Maybe he’s just repressing what happened last time. I know i’d do everything I could to forget it.

Funny. The True Bible Code Believers predicted the arrival of the “Son of Man” around this date. Funny, though, as the article doesn’t mention this guy shooting nukes out of his hand to destroy a UN complex.

See, this is the problem inherent in the second coming of the messiah:  Even if you make the wild assumption that there is a God and Jesus..... Who’s going to believe him?  Even the faithful have fractured into a hundred different sects and if one of them turns out to be true, all the others will turn on the guy as a heretic and a false prophet, and given that there isn’t one religion left that practices every single piece of dogma in the Bible, what are the odds that even one of them has it right?  Jesus is going to find out that almost everyone still has faith but NOBODY believes in him anymore.

I’d stay away too.  Screw the end of days.

Kinda pust stuff like pascals wager into perspective: if you do decide to believe, then what in. The truth could be that the universe was created by a celestial kettle, and in the absence of evidence, we may just as well worship that as some guy with a white beard who apparently always has and always will speak in King James English.
I can just amagine some prayer ending
“Amen....Innit”

Can you imagine a 20th cent version of the biblical Jesus confronting Falwell, Robertson, WBC etc. Now, do you think they would repent their sins, or describe him as an atheist trick?

hi this was the most recent god related post i could find so sorry if i go off track a little

- but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility - at least for now until we know more

but i do agree with a lot of atheists that we shouldn’t go through the whole of life only thinking about death, kinda stops you using it

do people like the example in the post annoy you? if so why do you let it? - there must be a reason why les posted it - does he hope to change them? - if not, is there another reason. i know how people at work get annoyed by silly things people do in the newspaper - but i don’t understand, because it’s not within their control, it’s just what happened for whatever reason

- but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility - at least for now until we know more

Then you must also accept the possibility of invisible flying unicorns with sparkly pink horns, because you can’t prove they don’t exist, either. In fact, you can’t prove anything doesn’t exist, because you can’t prove a negative.

Sigh.

Atheist Trick?  They’d call him the Anti-Christ.  Haven’t they been telling us all this time that the AC would be a nice guy, a charismatic leader that people would WANT to follow?  Isn’t it ironic that if Jesus came back he’d probably fall into that category.

“Back on the cross Haysoos!  What do you think you are, the second coming or something?”

KPatrickGlover - correct, that’s entirely possible, and who am i to say it’s unlikely if I don’t know anymore? I can’t see reasons why it’d be that way, but i can’t see reasons why it’d be any way really

but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility - at least for now until we know more

You (and I) will go through your entire life without proof.  After you die is a pretty embarassing time to find out you wasted your life.  What about those of us who don’t care if he exists or not?  Those of us who think that is is far better to focus our attention on making this life better and let the next take care of itself?

Shadowwank (bizarre choice of names, by the way), you seem a polite enough chap, but every time I read one of your posts I can feel brain cells dying…

swordsbane - you are correct too by that, and obviously any good you do won’t be for the selfish persuit of heaven, you’d be doing things for the right reasons, and you won’t be worried about it. i’m not trying to force anyone to believe in him, but i want everyone to at least feel like they can accept it as possible, and maybe allow yourselves to feel like you are able to think about/ talk to him in your own mind if ever it might help.

really i don’t like words like ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ because that’s the end to their thought about the subject, i want it to be flexible and dynamic - and changing as we figure shit out

it’s possible there are consequences in an afterlife, be that fair or unfair, it’s just the way it might be, and we have to work with that. i really do admire anyone who would put their view of right and wrong ahead of their own persuit of heaven

KPatrickGlover - cool we can figure this out - are you afraid of the subject? - that maybe a certain mindstate is more itelligent than another? - if so we could consider why that might be - what makes atheism smarter? - sure, there are a lot of insecure idiots who are theists, and sure, there are a lot of smart people who are atheists, but they have different reasons for the path they take

the theories themselves - aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know

i’m not trying to force anyone to believe in him, but i want everyone to at least feel like they can accept it as possible, and maybe allow yourselves to feel like you are able to think about/ talk to him in your own mind if ever it might help.

AHA! See, this is why we don’t trust you crazy fuckers. In two posts you jump from trying to get us to acknowledge that a god could exist (because we can’t prove he doesn’t) to wanting us to be comfortable talking to the hypothetical megalomaniac.

This is like jumping from the possibility of the existence of invisible flying unicorns with sparkly pink horns to proposing marriage to one and picking out furniture (sight, of course, still unseen).

we can figure this out - are you afraid of the subject?

No, I’m afraid of the way you construct sentences. You need a book on basic grammar.

what makes atheism smarter?

Atheists appear to be the only ones smart enough to NOT believe in fairy tales.

aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know

And therein lies the problem. If you think “God” is “logically possible” you are just, well, not that bright.

Shadowwank writes…

- but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility - at least for now until we know more

I don’t know many atheists who completely rule out the possibility that God(s) might exist. However that doesn’t really give any support to believing he does.

do people like the example in the post annoy you? if so why do you let it? - there must be a reason why les posted it - does he hope to change them? - if not, is there another reason. i know how people at work get annoyed by silly things people do in the newspaper - but i don’t understand, because it’s not within their control, it’s just what happened for whatever reason

I posted it because I thought it was funny. It also occurs to me that there is, however slight, the possibility that the man really could be God and how odd that would be for him to come back and try to get started on The End Times only to get arrested because the police think he’s a nutbag.

But mostly I posted it because I thought it was funny.

the theories themselves - aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know

That depends on which God you’re speaking of. There’s plenty about the Christian God that is far from logical.

Before you can have any truly meaningful discussion about God you’d have to define what you mean by the word. Even among Christians there’s no consensus.

KPatrickGlover - lol it doesn’t matter what form it takes, and sure, we don’t know who we are talking to, and again, whoever it is might not be reasonable, but you can tell helpful thoughts from bad ones - in life it’s healthy to listen to nice comments and not take seriously to nasty ones, it doesn’t matter who said them, be they alive or dead, as long as it’s kind

it doesn’t even matter if there’s someone on the other end of the line, really, it can still get stuff off your chest if you think you’ve said it to someone, and make you feel less alone - surely that’s good if it helps them cope with life, even if it is to no avail in the end

KPatrickGlover: No, I’m afraid of the way you construct sentences. You need a book on basic grammar.

mebbe, but poor grammar doesn’t make me a bad person, or unhappy, what else could matter in life?
what makes spelling and gramar important enough to bother you? surely the content is the decider…

Atheists appear to be the only ones smart enough to NOT believe in fairy tales.

i think it’s best if people construct their own theories - i’m fully against people just believing some story just because they were told to - i want them to question it and think for themselves

it’s possible to be open to the idea of god without taking it at face value

And therein lies the problem. If you think “God” is “logically possible” you are just, well, not that bright.

anything’s possible unless it can either be disproved or you can show unarguably that there is no possible way it could be accomodated

Les: I don’t know many atheists who completely rule out the possibility that God(s) might exist. However that doesn’t really give any support to believing he does.

maybe so, i have in the past met some that do rule him out though, or who don’t allow themselves to think about it, obviously i don’t know you lot and mebbe i’m batting blind but i hope that it’ll be appropriate to someone

it’s not my intention to get people to believe in him, just to not have inhibition about it. i would be wrong to jump to conclusions, and i can’t really build a case anyway, not really, i don’t fight on the level of what there is/isn’t valid evidence for. i even think that some of the reasons for going atheist are healthier than blind belief, but still i want people to feel like they may have someone to talk to, or that they may not be alone, because that helps too

But mostly I posted it because I thought it was funny

good enough for me

That depends on which God you’re speaking of. There’s plenty about the Christian God that is far from logical.

Before you can have any truly meaningful discussion about God you’d have to define what you mean by the word. Even among Christians there’s no consensus.

i think we have to keep it as broad as possible until we have more information - i suppose any is possible, they might not be rational, but you don’t have to be rational to exist - i’m sure you’ve seen examples of that in people in life

could be more than one, could be none at all but other forms of existence for us mortals might be there. even after we die, if we’re concious, all we’re guaranteed to find out is whether existence continues for ourselves - everything/everone else you see could still be illusion, and we could still not know any more about any godlike being

it doesn’t even matter if there’s someone on the other end of the line, really, it can still get stuff off your chest if you think you’ve said it to someone, and make you feel less alone - surely that’s good if it helps them cope with life, even if it is to no avail in the end

Hmm.... you know… my Christian-o-meter is wiggling a little.  I’ve seen this before.  Get them to say “Oh that sounds fine” then hit them with… “Well then why not turn to God as the one to tell these things too?”

Not that I’m saying you’re doing this.... but you’re displaying all the signs....

swordsbane - i think it’s just that some people who are christan have also talked a lot to him in their minds - and felt better for it, which may of been a big driver for them to become theist

since it made them feel better - they want to get that across too, but a lot of them do pevert it into a selling point for their religion and try to suck people in through the back door

i will say it now that i am against organised religion - because it groups ideas together but then makes people feel like they shouldn’t move on - and makes them afraid. i wouldn’t do that- i want people to feel free to explore all options, and move both ways. i want people to reach their own conclusions, but for those to be flexible and for nothing to be ruled out. if people can take comfort, that’s a good thing and i’d leave it at that.

i don’t care about what afterlife may be, life is my chance to do permanent things, i want to help people with life, some feel sad but trapped in life for whatever reason - it must mean something if i can help, if only to them. if it helps people overall to cope with life, whatever life is, then it’s a good thing - and to me giving them the idea might offer comfort and sanctuary, maybe false hope too but it’d never be realised if there is no afterlife

mebbe, but poor grammar doesn’t make me a bad person, or unhappy, what else could matter in life?
what makes spelling and gramar important enough to bother you? surely the content is the decider…

You can’t expect anybody to bother taking anything you have to say seriously if you can’t be bothered to make sure you say it properly.

anything’s possible unless it can either be disproved or you can show unarguably that there is no possible way it could be accomodated

Sorry, you invoked the word logic. Logic requires a system of deductions and inferences based on evidence. That leaves your deity entirely outside the discussion.

lol it doesn’t matter what form it takes, and sure, we don’t know who we are talking to, and again, whoever it is might not be reasonable, but you can tell helpful thoughts from bad ones - in life it’s healthy to listen to nice comments and not take seriously to nasty ones, it doesn’t matter who said them, be they alive or dead, as long as it’s kind

There’s so much wrong with that statement, I’m not even sure where to begin. Maybe we should start with the crap about telling helpful thoughts from not helpful ones. What about the people who think God has told them to chop up their neighbors? Happens all the time. And if you’re hearing the voices of dead people talking to you, please, seek some help before they tell you to invade Poland.

i think it’s just that some people who are christan have also talked a lot to him in their minds - and felt better for it, which may of been a big driver for them to become theist

You seem to think that your talking about some generic creator and not the Christian God of the Bible, but your statements don’t hold to that. You’re using the word “Him”, presupposing a male figure, and setting up the concept that you can pray, or talk to him. That’s a far cry from some vague creator, it’s very specific.

KPatrickGlover - it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message - if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea - in their mind it’d be the same.
unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

Logic requires a system of deductions and inferences based on evidence. That leaves your deity entirely outside the discussion

in the way that no evidence proves or disproves it, yes. that doesn’t make it’s existence contrary to any logic, or any less likely, it just means it’s existence is a complete unknown

Maybe we should start with the crap about telling helpful thoughts from not helpful ones. What about the people who think God has told them to chop up their neighbors? Happens all the time

that’s exactly where people need to be able to tell them apart - ignore the ones telling them to chop up neighbours or generally be paranoid, but perhaps indulge in any that are supportive. i suspect there could be more than one voice talking to people, not all of them good, people generally can’t tell who’s talking, so they need to be able to filter the good comments from the bad, and secondly they need to accept that it doesn’t matter who makes any good points, as long as they’re made - this could give one of the previously malicious beings a chance to change and then be listened to

schizophrenia that makes people paranoid or scared or whatever is bad, but if there is schizophrenia that makes people feel comforted (without risk of being draged into the paranoid form) - how could that be a bad thing?

You seem to think that your talking about some generic creator and not the Christian God of the Bible, but your statements don’t hold to that. You’re using the word “Him”, presupposing a male figure, and setting up the concept that you can pray, or talk to him. That’s a far cry from some vague creator, it’s very specific

i should’ve used “it” instead, but it was convienient to refer to it as a person, and clearer what “it” was. i think i have already said it doesn’t matter what form “it” takes, as long as they’re nice.

yeah, talking to “it” is like praying, but by no means do i mean anything formal or the traditional christian “go into a church, bow with your hads together, crap for a better afterlife” - i just mean you can talk casually, as if to a friend, anytime you like, within your own mind if ever it might help.

talking to a living person isn’t praying, and if a dead one can hear your thoughts, there’s no point saying anything verbally to them, you would be able to talk from within the privicy of your own mind, whenever you like. people need not wait until sundays to do it under formal conditions in an arbitary building at an arbitary time to do it when it may not even be genuine - best to deal with issues as they come up, at the time

Shadowwank writes…

KPatrickGlover - it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message - if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea - in their mind it’d be the same.

Perception matters. Had Einstein taken as little care with the presentation of his ideas as you do with yours it’s likely they’d never have revolutionized science. If your presentation is so sloppy that it’s annoying to read then a lot of folks won’t bother and then it doesn’t matter if you just happen to have the greatest idea in the world.

unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

All you’re accomplishing in trying to make your point is looking like a bit of an idiot. Not that I’m not saying you are an idiot, just saying that your presentation gives one little reason to think otherwise so far.

The only reason anyone listens to anything I have to say is that my presentation, while far from being flawless English, is decent enough that it’s not a distraction from what I have to say. They don’t have to spend time trying to decode my comments before they can start to think about whether or not I said something worth considering and that goes a long way on making up for the fact that I’m not really an expert on much of the things I comment on.

in the way that no evidence proves or disproves it, yes. that doesn’t make it’s existence contrary to any logic, or any less likely, it just means it’s existence is a complete unknown

Actually, based on most of the definitions of God that are out there to consider, the concept of God is often contrary to logical consideration.

Take for example the common description of God being “all powerful” which provokes the question: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he’s all powerful then the answer should be yes while at the same time it should be no because he is, as said, all powerful. That’s a logical contradiction right there.

that’s exactly where people need to be able to tell them apart - ignore the ones telling them to chop up neighbours or generally be paranoid, but perhaps indulge in any that are supportive. i suspect there could be more than one voice talking to people, not all of them good, people generally can’t tell who’s talking, so they need to be able to filter the good comments from the bad, and secondly they need to accept that it doesn’t matter who makes any good points, as long as they’re made - this could give one of the previously malicious beings a chance to change and then be listened to

This begs the question of why even bothering to consider that “little voice” to be the voice of God in the first place. Again most definitions of God state that he’s only good and therefore would never put bad thoughts into your head. So if you’re having bad thoughts then, logically, that can’t be God talking to you. If it’s not God talking to you then why assume that it is?

schizophrenia that makes people paranoid or scared or whatever is bad, but if there is schizophrenia that makes people feel comforted (without risk of being draged into the paranoid form) - how could that be a bad thing?

So you’re suggesting there are good forms of schizophrenia? That’s a new one on me.

i should’ve used “it” instead, but it was convienient to refer to it as a person, and clearer what “it” was. i think i have already said it doesn’t matter what form “it” takes, as long as they’re nice.

yeah, talking to “it” is like praying, but by no means do i mean anything formal or the traditional christian “go into a church, bow with your hads together, crap for a better afterlife” - i just mean you can talk casually, as if to a friend, anytime you like, within your own mind if ever it might help.

talking to a living person isn’t praying, and if a dead one can hear your thoughts, there’s no point saying anything verbally to them, you would be able to talk from within the privicy of your own mind, whenever you like. people need not wait until sundays to do it under formal conditions in an arbitary building at an arbitary time to do it when it may not even be genuine - best to deal with issues as they come up, at the time

Sounds to me like you’re just labeling the standard childhood habit of having an “invisible friend” as God. Which is pretty much how most atheists view a lot of believers to begin with. If you’re willing to admit that this generic “it” that you’re talking to in your head doesn’t necessarily have to be anything that actually exists at all then why bother labeling it God? Why not think of it as a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey? It worked for James Stewart.

it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message - if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea - in their mind it’d be the same.
unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

This topic has been discussed before on more than one occasion.

The poorer your language skills, the harder it’ll be to clearly communicate what it is that you want to say. Everybody cuts non-native speakers some slack, but the same is not true for native speakers.

While some of the nonbelieving regulars here have atrocious spelling (you should know who you are and you should be ashamed of yourself), there is strong empirical support for a correlation between poor grammar and spelling and fundamentalism. In short, we are biased to expect that the poorer somebody writes, the more of fundie he or she is and fundies aren’t interesting—they don’t bring anything new to table, always assuming they’re even interested in an actual debate (forget about a discussion). Or in other words, we consider the likelihood of a fundie—stereotypical or not—bringing something thoughtful to our attention as probable as some god or other existing.

Finally, how charming that you use punctuation to make whatever you write “more easier” to read. The fact of the matter is that not not using proper capitalization comes across as a buggered affectation at best and disrespect at worst. It takes extra effort to read, reeks of stereotypical fundie, and makes me disinclined to read your comments. The only reason I was arsed into replying is that I caught references to spelling etiquette in the sidebar.

Les - as you said, presentation does affect people’s willingness to listen, i wish this wasn’t the case, so much so that i’m deliberately avoiding capitalizing things here to get across the point that it doesn’t mean the person’s unreasonable. i used to visit this blog long ago, i know how much of an issue it is here, so from the outset i was trying to challenge it

obviously this is a dangerously subjective thing to say, but my punctuation, spelling aren’t that bad compared to my avoidence of capitals, if we look at it as seperate things, if i changed only that…

Actually, based on most of the definitions of God that are out there to consider, the concept of God is often contrary to logical consideration.

Take for example the common description of God being “all powerful” which provokes the question: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he’s all powerful then the answer should be yes while at the same time it should be no because he is, as said, all powerful. That’s a logical contradiction right there.

this is why i try to avoid giving a precise definition, but i am pretty sure that there isn’t a being that is both all powerful and benevolent, because otherwise it could (and would) make everything instantly perfect without pain, and life wouldn’t be necessary for learning or testing. if he didn’t know about suffering in life, that would be a limit to his power
indeed a need to test would suggest a lack of confidence in us, the ability to go wrong is a flaw

with your analogy, i think one ability would prevent the other, because they violate the terms of each other, it’d be impossible for anything to be both if all other coordinates were the same

This begs the question of why even bothering to consider that “little voice” to be the voice of God in the first place. Again most definitions of God state that he’s only good and therefore would never put bad thoughts into your head. So if you’re having bad thoughts then, logically, that can’t be God talking to you. If it’s not God talking to you then why assume that it is?

i don’t know who it is, may even be part of my mind, may be several beings, but it doesn’t seem to matter to me or them - if someone thinks they’re talking to god but really talking to someone else, whoever it is could still give feedback regardless. who you address the thought to and who responds back need not be the same person, afterall, we don’t have any other real name for these other than “god” so i think they’d know what we mean, and we don’t know either if (even if there was afterlife) anything other than god existed - maybe that one person says it all, the good and the bad, for any reason, i don’t know

So you’re suggesting there are good forms of schizophrenia? That’s a new one on me

may well be, we shouldn’t dismiss it yet, people might be frightened to admit, it may also be difficult to tell the difference between a “prophet” and a schizophrenic - maybe it’s connected somehow. like autism, i wonder if we all have varying shades of schizophrenia, some of it might be subconcious and neither visual or audible (more like when thoughts come to your head), and a lot of people wouldn’t want to even admit to themselves - it’s hard to tell whether a thought really originated from ourselves, but when it’s on your mind, it becomes your thought in addition to anyone else who may/may not of provided it

If you’re willing to admit that this generic “it” that you’re talking to in your head doesn’t necessarily have to be anything that actually exists at all then why bother labeling it God? Why not think of it as a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey? It worked for James Stewart.

i suppose, as you say, it doesn’t really matter, but people know what i mean by ‘god’, even though it may not be him at all - and generally are more willing to accept themselves talking to “god” than talking to Harvey

a big difference though is if you know whether it’s within your imagination - if you conciously conjoured a friend you couldn’t easily believe he is real, it’d be like making a toy doll and talking to it - people are more likely to believe something they imagined is really there if it was conjoured subconciously, so they don’t know that they made it up, so it seems like a real part to their reality that found them.

elwedriddsche: In short, we are biased to expect that the poorer somebody writes, the more of fundie he or she is and fundies aren’t interesting—they don’t bring anything new to table

this is the natural assumption i’m trying to challenge - i’m trying to show that someone who doesn’t capitalize can still be far more thoughtful than the average fundie stereotype, and also not to just dismiss ideas on basis of prejudice. it may be unlikely, but you never know what you’ll get - not everyone conforms to stereotypes, but a lot of people generally in life aren’t willing to notice that, and prejudice remains