’d still have to stop drinking for good, otherwise I’d be dead! haha cheerful thought – humor helps me more than anything in case you didn’t figure that out already! 🙂
LikeLike
Emily said:
Two people to never argue with: trp guys, and atheists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Bahaha! That’s really funny Emily, because you are so right. So who do I argue with the most often? RP’s and non believers. 😉
That is the nature of the beast I suppose. Those who have words of wisdom and encouragement make sense to me and as such, I have no reason to argue with them.
LikeLike
Heartafire said:
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Pope Francis shall probably go down in history as the most misquoted pope ever. 😉
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/popeatheist.asp
LikeLiked by 3 people
Heartafire said:
You could be right about that! I am not a big pope follower. I disagree with your argument regarding the burden of proof. It’s good to have faith in something, but it has never been proven that God exists and the burden, if challenged, is with the misguided and deluded.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“….the burden, if challenged, is with the misguided and deluded…”
Well thank you for the vote of confidence! They don’t call me insanitybytes for nothing 😉
Here’s the deal however, what you just posted, convinced it was a real quote from Pope Francis, is actually untrue, which is a good example of the limits of human perception. I wouldn’t call it misguided and delusional, but it is evidence that we do not always know what we think we know.
LikeLiked by 3 people
silenceofmind said:
Heart,
Your quote of Pope Francis demonstrates that he is an intellectual invalid and an absolute disgrace to the Catholic papacy.
Pope Francis is a sign from God that Western Civilization is over and done with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Yes, but we should not write off Western civilization quite yet, because that is a false quote, one Pope Francis never said.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
IB,
If you can get through at least nine sentences of Pope Francis’ “Laudato si” you’ll understand that he’s part of the plague of TEH STUPID that has gripped Western Civilization’s intelligentsia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
It’s somewhat amusing Silence, I a non Catholic, has had to stand up for that poor pope more times than I can count. It’s not that I agree with him, it’s not that I support everything he says, it’s simply that I cannot bear to watch him being maligned for things he didn’t even say.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
IB,
I suppose I just can’t see the difference between what the Pope says and what he doesn’t say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heartafire said:
I get carried away at times. I am not catholic, know little about the Pope. I hope I didn’t step over the line with my comment. If so, I am so very sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Of course not! Even some Catholics are annoyed with the Pope.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
And I am completely unoffended by a non-Catholic defending the Pope though I am finding it hard to resist the strong urge to turn on the Twilight Zone music at full volume.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emily said:
Insanity, he is often misquoted, which is incredibly annoying. The liberal media seems to have fallen in love with him due to his position on climate change and homosexuality, and the right wing hates him as a result. So both groups constantly twist and incorrectly translate what he says in order to support/smear him. But in reality he isn’t all that different than the previous Popes.
Haha, Silence, what would you know of intellectualism. “Read one line of Laudato Si.” Yeah, have you read it? I doubt it. I’m sure even you would agree with most of it (most believers would.) But yeah, he does talk about climate change and taking care of the earth. I still don’t understand how that is controversial but then again it’s not like you right wingers think this through, you just hear all the propaganda against climate change from your politicians and breitbart.
And he’s quite popular too. I don’t remember people being this excited when Pope Benedict came to the US. I suppose he is alienating the minority of Catholics for whom hoarding wealth, denying climate change and condemning everyone to hell is more important than worshiping God, but then again I never wanted those people in my church in the first place.
LikeLike
Heartafire said:
What are you ranting about? Try to do some good and stop judging and hating
LikeLike
~Michelle Cook said:
Wise words…
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Cracks me up ms bytes. No proof. Where is the laugh button? Maybe we should turn it around, and ask:
WHAT proof WILL satisfy you, apart from life? Uh oh, Houston we have a problem. To life I say!
The issue is always the same, in that people are not being honest. Today’s atheists will be considered tomorrows idiots because of ‘new and improved’ information. Ah, but we have that……. sure word…… which as you say, is not dependent on polls or consensus.
The need for ‘proof’ is a smokescreen to avoid the serious issues of the heart. The ‘higher selves’ is a concept so darn clear, as is the creator of the chair, that only a fool would argue against.
My tolerance for answering the need for proof is growing thinner, heck, if all the qualities of man as little creators are not enough……….if nature is not enough………if life is not enough…………if those dots in the sky called stars are not enough……….. it has to be a special kind of stupid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scarlett said:
God, being GOD, is under no obligation to prove Himself to anyone.
“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” Psalm 2:4
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KIA said:
Dawkins is not as you say demanding god prove his nonexistence. Straw man
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
Now, repeat after me… The burden of proof falls to the person making the positive claim.
Hope that’s clear now. Anything else you’d like sorted out while I’m here?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ColorStorm said:
Hey jz,
Here ya go, read it and weep: There is a God. Yep, a positive claim. Proof? Uh yep, as stated a dozen times in the post here and the comments. It’s called life, and everything in it..
If you care to deny it, go right ahead to your endless shame. Now sir, you make the presumptuous and positive claim that there is NO God. Hmmm. Good luck with that as life itself indicts you and finds you in contempt of every court on earth as well as heaven. You have no claim. Now go have a nice day.
And nope, not interested in a thousand comment thread with you repeating what every sane person knows is utter garbage, that the chair (as mentioned in this fine post) created itself..
LikeLike
john zande said:
So, you believe in the monotheistic creator spirit, Ahura-Mazda, then? I mean, Zoroastrians say he exists, and by your reckoning, that’s all that counts, right? If you care to deny it, go right ahead to your endless shame.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
It’s the whole package john. The reliability of math, the hours in a day, male and female, the history of man, the nation of Israel, sin, take your pick, then there is your heart which KNOWS that DEATH is the greatest proof, as payment for insufficient funds.
All clearly explained in the monarch of books called the word of God, that which has no equal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Ahura-Mazda answers it all. Zoroastrians say so, and, according to you, we must believe it to be true. Of course, Ahura-Mazda was the first monotheistic Creator (pre-dating Yhwh by millennia), so that can only indicate the truth. Indeed, the six-part Judaic creation story, the cardinal couple Mashya and Mashyana (Adam and Eve), the duality of the universe, the human condition, the concept of Free Will, and even the End Times prophecies with a Saoshyant – a saviour figure – were all lifted in their entirety from the far older Zoroastrianism…. so again, if you care to deny it, go right ahead to your endless shame.
Or, Colourstorm, do you believe the burden of proof falls to Zoroastrians to prove Ahura-Mazda?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Oh john you are so clever aren’t you, to try to divide the creatorial responsibilities by the gods of your imagination who combined could not make a ball out of silly putty, against the ONE true and only I am.
Have a nice day. and btw, I defer to Silence here, who has easily put to rest the lame excuses of the godless mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Thank you, Colourstorm, for helping me to demonstrate with devastating clarity who, precisely, the burden of proof falls to… The theist, you, or the Zoroastrian, the one making the positive claim.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
By “positive,” Zande means real, but there’s another meaning to that word, “good, beneficial.” And God is indeed good, but even that becomes a matter of human perspective, because I imagine a non believer may well perceive the existence of God as a negative, especially if one gambled with disbelief and got it wrong.
LikeLike
john zande said:
So, you accept Zoroastrianism as true and you believe 100% in Ahura-Mazda, Insnaity.
Good to know.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
No Zande, just observing that you aren’t even able to give an explanation for “positive” and “negative,” outside the context of God. I mean, what is positive for the spider may not be so positive for the fly.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Oh, so you don’t believe in Ahura-Mazda? You don’t believe the claims made by Zoroastrians? I guess, then, you think Zoroastrians have the duty (obligation) to prove He exists.
So, thank you Insanity, for also helping me to demonstrate with devastating clarity who, precisely, the burden of proof falls to.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“I guess, then, you think Zoroastrians have the duty (obligation) to prove He exists.”
Not at all. The Zoroastrians have no duty or obligation to prove anything to me. As far as I am concerned the matter is settled. You Zande, and Dawkins, are the ones running around demanding proof.
LikeLike
john zande said:
”Not at all. The Zoroastrians have no duty or obligation to prove anything to me.
So, are you saying you do in fact believe in the existence of Zoroastrians’ monotheistic Creator of this universe, Ahura-Mazda?
LikeLike
john zande said:
…Or do you think Zoroastrians should prove Ahura-Mazda exists….
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
John,
You’re about 2000 years late and two cents short.
Science has proven the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That means that atheism is a rejection of modern science and everything else near and dear to mankind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Yes, thanks for that, SOM.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
John,
You’re a big no-fun-ZILLA!
What happened? Did someone do unspeakable things to your morning Cheerios?
LikeLike
brianbalke said:
Lol. This is just angels dancing on the head of a pin. So let’s say that you had proof of God, John. What would you do about it?
I have encountered so many people that testify that Christ transformed their lives. You don’t believe that you need him, so you don’t seek him, so you find him not. OK. Be happy, but don’t tell me that the evidence of my own life is inadmissible as proof of God.
Although I certainly give you permission to denounce my behavior if you believe that I am a hypocrite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Hi Brian
Do you believe in Ahura-Mazda?
LikeLike
brianbalke said:
No, John, I don’t believe in labels. I believe in a process that predates humanity by billions of years and that has presented us with the opportunity to bring to fruition.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Nice dodge there, Brian 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
josey13 said:
John,
Deny it to my endless shame? Your endless shame should be your dishonesty.
Ahura-Mazda predates Yahweh? Speaking in terms of academia, you surely know it’s not as simple and concise as your present it.
First off, can Zoroastrianism be considered truly monotheistic? The Judaic God significance is that it the first ‘polished’ or true monotheism away are redefined during the Babylonian captivity and the Monotheism presented by this assertion is the idea that a single god has sovereignty over all peoples, whether or not a person believes in the god.
The worship of Yahweh is at the earliest the 9th century with Elijah or 8th century with Hosea.
Sure, maybe the foundations of Zoroastrianism (not Ahura Mazda) can be found in a millennium before but folks can surely make the same argument with Yahweh (You know this). You only make these vague comments and suppositions knowing that many will not know and assume your suppositions are true. You’re intellectually dishonest.
I bet now you’ll take my words out of context, continue being intellectually dishonest (as you know there’s evidence, why withhold it from these people) and flood the post with useless information (attempt to confuse) You’re disgusting.
In fact, unless you can produce an academic paper (without bias) Don’t bother responding. However, there are also papers in support of Judaism. I challenge you to cite them as well unless you are truly academically dishonest.
You won’t creep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Hi Josey
What on earth are you going on about? I assure you, I know my archaeology very, very well.
Ahura-Mazda most certainly predates Yhwh by as much as 1,000 years. And yes, Yhwh was only presented as a monotheistic god after the Hebrews had intimate contact with Zoroastrians in Babylon. They were, of course, freed by a Zoroastrian.
”Sure, maybe the foundations of Zoroastrianism (not Ahura Mazda) can be found in a millennium before but folks can surely make the same argument with Yahweh (You know this).”
No, they can’t make the same argument. And how on earth can Zoroastrianism exist before a belief in Ahura-Mazda? Zoroaster was teaching what, then, if it wasn’t about Ahura-Mazda? Evidence of polytheistic Yahwehism is in the 7th Century BCE. Did you not know this?
Yahweh is a renovated do-it-upper bungalow of a god; a one-time lowly character inhabiting the 1st millennium Canaanite pantheon who with the help of a new publicity team, ghost writers, and a level of plagiarism that would make even a Chinese businessman blush pulled off a reasonably successful supernal makeover that saw him jump from the D-list of godly celebrities right into the VIP section. Before the facelift, though, he was a member of the Divine Family; just one of seventy children fathered by El (whose name, not Yahweh’s, is given to Israel: Yisra’el) and his wife, the mother goddess, Asherah. Worshiped as a patron in his portion of the “seventy nations” (possibly Edom in the south) Yahweh’s restyling began in the 7th Century with a shift toward monolatry where he started to be identified with the father, El: el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt. Ambition then led this otherworldly mover and shaker to do something quite unexpected. At the behest of his human handlers this celestial yuppie in a tunic married his mother; a fact revealed at two 7th Century sites (Kuntilet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom) where Hebrew inscriptions were found that read ‘YHWH and his Asherah’, ‘YHWH Shomron and his Asherah’, and, ‘YHWH Teman and his Asherah.’ Alone, these sites are proof-positive Yahweh was a pantheon deity; a menial one no less, who was slowly redecorated by a people undergoing a refurbishment of their own. Oedipal complexes to one side, in the post-Exilic period (after exposure to monotheistic Zoroastrianism in Babylon) monolatry gave way to Judaic monotheism where the Canaanite pantheon was thrown out and the “sons of God” were called upon to worship Yahweh as the Divine King (Psalm 29:2).
LikeLike
josey13 said:
What am I talking about? What are you lying about! You’re a liar! You have no morality and You have no ethics!
You know Archaeology? Why aren’t you an Archaeologist or actually doing some instead of spending all day on the internet. I’ve noticed. Perhaps, you attack Jews, Christians, and the religious because you starve for their fellowship. Well…you’re doing it wrong!
Here are some facts there liar.
Again, like I said You must have missed this liar. The foundations of Zoroastrianism, not it, date to the 2nd millennium BCE. Ahura Mazda first appeared in the Achaemenid period (c. 550 – 330 BCE) under Darius I’s Behistun Inscription, prior in Herodotus’ histories. However, you made the positive (you all about that right?) claim that Zoroastrianism of the era is an example of monotheism and I said there’s no exact consensus, so you have to prove it, right?
Also:
“No consensus has been reached by academics on the origins of monotheism in ancient Israel.” So you’re making a supposition based on the silences. It’s not consensus fact John! Admit to it or keep being a intellectually dishonest, liar.
(Smith, Mark S.The early history of God: Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2nd ed., 2002)
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Hi Josey
”However, you made the positive (you all about that right?) claim that Zoroastrianism of the era is an example of monotheism and I said there’s no exact consensus, so you have to prove it, right?
Please review current literature on history of Zoroastrian, which is to say, the history of the Gathas… then explain to me how Zoroastrianism could ever exist without Ahura-Mazda, the monotheistic creator of this universe. Also feel free to show me any scholar who believes monotheistic Judaism pre-dates it.
“No consensus has been reached by academics on the origins of monotheism in ancient Israel.”
Errrum, wrong. First, Israel gets its name from El, Mamlekhet Yisra’el. Yhwh was a Judean god moved north after the sacking of Yisra’el in 722 BCE. Now, further, I gave you three 7th century BCE inscriptions (at Kuntilet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom)which prove Yhwh was a polytheistic deity. I also cited Psalms 29:2 where the “sons of God” (El’s pantheon) were called upon to worship Yahweh as the Divine King. Psalms. Psalm 29 was originally a hymn to Baal… or did you not know this?
You are aware, aren’t you, Josey, that the Pentateuch was only penned in the 7th Century BCE, right? This is common knowledge.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
huh Penned? I guess all the these Universities should be shutting down their Oral history departments.
Sooooooooo you’re not going to proof anything with any noteworthy citations to prove your positive claim. Thanks anyway, creep.
LikeLike
john zande said:
You sound tremendously agitated.
I could provide you countless sources, but i doubt you’d ever look into them. I’m sure you think all modern biblical archaeology is a giant conspiracy, right? However, just so you know, I spent nearly six-months in 2013 interviewing dozens of the world’s leading Israeli archaeologists and Rabbi’s regarding this very matter. I assure you, I know what I’m talking about.
But still, in the off, off, off chance that you are interested in learning anything, I’d point you as a brilliant starting point to the Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary; the first authorised commentary on the Torah since 1936. Published in 2001 by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (in collaboration with the Rabbinical Assembly and the Jewish Publication Society) the 1,559 page long Etz Hayim concludes with 41 essays written by prominent rabbis and scholars who admit the Pentateuch is little more than a self-serving myth rife with anachronisms and un-ignorable archeological inconsistencies, and rather than triumphant conquest, Israel instead emerged slowly and relatively peacefully out of the general Canaanite population (refugees from the coastal states after the landing of the Philistines in 1100 BCE) with monotheism only appearing in the post-Exilic period, 5th Century BCE.
Be sure to get back to me after reading this, OK.
You might want to also do some research into Yhwh and his wife, Asherah.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
John, I would have to care about you to be agitated. I think this why you’re lashing out.
John gives some inscriptions and bias of interpretation of the presented inscriptions. He expects everyone to just accept it as fact. He also notes that since the books of Moses were penned in the 7th century, case closed. Scholars do not have consensus that Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion. Again, there are two competing deities that are both similarly equal in power.
John relies on solely on what appears to be Archaeology, are there no other studies? Let’s look at one of those books of Moses, Exodus, and what do we find? The Song of Miriam, also known as Song of the Sea, was written in an Archaic language, now it is true that one could write in a historic language, however, most scholars predate it to the pre-monarch period. Oops… ….
Most scholars agree that there are separate sources that create the book of Moses, why doesn’t John disclose this information? Integrity and Honesty lacking? I wonder….
There is also what is known as the Jahwist source theory dated around 950 bce, oops, Now I’ll admit (You know having integrity)this position has been challenged recently, but it still has supporters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
He expects everyone to just accept it as fact.
Well, I gave you the cites so you’re free to look it up, if you like. I think you’ll find everything in order… the translations accurate, and the data published in journals.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
John, I gave you assertions, why ignore them? ohhhhhh yeah i know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
And I gave you facts.
As I said, feel free to look up the published papers.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
No you gave me assertions. Although I’d say suppositions, from your metaphysical being based on what you deem are considered facts while ignoring other points like linguistics studies for instance, this also is reliant on metaphysics. I’d say learn the difference, creep.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Metaphysics? LOL!
OK, thanks Josey… I think I’ll stick with the hard archaeological consensus. … You know, the one all but Orthodox rabbis accept as true today. But hey, even the Orthodox are beginning to admit what has been known for over two generations now. I’m guessing you have no idea of this, but in 2012 Orthodox Rabbi Norman Solomon published his book, Torah from Heaven: The Reconstruction of Faith, in which he presents confirms the concept of Torah Mi Sinai is not rooted in reality but is rather a “foundation myth;” an origin dream, not a descriptive historical fact.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
Oh I see you’re εὖ ἄμουσοιi, and indeed we found how embarassing that positions was after a few questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
As Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine to eloquently put it:
But I’m sure you’re “metaphysics” trumps reality.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“But I’m sure you’re “metaphysics” trumps reality.”
LOL, sorry John, but metaphysics are always going to trump reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
And the moment anyone can give me a working definition and example of “metaphysics” i’ll be sure to look into that claim, Insanity 😉
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Metaphysics, “the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.”
Naturally I don’t expect you to get the joke Zande, since as far as you are concerned, reality begins and ends with you. 😉
LikeLike
john zande said:
I can define a pink Gibliothon into being, Insanity… That doesn’t make my pink Gibliothon real, you know.
But OK, give me an example of metaphysics…. 😉
LikeLike
john zande said:
Or more specifically… an example of “metaphysics” in archaeology, OK.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
Perhaps, my metaphysics does not agree with reality, however, at least I can admit that my bias is based from it.
You on the other hand…
LikeLiked by 1 person
josey13 said:
Also folks… John wants you to think the Etz Hayim creates a consensus against Judaism, it does not. It has many essays that uphold the traditional view that the Torah is the divine word of God, as well as others that challenge it. I guess we know the only ones that John read…. …. oops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
You’ve read the Etz Hayim? Really? Could you please cite the articles you’re referring to?
LikeLike
josey13 said:
What about source criticism and literary criticism? I think its at the end of the book.
LikeLike
john zande said:
All the essays are at the end, Josey. Please cite the essays you are referring to, and give the evidence presented.
LikeLike
josey13 said:
It’s the one at the very end in the 1400s. You read it right? Didn’t you? I don’t believe it.
I don’t own the book, so I can’t reference it, it was a required read in a world religions class.
Btw, The same professor also asserted that the Zoroastrianism dates and origins and those who make claims for it influencing Judaism is based on little to no evidence.
LikeLike
Eric said:
That’s a good point, it follows up the comment from the previous post about Love, Freedom, and Justice. Maybe a reason why our culture is ceasing to believe in these ideals is because it’s (collectively-speaking) adverse to taking leaps of faith. Part of the dumbing-down and immaturity promoted by the Political Left is so-called ‘security’ over taking risks of any kind.
It’s easier to deny Religion and these other ideals than to fight for them or try to live up to them. Instead, they tear down ideals to prove to themselves that these things are illusions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Yes, that’s it, Eric. That’s what I see, too. These ideals and virtues are too hard to live up to, so let’s just toss them out with the bathwater and label them illusions. The problem being, virtues, ideals, and traditions serve a vital purpose in the world and if we reject them, we may not like the world we find ourselves living in very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
When these so-called ‘Progressives’ demand proof, what they really mean is consensus. They think that they are all independent and free thinkers—in reality, they follow the Politically Correct herd in forming all their opinions. The Academic Mafia doesn’t teach things like classical reasoning: they say that everything is relative and facts are fluid and determined by ‘synthesis’ via a phony Dialectic vs. formal Logic. In their world, where reality can be anything they want it to be (so long as the ‘experts’ all agree) the only ‘proof’ that could exist are simply what feels true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KIA said:
I think someone said above “god being god is under no obligation to prove his existence” lol.
Then Thor, being Thor isn’t either… nor is Santa, the Easter bunny, shiva, vishnu, or any of the other multiplied gods people choose to believe in and condemn others to eternal puts of torture for not believing in.
Quick lesson: for god to be “god, being god” and not be under such obligation… he actually has to Be.. you know… God in reality. If he’s not, doesn’t matter what kind of crap storm you throw up to mock those of us who have the temerity to only believe what can be demonstrated to be true and conforming to actual reality. Silly of Mind indeed
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Most people understand that Thor, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny are myths and legends. Just the same, most people see the value in such imaginary characters and don’t run around trying to snatch children’s dreams from them.
Apparently Jesus Christ is Someone different entirely, because for thousands of years people have been imprisoned, persecuted, and even executed for their faith.
LikeLike
KIA said:
Being willing to suffer and die for a belief holds no value in the truth of that belief. Many believers of many non christian religions have done the same and still are to this day. Truth makes something true, not mass credulity
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“Being willing to suffer and die for a belief holds no value in the truth of that belief”
The fact that no persistent persecution of the followers of Thor or the believers in Santa Claus has ever occurred, does speak well to the fact that Jesus Christ is not like the others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KIA said:
Muslims all over the world are.. we know them as jihadists. And the followers of the dalai lama have… just to name a couple. Mormons thru the early years were killed, harassed out of ny, then Missouri across the us into Utah by covered wagon suffering deprivation, starvation and death. All for the “truth” of their beliefs. I’m sure you would not give them the same ringing endorsement by suffering and death that you think that gives christianity.
What matters is not what you are willing to suffer and die for… what matters is the truth of said claims.
All that being willing to die (or kill) for your beliefs says if they aren’t actually true is that you are pathetic, credulous and an idiot… so was I. But not any more, Silly of Mind
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Insanitybytes22: The fact that no persistent persecution of the followers of Thor or the believers in Santa Claus has ever occurred, does speak well to the fact that Jesus Christ is not like the others.
Uh-huh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Tryggvason
LikeLiked by 2 people
CPaca said:
Most people understand that Thor, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny are myths and legends.
Indeed – and some of us have enough sense to apply the same criteria and conclude that Jehovah is equally a myth.
LikeLike
Scarlett said:
“The fact that no persistent persecution of the followers of Thor or the believers in Santa Claus has ever occurred, does speak well to the fact that Jesus Christ is not like the others” Yes. there is something about THAT NAME that drives certain people into a rage. But then He warned us about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Hey..If being willing to suffer and die for a belief doesn’t give it credence…um….then rejecting a belief doesn’t give the decon…oops…rejector..atheist…non believer….or something…anyway…special credibility either.
Just sayin
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
So you believe ISIS suicide bombers are doing it right then, Wally?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
John…are you mental? Your questions had zip to do with my comment. My comment was directed to your rather ineffectual little protege who things his status as a deconvert gives him special insight into the stupidity of Christians.
Put away your hyperbole cannon and act like a rational human being for a change.
Your accusation that I in any way approve of ISIS is why you are monumental waste of time. In fact, consider this the last statement you will hear from me to you. You should be ashamed of this conduct. You know darn well I don’t condone that, yet your hatred to God and all things God compels you to act like…..an idiot
Peace
LikeLiked by 3 people
john zande said:
I’m not saying you condone it, Wally. I never would. I was drawing your attention to their conviction and willingness to suffer for their belief. You were implying that (when applied to Christians, of course) indicated truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
There’s a huge difference between having faith in the face of great opposition…and going out and murdering innocent people, Zande. The fact that you cannot understand that is rather disturbing.
There is another huge difference too, in Christianity, God took our suffering upon Himself, dying on our behalf. In Islam, people must suffer, and cause others to suffer too, in their god’s name.
LikeLike
john zande said:
And Christians have never waged holy war? LOL!
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Actually John, you either don’t understand the things you write, you lie. Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion based on what you say, that I do condone it. In fact, you have accused others here specifically on condoning Christian terrorism. Own what you say.
Let me ask you this. An unstable person…sees your implication that I and ISIS agree. They come to my house and put a bullet in my head. Sounds good, after all, I am ISIS..according to you. Are you responsible? Are you suddenly an “atheists terrorist?” Why do Christian words matter so much, yet you get to say whatever you want and it’s ok.
John, you equated me with ISIS, period. You accuse me and others here of supporting Christian terrorism. And when confronted about it you waffle and sidestep.
John, in the grown up world that is called lying. You say what you say, own it.
LikeLike
john zande said:
”Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion based on what you say, that I do condone it”
No, they wouldn’t. Any reasonable person would read your words “If being willing to suffer and die for a belief doesn’t give it credence…um…” and see, quite clearly, Wally, that you are saying a belief system gains “credence” by people willing to “suffer and die” for it.
Your words, not mine.
“Let me ask you this. An unstable person…sees your implication that I and ISIS agree.”
That’s not at all what I said, so I’ll ignore the rest of your question.
“John, you equated me with ISIS, period.”
And again, that is not what I said. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth.
“You accuse me and others here of supporting Christian terrorism.”
Have I? That’s an interesting accusation. I don’t recall ever saying anything even remotely close to that. Evidence, please.
“John, in the grown up world that is called lying.
Please, by all means, show me one instance where I have ever said you support Christian terrorism…. Or accept that it is you, Wally, who are lying.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
“But my point stands: with that type of deranged, psychotic thinking, James (and whomever else agreed with his post) would happily walk into a women’s health clinic and gleefully murder people, just like their Christian-terrorist brother did the other day. These people are ISIS on paved streets.”
Try that one John. ISIS on paved streets? Our Christian terrorist brother?
Enough said. Enjoy your life, John
LikeLike
john zande said:
Absolutely, and I continue to stand by that comment. By what James wrote, that was indeed the perception available to the reader.
Now, how about you put it in context, Wally, and include what James post was….
But of course, you won’t do that, because that would prove me right, wouldn’t it?
Now, back to the subject. Did you, or did you not write this: “If being willing to suffer and die for a belief doesn’t give it credence…um…”
So, Wally, does the action of ISIS fighters give “credence” to their beliefs? That was your point, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Oh..and the Muslim willingness to die? Not the same. Actually, they aren’t willing to suffer, only to die. You are comparing apples and oranges. The two are NOT the same, but yet another example of your desperate desire to group Christians with Muslim murderers.
LikeLike
john zande said:
“Oh..and the Muslim willingness to die? Not the same. Actually, they aren’t willing to suffer, only to die. You are comparing apples and oranges.”
Wow, you’re typically generally lucid, Wally, but this is pure nonsense. So, you’re saying 1.5 billion Muslims around the world (many living in war ravaged countries, or what’s left of countries) don’t suffer, and haven’t suffered immeasurably for their faith?
Would you like me to tell you how many innocent Muslims have died, been maimed, lost loved ones, and have been displaced in violence in the years since George W. Bush thought he was launching a war against Gog and Magog?
I’ve seen a picture of a father holding up the body of his 2 year old girl, her head gone, cut off. Are you truly, honestly trying to tell me that man hasn’t suffered for his faith?
LikeLike
Emily said:
I don’t think muslims are taught to make others suffer. That’s just… not true. I don’t know, I feel that people who say stuff like that just haven’t talked to Muslims. I on the other hand, have. I even went to the muslim center where I live (to distribute Bibles and get money for charity) and basically saw that they are very similar to us. Most of them are perfectly fine people who are taught much of the same morality as we are.
I don’t think 1.6 billion people would follow an evil religion. No way.
War brings out the worst in people. In Cambodia for example, the Vietnam war created monsters like Pol Pot. Similarly, ISIS was created in a warzone.
On the other hand, do atheists really think that George Bush invaded Iraq for religious reasons? Really now?
Man.. everyone is so biased.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
He believed Gog and Magog were loose in the Middle East. This has been confirmed by the Protestant Federation of France, Thomas Römer (professor at the University of Lausanne, who confirmed the story in a 2007 article in the University of Lausanne’s magazine, Allez savoir), and French President, Jacques Chirac, who recounts Bush’s words to him in Jean-Claude Maurice’s book, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny it). Now, precisely how much of this fatalistic religious longing for the destruction of the world affected George W. Bush’s thinking only he can say. What we do know with a great deal of certainty via Chirac and Römer is that such biblical end time prophecies were without doubt on his mind in the lead up to the invasion… an unprovoked war that was publically justified by the ‘certain’ presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the imminent threat of “mushroom clouds over U.S cities.”
LikeLike
KIA said:
“Hey..If being willing to suffer and die for a belief doesn’t give it credence…um….then rejecting a belief doesn’t give the decon…oops…rejector..atheist…non believer….or something…anyway…special credibility either”
————-
wally, wally…, (add face palm here)
a pretty malformed statement. here’s why.
either you’re granting my premise that suffering and dying for beliefs doesn’t lend credibility to the actual Truth of said beliefs… in order to take a personal shot mind you.
or you are denying me the same credibility for my beliefs, or lack there of in the Christian faith where as you extend the same credibility to those who happen to hold the particular beliefs you do… bit biased I think, but it’s your conundrum.
here’s why your statement/personal shot doesn’t hold though.
I never claimed that my experience or testimony establishes the truth of what I say. John Adams said “Facts are stubborn things. you may have your own opinions, but you may not have your own facts” my own experience, knowledge and even ministry of the bible and the Christian faith far outweigh yours by a couple of decades, but fear not dear heart… they mean nothing in the scheme of things. what matters is the Truth and Evidence of things and beliefs, not my testimony of them. I’m not asking for special credibility, just for men and women of honest, integrity driven hearts and minds to ask questions. the answers are out there. even for you.
-KIA
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Hey Mike
Like your mentor John Zande, you either pay no attention to what you say, lie, or feel uncomfortable standing behind what you say.
You have repeatedly used your ex belief, your theological training, and supposed ministries to establish your bona fides and credibility now as a militant atheist. In fact you wave it around like a college degree.
You absolutely present yourself as if that gives you extra credibility
Own what you say and quit burying it in a pleonasm of words. As citizen Tom quoted once….and army of word accompanying a Corporal of thought.
LikeLike
KIA said:
you have no idea who my mentor is. he’s 72 yrs old and has been a missionary in Thailand for at least twice as long as you’ve been a Christian… 25yrs. he’s been my mentor (paul to my timothy if you will) for the full 25yrs.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Of course Mike…I suck at being a Christian. Gosh..you have so many more years under your belt. That’s my point Mike. you wave that like a flag of credibility.
The problem is…as a raving atheist you HAVE no Christian credibility.
OH…and “dear heart?”: Are you my mommy now? You are a condescending fool.
You prowl christian blogs doing nothing but taking potshots and personal blows, the cry like a baby when the favor is returned.
Yes, John Zande is your militant atheist mentor, after all he is the Troll King of the atheists. And you are all his pathetic, ineffectual little baby atheists army.
The only reason I am even wasting my time with you and the rest of the atheist zombie army is the unfounded accusation being made by your fearless leader that we support Christian terrorism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KIA said:
not atheist. I keep telling you. just not Christian anymore.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Then what are you Mike. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck…it’s probably a duck. You waddle and quack like an atheist. And your best blogging buddies are rabid, militant atheists. So…conclusion…Mike is atheist.
Or, you could define what you do believe so that the whole world will know. Tell us what you are, what God you worship, and the source for your knowledge of him or her. You say you are not atheist..then what are you Mike?
And even if you are no longer Christian, why is it now your mission to talk as many Christians as possible out of their faith? That is what atheist do..rabid, militant atheists. Why MIke.
And don’t say come visit my blog and lets talk. I really cant do that Mike…as you requested I not follow your blog. This post is about this subject….so let’s hear it. What are you? Are you Muslim? HIndu? What are you Mike.?
LikeLike
KIA said:
so wally… in you mind, everyone who is not Christian is atheist? I’m sure the muslims, hindus, pagans and even the Catholics (presumably, from a fundamentalist POV you can’t include Catholics as True Christians ™ can you?) are all actually atheists and just don’t know it… LOL. your lack of either intelligence or honesty is laughable.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Clear the stupid Christian up then Mike. What are you? You act like any other atheist. Clear me up
LikeLiked by 1 person
KIA said:
what I am is none of your business. I’m not Christian anymore.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Well In that case all of your Christian credentials don’t mean a thing yet you place great value on them. My point is proven. You think you past gives you extra credibility as a militant atheist. Thank you and peace
LikeLike
KIA said:
Still not an atheist. Facts still outweigh anyone’s personal credibility. And you haven’t proven a thing but how rude and arrogant you are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
And good post by the way IB..sorry
LikeLiked by 1 person
CPaca said:
There are many things I believe in that are not really based on evidence and facts, and not get too depressing here, but those things are all virtues, having to do with the higher selves of men, things like love, truth, justice, freedom. […] Telling a chair, prove yourself worthy of holding me, is pretty much the last ditch effort of the truly desperate….
You have just demonstrated the problem with your argument – you are using the logical fallacy of equivocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation.
The four qualities you mention (love, truth, justice, freedom) do not “exist” in the sense that a chair exists. You cannot point to them, they have no weight, they have no molecular components, you cannot pick them up and drop them. They do not exist IN THAT SENSE.
They do “exist”, but solely as qualities in the minds of people. So too does “the divine right of Kings”, “the need to sacrifice people to make the Sun come up”, and “the healing power of homeopathy”. The “existence” of something in that sense DOES NOT mean that it “exists” in the first sense, that people should automatically believe in it, or that it has any real truth value. It’s “existence” is felt solely in how it motivates people to act.
Dawkins believes that God “exists” in the second sense, but not the first sense.
Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – the burden of proof that God “exists” in the first sense lies on those people making the claim. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
Further, Dawkins would NOT be making a big fuss over whether God exists in this first sense any more than he makes a fuss over whether Ishtar exists, EXCEPT AS people use the ASSUMPTION that God exists as a justification for enforcing their prejudices and beliefs on others.
If you believe God exists in this first sense, then it is up to you to prove it. If you don’t, then don’t expect anyone else to believe it or to follow any restriction you try to place on them based on what you think God wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“If you don’t, then don’t expect anyone else to believe it or to follow any restriction you try to place on them based on what you think God wants.”
Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Some people do not want God to exist becasue they fear His existence will place restrictions on them. The truth however, is that as people we already have restrictions on us. We are trapped in the physical world and in the process of dying. What God offers us is mercy, redemption, everlasting life, and an opportunity to have a relationship with Him right in the here and now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CPaca said:
Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Some people do not want God to exist becasue they fear His existence will place restrictions on them.
Nope. Some people do not want restrictions placed on them with insufficient justification. My objection to being restricted by YOUR religion is precisely the same objection you’d have to being required to burn babies because the religion of Ba’al demanded it.
If you object to burning babies, then it is because you do not want Ba’al to exist. if you do not want Ba’al to exist then it is because you fear His existence will place restrictions on you.
If you have any objections to the “logic” of the above paragraph, then consider I might have the same objections to your “logic”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Your logic is flawed however, because the so called “Christian restrictions” have to do with thou shall not murder, steal, lie, etc. A few people in this thread are trying to compare followers of Christ to Islamic terrorists and the baby sacrificers of Ba’al. That’s not only hysterical and illogical, it’s false and packed with hyperbole.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
What God offers us is mercy, redemption, everlasting life, and an opportunity to have a relationship with Him right in the here and now.
I hereby proclaim a God that offers everything yours does, plus a pony.
Clearly my God is more desirable than yours. Do you now conclude that this means my God is more likely to exist? Or do you instead believe that the intrinsic desirability of my proclamation has no bearing on whether it is true, or simply a cynical fantasy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“Or do you instead believe that the intrinsic desirability of my proclamation has no bearing on whether it is true, or simply a cynical fantasy?”
I believe the matter is already settled, so what you believe or do not believe is completely irrelevant to me. The reverse however is not true of you. Your non belief requires you to run around demanding proof of God’s non existence, precisely the same compulsion Dawkins has.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
I believe the matter is already settled,
You are evading the point. My proclaimed God offers more than your God does, and is therefore more desirable. If the quality of the promises made is a selling point for belief in a God, why don’t you believe in My God instead of yours? And if the quality of the promises made is NOT a reason to believe in a God, then why don’t you address that belief without referencing the claims made about what your God will supposedly give you after you die?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Hey cpac
Since you have no ‘identity,’ do tell us how we can be sure you exist? Sock puppets accounts are interesting, but perhaps I’m talking to a pre programmed meebot…
But your questions are borrowed, stale, and have all been answered; but you should really study the origin, nature, purpose, and destiny, of the reality of sin and death. Yeah, start there, and you will not have to waste others time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CPaca said:
I believe the matter is already settled
If the matter is already settled, why am I disagreeing, and why are you unable to provide evidence?
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Since you have no ‘identity,’ do tell us how we can be sure you exist? Sock puppets accounts are interesting, but perhaps I’m talking to a pre programmed meebot…
Ah, this is where we get into Occam’s Razor.
The existence of a series of coherent, semantically-meaningful messages ascribed to a single identity on the Internet is most easily explained by the simple proposition that a single human being is making them. A bot capable of this sort of response is almost unimaginable, and my comments are clearly not those of program running from a Markov Chain.
On the other hand, as best we can tell, the universe needs no Creator, save by arguments made on self-contradicting assumptions (vis “everything needs a Creator” and “There exists an uncreated Creator”). Since the universe doesn’t need a Creator, and since insufficient evidence exists to require one, Occam’s Razor suggests we proceed by assuming that It is merely another myth, like unicorns.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Your logic is flawed however, because the so called “Christian restrictions” have to do with thou shall not murder, steal, lie, etc.
Uh-huh. What about assuming a fertilized egg is the same as an actual human person, not allowing people to blaspheme in public, or teaching Christian creation mythology instead of science?
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
…and deny loving couples the rights of being married
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Ah clever, but no jz, your ‘loving couples’ can have any relationship they wish. Choose another da_m word though for that relationship.
Marriage when correctly defined is/has been/ always will be a union of opposites…………..yeah, i know, it’s not popular, but hey, it’s right. It’s a male female kind of thing.
Since the post here is ‘burden of proof,’ perhaps you should resurrect Mr Webster the illustrious wordsmith to acquire his permission ere you act the thief and steal a definition and replace it with one that suits YOU, one that has withstood time and defense of common sense. (the union of man and woman)
Am i clear enough without chastising they who have gone their own way……………
.
(sorry ib22, but this tale is old and needs put to bed)
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Perhaps you should actually research what it is you’re talking about, Colourstorm, and then you wouldn’t embarrass yourself so badly in the future. Here is a small list of the benefits denied (that had been denied) to gays when they could not marry under federal recognition:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other’s debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can’t cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can’t always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don’t cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA’s and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family’s resources without adverse tax consequences.
But I think we’ve been through this before, haven’t we? I mean, “traditional” marriage has already been re-defined… Ever since we’ve not recognised three chickens and a goat as payment for the girl.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
@ More reindeer games from jz
Nothing needs added here to what I presented as crystal clear to counter your ‘sleight of hand.’
But what do you now do? Bring more circus acts. Don’t you have another chapter to write about some evil being…………
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
Great to see you can admit to being wrong, Colourstorm.
Tell me, are you married?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Well let’s see here jz, since you apparently have created your own definition of marriage………….any answer will then be pointless.
I’ll pass.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Did I re-define “Traditional” marriage to not be sealed with three chickens and a goat?
Did I outlaw the “Traditional” marriage rights of giving away your 12 year old daughter?
Did i re-define “Traditional” marriage where the woman has no right to divorce?
News to me.
But seriously, Colourstorm, as you seem so frenzied about the subject of marriage, I think we should know if you are, or have ever been, married.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
@jz
Me frenzied? Uh, it was YOU who brought up the topic. Read your own comments.
Oh, and while I’m here. A bonus for you. Your gripes about the ‘law’ have ‘long been settled,’ to borrow a phrase from our host here………the 613 cumbersome commandments, ordinances, etc, were given to Israel…….alone……..but you knew that didn’t you…….and of course you know the difference between moral, dietary, ceremonial, and legal eh……
…and of course you know the law was a mere schoolmaster … .until…….. and I’m sure you know the law is good………if a man use it lawfully……..and I’m sure you know the law presents every man as a lawbreaker………….. and I’m sure you know the law worketh wrath………..and I’m sure you know that if a man breaks one law, he is guilty of all…………..
Seems to put the grace of God in a new light now doesn’t it……….
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Actually, no, CS… the topic was raised by CPaca giving examples of how Christians try to meddle in our secular societies…. Secular societies, mind you, that keep you safe from religious tyranny.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Ah clever, but no jz, your ‘loving couples’ can have any relationship they wish. Choose another da_m word though for that relationship.
Nope – “married” covers it. Under US law, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Good grief, the hostility, hyperbole, and endless rhetoric in this thread is unmistakable. Mentioning Santa Claus and Thor never caused such offense. Just saying.
Also, those who would accuse Christians of atrocities while making statements very protective of Islam, may need to educate yourselves about what Muslims really believe. They aren’t big fans of gay marriage, homosexuality, women’s rights, nor atheism. Some of them are very nice people, but acting as if all Muslims are wounded birds in need of your protection is foolish to say the least, and also evidence of some very odd indoctrination.
LikeLiked by 3 people
john zande said:
“They aren’t big fans of gay marriage, homosexuality, women’s rights, nor atheism”
Just like Christians, huh 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
No, are you a complete moron, Zande? Christians aren’t the ones nailing children to crosses or throwing gays off of rooftops. Your hyperbole renders a special kind of stupid within you, one I find rather intolerable today. Go play with your own and let the grown ups talk.
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
”Christians aren’t the ones nailing children to crosses or throwing gays off of rooftops”
You used to, and the only reason you aren’t doing it today in the US is because secular societies took your power to do so away. Still, that didn’t stop Dear going on a murderous rampage the other day, did it?
But shall we talk about where Christians are, in fact, murdering people in the name of Yhwh? How about in Uganda and Nigeria where evangelical Christians burn witches alive and massacre gays.
Please, Insanity, you’re that ignorant, are you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz said:
Yeah, it’s really horrifying how the Christians take over otherwise very tranquil, peaceful environments like Uganda and Nigeria. If only those violent religious enthusiasts would go back to practicing voodoo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Have you seen the video of Christians burning three witches, two women and man? It’s horrendous.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Liz, here’s an interesting article on Christians calling children “witches:” African Children Denounced As “Witches” By Christian Pastors. It cites one case of an exorcism where acid was poured down the child’s throat. The children, all of them, are tortured and then killed by the pastors.
Horrible, right?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
LikeLike
Liz said:
I’ve never watched a witch burning, no. I do know a Christian missionary civil engineer who went to Nigeria and built a bridge for the people there. His wife couldn’t go because it wasn’t safe. It wasn’t really safe for him either. It’s really dangerous environment and it’s not the practicing Christians that make it dangerous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Yes it is… read the article I just posted below. 13 churches have been charged with child torture and murder.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
Yeah, John,
Christians hate the homos so much that gay marriage got legalized in the United States of America.
And legalizing gay marriage in the Christian United States is exactly the same as the death sentence for gays in Muslim Iran and elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 3 people
john zande said:
Yes, we were all very, very impressed with the unwavering Christian support for the marriage equality.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
Thank you, John,
Your multicultural awareness and tolerance of alternate lifestyles, genders and universes is an inspiration to us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Well, to tell you the truth, I really couldn’t care less about people’s sexual preferences.
Unlike most evangelical Christians (and many Catholics, but not most) I don’t spend my day thinking about gay sex.
LikeLike
CPaca said:
Christians hate the homos so much that gay marriage got legalized in the United States of America.
Over the loud objections of many organized Christian groups, silenceofthemind. You’re like someone claiming that the Confederates were pro-abolition because the slaves in the South were freed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arkenaten said:
The major error of this statement is not what Dawkins is suggesting, but the presuppositional belief that there is a Christian god.
To date, there has never been a single piece of verifiable evidence for the christian god, and a great deal of of the supposed Yahweh-inspired written source material, ( the bible) is historical fiction, pseudoepigraphic, and in some case outright lies. Thus it only seems fair – and common-sense – that any skeptic is well within their rights to ask for evidence.
If a theist claims they were converted by evidence of this deity then surely, as they are commanded to spread the word of their god, it is not unreasonable for the skeptic to ask for this evidence and, one would presume, the convert will be able to produce it to demonstrate the veracity of their god.
LikeLike
Pingback: My Article Read (12-21-2015) | My Daily Musing
izodpjjbok said:
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
LikeLike
kxtkdnjrab said:
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
LikeLike
jyvlnvtptm said:
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
LikeLike
chslebxvjo said:
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
LikeLike