Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It was intentional. That kind of circular reasoning in the Bible is one of the reasons I don’t believe a word it has to say (the only exception is that it accurately describes the personage of the Christ - which is perhaps a topic for another day).
@ Rat Spit
the only exception is that it accurately describes the personage of the Christ
Oh please start this thread...
Move along, no circular stuff around here . lol
Does he even realize he created his own trap?
It's stupid debating whether or not a narrative is the best medium for a divinity to get its message across. Nothing can prove the supernatural; and any flawed work only shows that the author is flawed.
A book of facts is not a narrative - but I'd be far more impressed by the truth of a book of facts than a work of mythology.
It's only stupid if that's not a conservative you care about, obviously. So wait in the homepage for a thread you might like, if narrative isn't of interest to you.
If it is not stupid, show how the specific format of a work has any relevancy to the truthfulness of religion and the intent of the gods.
Again, you're asking for a conversation that you're interested in. I don't care about the truthfulness of any religion or god, I care about the effectiveness of them. In fact, stories such as the little red riding hood are fictitious through and through, but are they effective at getting children to obey their patents?
So again, wait outside if this thread isn't of interest to you.
If you are interested in discussing the effectiveness of something, you should state by which criteria. So again, I ask you to show how the specific format of a work has any relevancy to the truthfulness of religion and the intent of the gods.
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy "I don't care about the truthfulness of any religion or god, I care about the effectiveness of them."
I have noticed this, but I don't share your contempt for the truth. Though again if it were an efficacious method then why are the majority of people not christians, and why do so many christians disagree on what the message says?
"So again, wait outside if this thread isn't of interest to you."
No chance, make me.
The bible is not a single narrative, it's a disparate collection of myths and stories from multiple authors, cobbled together by early christians. It is not demonstrably not a message from an omniscient deity, and you can shout narrative until you turn blue.
You may ask your self inwardly, “Am I me?” - and after some consideration, respond, “indeed, I am.”
Others may ask the same question with a response from God. But you, the “sane”, call this delusion.
It is merely the same response under a different guise. One is happy letting you remain ignorant to reality. The other is happiest letting the rest into the inner circle.
That is how the supernatural is proved - like anything else; by experience of the senses.
The supernatural is not phenomenal, thus cannot be experienced by the senses.
Sapporo "The supernatural is not phenomenal, thus cannot be experienced by the senses."
I want to believe rat spit is googling phenomenal now. Then again I'm an idealist who wants to believe everyone wants to learn all the time.
Breezy and rat spit are slowly killing that idealism.
FYI If Jesus were real, I like to think this would make him sad.
Of course I know the meaning of phenomenal. Every essay I ever wrote in Uni was returned to me with the word “phenomenal” on it.
Now how can the supernatural not be phenomenal? I just told you I literally converse with the OverLord?
Proof enough to show you do not know what the word “phenomenal” means. Addtionally, it would actually be nice if you were to actually provide some proof of all these wild claims you make without evidence. “Every essay I ever wrote in Uni...” prove it.
rmfr
Oh dear, phenomenal like many words has a secondary meaning. In this context Sapporo's point was that the phenomenal by definition cannot be experienced by the senses. This was in direct response to your claim:
rat spit "That is how the supernatural is proved - like anything else; by experience of the senses."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now how can the supernatural not be phenomenal?"
"the supernatural is proved - like anything else; by experience of the senses.""
Because by definition this a rational contradiction. Human sense are phenomenal, the supernatural is not by definition. Time to call in rationalisation man to save the day I think.
Phenomenal
adjective
2. perceptible by the senses or through immediate experience.
supernatural
adjective
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just told you I literally converse with the "
You can claim you converse with Yoda for all I care, the claim would be subject to the same epistemological standards of evidence. You have offered none, and nothing you have posted suggests you understand epistemological burdens of proof or objective evidence and how this differs from your relentless unevidenced and subjective claims.
@ Rat spit
FMDT..you are special kind of special aren't you? You make Breezy appear to be rational by comparison...
rat spit's posts make Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter look rational.
And here I thought I was starting to grow on you. :(
"That is how the supernatural is proved - like anything else; by experience of the senses."
So you think magic shows are real then? Or are your senses being deceived? Now here's a thought, when you know it's an illusion before hand, are your sense less likely to be deceived?
You're making this too easy, and I'd bet Breezy gave a quiet sigh when you decided to try and "help" him.
@rat spit
What objective evidence do you have any god is real?
All you have is subjective evidence from your mind.
And what about your inner voice? Is that not also subjective? How do you expect me to believe in your subjective experience?
How? I’ll tell you how. I’m not an intellectual snob like Sheldon - I believe you when you claim something. I won’t go to the end of the earth to prove something or someone wrong.
But still, answer the question - your position is no stronger than mine. In fact mine is superior to yours. I know exactly why you think your inner voice is you. You have no idea how I’m able to converse with an Omnipotent Being.
@ rat spit
Taking lessons from Breezy are you? Nice dodge.
Answer the question: What objective hard empirical evidence can you provide this "overlord" exists?
Either put up, or shut the hell up.
rmfr
@ rat spit
"That is how the supernatural is proved - like anything else; by experience of the senses."
If that was a true, Thor, Iron Man, Thanos, and any other imaginary creature from a movie would exist.
That’s all CGI and Hollywood. This is different. This is real.
Damn, I had a mouthful of Coke in my mouth. Now I have to clean up what came out my nose.
I have to admit it was masterful though, putting the punch line in the very last word.
@ David
"Damn, I had a mouthful of Coke in my mouth. Now I have to clean up what came out my nose."
I see you have not learned the Third Commandment of Forum Reading... tsk... tsk...
"Thou shalt not be drinking or eating while perusing forum boards for thou shalt never know when a post can cause spewage."
Now run three laps around the Forum Boards as penance.
rmfr
In reply to the OP and a later post where he said, "
I would simply ask, Why only tell the story once?
This is apparently a god that creates all and knows all and yet doesn't realise how daft all religious texts appear to be now?!
Surely someone this amazing would make a document or something akin, so undoubtable in its sheer brilliance that it would boarder on the unquestionable.
Unfortunately we are left what appears to be tall tales passed down from various cultures as a primitive attempt to understand the world in which we live in.
So, what does the update change over the old, exactly?
@Breezy
I don't believe you've said what God's motive actually is yet.
"I don't believe you've said what God's motive actually is yet."
To sound like ignorant paranoid superstitious bronze age Bedouins.
Pages