Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[arkain101]

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink

his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53)

 

"My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink," John 6: continuous motif.

 

These are what you are looking for, no?

 

The context is that this is God speaking through man. The message in the script is that God doesnt have blood like us, nor flesh like us. To read knowledge is to as a metaphor eat knowledge and take it 'IN". The message is that his flesh and blood is nurishment for spiritual awakening and broadening your consciousness and inner outlook.

translation:"If you do not take in the knowledge of this man that speaks to you, you will not awake to a civilisation and (maybe humanity) of a pure hearted life" because remember the crazyness of culture and as an example "rome" at those times. Slavery, murder, prositution and all kinds of things that are quite destructive to all people in general. If the world does not heed this word you will not have life of the kind the bible is intending to give. This is not my own belief, this is my interpratation of the script itself.

 

Wait a second...you just said that you can't do that! Are you trying to play us for fools, sir?

It seems as though he was saying you have to read mostly the whole bible and gain some understanding of it before you attempt to pick out specific bits and try to interpret them. Once you have it can be more accuratly interpated. And if you want to ask a question and get a educated opinion on certain parts and versus, ask and he'd be willing to try and help answer.

[Agememnon]

By looking at this quote, and others similar to it;

 

It sounds to me like whats being said between the lines here by some is a viewpoint looking downward on people that arent in their catagory of the liked kind.[/Quote]

 

You are right. I do look down upon the people I do not like. This is an unconscience bias, though.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are several people in your (agamemnon and those that agree with him) catagory of 'good straight up people' that have beleifs you do not know of or about, and/or, have beleifs that you know of thatare in the faithful direction.

 

What category? Look, I just got here. I have not joined a category. Please don't label me. Or anyone else. Ever.

 

What seems more important here is a type of people that are in a good catagory and a bad catagory, and the words of faith and religion are being used in place of bad unliked people.

 

There is a good reason for this, have you heard of the Crusades? How about the Inquisitions? How about the America 9/11? How about the contentions between Muslims? How about abortion clinic bombings?

 

Not all religions are bad. Faith is what I dislike.

 

What I suggest and this is my opinion, is to put that emotional ajenda aside that lables and catagorizes people when having a discussion in the detailed aspects of religion and other ideals and focus on the details of the topic.

 

I'm not sure that I can have a conversation without my emotions coming into play, after all, I am human. All of my attempts to discourage faith are focused, sir.

 

Also, aren't labels necessary for a discussion? Everyone has an opinion and therefore, everyone gets a label. But hope fully not "good" or "bad".

 

 

I was doing some reading on in this area of religion and mythology and something struck me that seemed quite true.

 

Religion is a mythology in action, being currently lived and acted out by people. When the religion is no longer practiced, and its support of beleif and faith has dwindled away, it becomes rather like a mythology.

 

And mythologies alone are an expression of simple fundamental basic truths that humanity has expressed over and over in different forms to try and put voice and illustration on the very thing that they can not see nor explain, but conclude that all reality eminates from.

 

Yes, I agree. I label you as "good".

 

...:cocktail:

[arkain101]

Quote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are several people in your (agamemnon and those that agree with him) catagory of 'good straight up people' that have beleifs you do not know of or about, and/or, have beleifs that you know of thatare in the faithful direction.

 

What category? Look, I just got here. I have not joined a category. Please don't label me. Or anyone else. Ever.

 

Sorry for the lazy wording.

 

The catagory you create and admitted to placing people into: "You are right. I do look down upon the people I do not like. This is an unconscience bias, though."

 

In summerization. You blame faith for actoins people perform that you do not like. When in actual fact I think you are using a word to generalise people you do not like, and that generalisation, attacks a general amount of people that are also infact in the catagory you would call good. This is an emotional ajenda, not an emotional experience. And that is to satisfy your dislike for action performed by people looking down on a lable you've placed upon them.

 

It creates a loopy logic, and is exactly why debates get out of hand.

 

There are good doers in this world and bad doers in this world and the doers are people. Not one term or ideal will successfully lable either group and I know that you know that.

 

So there is alot of good doers with fiath. And alot of bad doers with faith. And alot of good doers with no faith, and alot of bad doers with no faith.

 

That is the reality, and I think it is rediculous to point at the water for drowning people when a crowd jump into the lake. That is, blame something else for the actions people perform.

 

Thus when discussing religion or any topic, it is also ineffective and unproductive to begin looking downward on people involved in the discussion by introducing your emotional ajenda.

[Agememnon]

 

And the thing about picking bit's out of the bible, I mean you pick a bit out that you think contradicts another bit and I'll try to show you that when you put it into context of the whole bible it no longer can be seen as a contradiction.

 

This sounds like a foregone conclusion that you KNOW that you can prove it correct. I mean no one has even submitted a queary to you and you are already saying that there is no contradiction because it's in context. Simply because it's in the context of the Bible seems to make if correct. It makes it sound that no matter what we say, we are always wrong, even if we can't see it. Is this pompous or is it confident? FINE LINE

 

Can I just make a point of view here, I've read a lot of posts on this site and I find people make wide statements and comments that are not backed up by any resourses, I thought Scientists and those looking for the truth would have a good look at many sides, The impression I get is that some people want to believe what they want and just throw off any counter arguments, to me those people are not worth debating with as they have chosen their path and are happy with it, that's ok, some may say that I am that kind of person too, I have, however, logged onto this site just for the reason of seeing how the athiest / agnostic / evolution anti-creationist thinks. I use this information to look at my own beliefs and they do show up areas where I need to research more. I haven't yet found anyone with a valid counter argument to the views that I have (that have been represented in other threads by people in the past), not one that has shaken my faith yet.

I'll keep looking, I'm sure there are people out there, the ones who want to rid the world of religion in all it's forms, will keep posting good and valid points, but I wish they would look into them a bit first, to see how easy it is to refute them.

 

Do I detect a note of ad hominem?

 

Are you THAT type of person?

 

I would say so. Not because of you, personally, but because of your position. At anytime you can pull the ol' faith card and instantly make everyone wrong in your mind. What do you think?

 

And are you saying "valid" as in "logically correct" or valid as in "I won't accept it as true"? Think carefully, this could be an unconscience conclusion.

[Agememnon]

It creates a loopy logic, and is exactly why debates get out of hand.

 

There are good doers in this world and bad doers in this world and the doers are people. Not one term or ideal will successfully lable either group and I know that you know that.

 

So there is alot of good doers with fiath. And alot of bad doers with faith. And alot of good doers with no faith, and alot of bad doers with no faith.

 

What you are arguing is semantics, sir.

 

We do not have the same definitions for "good" and "bad".

 

I never stated that I like good-doers, nor did I state that I dislike bad-doers.

I dislike faith.

 

I still respect people I don't like. That is, until they do something that forces me to loose respect for them and consequently, their ideas.

[Lancaster]

I don't hate the player, I hate the game. In this case, let me use BibleBeliever as an example. He is obviously intelligent enough to survive on Hypography. Although not all of his arguments are well thought out or factual, he gives it a good try. I like him. What I don't like is what he believes in. I am not, and please do not say that I am, using faith or religion as a substitute for an insult. I think B.B. is doing a crackerjack job of defending the wrong side of this argument. Think about it, he is doing great defending something that has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

Please do not patronize me arkain101, I can speak for myself in this respect.

[Buffy]

A bunch of you are probably going to get banned en masse if you don't learn to behave and treat your fellow humans--whatever their beliefs--with more respect.

 

You are all hereby sentenced to re-read the 4064.

 

I am closing this thread for the next 24 hours while you all cool down.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

That's a pritty big stick you got there ma'am,

Buffy

[BibleBeliever]

Thanks, Buffy, I've re-read the rules and I see where I was prompting people to break them, sorry.

 

Thanks too for Lancaster, his encouraging post, it's too easy for people to just ignore bible bashers like me, ususlly because they think we only have one thing to say and they've heard it before.

 

Agememnon, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument." courtesy of Wikipedia.

I had no Idea what that was, now I am wiser. Thank you too. The issue about using the faith card and being able to show the bible doesn't contradict is a volatile subject and after re-reading the rules for this forum, I don't think I can bend anyones views without breaking the rules and getting kicked off.

 

If there is anyone out there who truly does want to know whether or not the bible contradicts itself, I guess if you Google the question and look at a wide variety of sites then hopefully you will find the truth that is there to be found for those who diligently seek it.

 

My idea of a valid argument is one that when you look at it closely, it holds up to what we accept as true, and as everyone has a different view of the truth it all becomes subjective (or is that objective? I'm sure you know what I mean) So in hindsight I guess we'll not make much progress there.

 

What I like about this forum is that I can post a reply or a thread and most people will give me alternative viewpoints. It gives me food for thought and points me in directions I wouldn't usually look.

[Agememnon]

If there is anyone out there who truly does want to know whether or not the bible contradicts itself, I guess if you Google the question and look at a wide variety of sites then hopefully you will find the truth that is there to be found for those who diligently seek it.

 

 

Would you say that you have found the "truth" after this diligent searching on Google?

[phoenixbyrd]

BibleBeliever: If there is anyone out there who truly does want to know whether or not the bible contradicts itself, I guess if you Google the question and look at a wide variety of sites then hopefully you will find the truth that is there to be found for those who diligently seek it.

 

Not only are there contradictions, there's outright false information within that oh so divinely inspired book.

 

let's define what a contradiction is ok?

 

Broadly speaking, a contradiction is when two or more statements, ideas, or actions are seen as incompatible.

 

Clear enough I would hope!

 

Let's look at the very first book of the bible. Let's skip the fact that there are two creation stories and get to noah. Answer this question, how many pairs of animals did god command noah to take.

 

*Cue jepordy theme*

[arkain101]

my appologies to everyone...I didnt mean to offend.

 

I see your points of the troubles of religion.

 

I just can't see destroying religion/faith fixing the worlds problems, without creating some.

 

When I add everything up I feel confident to conlcude life IS war and always has been war. It just has different levels of intensity. Sometimes its competing for money, for food, for power, other times it escalates to violence, but life overall is a fight, a job. It has its rewards (victory). It has its proud moments (glory). It has its failures (loss). Sometimes the fight just gets out of hand, and religion is often sadly used by some as a tool to achieve goals, power, the upper hand.

[phoenixbyrd]

arkain101: I just can't see destroying religion/faith fixing the worlds problems, without creating some.

 

Are you trying to say that without religion then people have no reason to act in a moral manner? Religion is no different then laws preventing people from doing certain acts against others. God says thou shalt not kill, so have man made laws. What's the difference? One is given by an imaginary being and the other given by a mortal man. Religion has been used throughout history as a means of destruction, even today we put people in jail because they think they're doing god's work. Enough is enough. No, not everyone does this, but when people start claiming to hear voices in their head telling them to murder because of some imaginary being they only have faith in existing, that raises a need to be alarmed. I've read a stastistic somewhere, something like 75% of people in US Jail are christian. That's sad. How many atheist do we here about on the news who kill in the name of atheism? None that I know of. So really, which is more dangerous?

[Agememnon]

Phoenixbyrd has a point. It is man made laws that say not to do something, (kill) and God's laws that say it's fine to do. (as long as it's an enemy of God)

 

Many people feel that God's laws are to be followed above Man's. Without faith (theistic God) there would be no such mindsets.

 

Agreed?

[InfiniteNow]

Agreed?

No. I fail to see the distinction between "man's laws" and "god's laws." They're all man's laws from my POV.

[Agememnon]

They're all man's laws from my POV.

 

Well put, sir.

[arkain101]

Are you trying to say that without religion then people have no reason to act in a moral manner?

 

No I am saying that to destroy religion, would likely require to destroy people. If you removed science, it would be met with opposition and resentment from people. If you removed religion, the same thing could be possible.

 

I am not sure.

 

I am agreeing that it would be better to keep peoples minds down here on earth and focused on what is real than have people killing in the name of their supreme ideal.

 

Politcal endevours I would doubt are related to anything other than personal ajenda, while everything involved is a tool for the acheivment of desires. Remove one tool and for some reason I would expect some new tool would pop up to convince support.

 

However I have said before that its is in general not always peoples fault it is the lasting teachings that are forced into the people that generate the problem. For example Put a mixed race of a bunch of young kids together and they will play, unaware of any differences among them, they are not enemies unless they are taught that they are. when they fight however, it tends to do with selfishness does it not?

 

So it is partly to do with teaching I suppose like you say, but people still have accept the responsibility of their actions.

 

Though I can see that if all other knowledge is blocked out and only teaching is put in, then they can end up as a product of that teaching when there is nothing to compare with..

 

But I do not agree that faith teaches anything. Instead, people with intentions teach things.

 

Messy combination.. lol

[Lancaster]

No I am saying that to destroy religion, would likely require to destroy people. If you removed science, it would be met with opposition and resentment from people. If you removed religion, the same thing could be possible.

 

I am not sure.

 

I am agreeing that it would be better to keep peoples minds down here on earth and focused on what is real than have people killing in the name of their supreme ideal.

 

Politcal endevours I would doubt are related to anything other than personal ajenda, while everything involved is a tool for the acheivment of desires. Remove one tool and for some reason I would expect some new tool would pop up to convince support.

 

However I have said before that its is in general not always peoples fault it is the lasting teachings that are forced into the people that generate the problem. For example Put a mixed race of a bunch of young kids together and they will play, unaware of any differences among them, they are not enemies unless they are taught that they are. when they fight however, it tends to do with selfishness does it not?

 

So it is partly to do with teaching I suppose like you say, but people still have accept the responsibility of their actions.

 

Though I can see that if all other knowledge is blocked out and only teaching is put in, then they can end up as a product of that teaching when there is nothing to compare with..

 

But I do not agree that faith teaches anything. Instead, people with intentions teach things.

 

Messy combination.. lol

 

I think that this hypothetical removal of Religion does not factor in the "Hey, I liked that religion!" variable. If, hypothetically, religion did not exist, there would certainly be fewer problems.

 

Especially in the middle east.