Wednesday, September 2, 2015

[AvC] Philly Jesus, recovered addict, gives back to God

... says article:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/meet_philly_jesus.html#incart_2box_south_index.ssf
Michael Grant isn't Jesus, but try telling that to his disciples.  "He took my punishment for my wrongdoings. All my sins were nailed to him," Grant said of his idol — who he merely dresses up as.

So, is Grant an idolater as per the OT?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Let’s abolish all blasphemy laws, worldwide | End Blasphemy Laws

Injustice is always the result of holding that there is such a thing as "blasphemy".
"Blasphemy" as a concept adds nothing to society, but a tool of leverage that takes away free speech and assaults our freedom of thought.

Indeed, if we take your quote below to its logical conclusion, then it is blasphemy to exact any consequence against an individual in the name of one's God.
Hence, to punish blasphemy in any way shape or form is, itself blasphemous, and blasphemy vanishes in a puff of reductio ad absurdum.


-John


On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 12:26:27 PM UTC-6, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
That's very perceptive John -- 'They "nailed" Jesus on a blasphemy charge'. In the name of God they tortured this man claiming divinity. And what do we call that?

CCC 2148  http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2148.htm

 "It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name... to torture persons or put them to death"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Let’s abolish all blasphemy laws, worldwide | End Blasphemy Laws

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 7:31:46 PM UTC-6, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 7:43:36 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:







On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:26 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:43:50 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:







On Aug 30, 2015, at 12:07 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>     What is the big bang or expansion from a singularity into a universe that we exist in...evidence of?

I don't know. You tell me. What is it evidence of? I see nothing in it that shows evidence of any god. Maybe it will one day, but so far, no cigar.

   Ok...you don't know. If you don't know, then why have you dismissed it as possible evidence for a transcendent all powerful being that is outside of the bounds of the universe proper? 

I haven't dismissedit. i simply have seen no evidence of it. 

     I know that you haven't seen any possibility of the big bang being possible evidence for a transcendent all powerful being that is outside of the universe causing it to come into being?

There is no "theory of God" or evidence pointing to such a theory at this time. This means that all "God" claims are so bad that they are not even wrong.

 



What do you have as an alternative cause? That the universe came from noting and was caused by nothing? (quantum vacuum is nothing a singularity is nothing).

It was probably caused by something but I'm not going to make something up or accept someone else's explanation without evidence.

  Well, now...whatever caused it to come into being...sure had a lot of power behind it. It is no small job to cause a whole  universe to pop into existence. Wouldn't you say that is a fair assessment?

There is nothing to show that there had to be "something to cause the universe to pop into existence".
 
 
You seem to be incapable of accepting that we have no explanation for some things and when that happens, there is no reason to assume a god did it.  

    Well, a scientist is not too happy about not having an explanation and that is why he investigates...it is part of the scientific method. Well, now...if we have just this one bit of information that we have gleaned from the big bang so far...that something powerful must have caused it...well, we have a reason to think that it is possible for a all powerful being to have been the cause behind it. Power is obvious in the initial stages of the universe coming into existence. Scientists will tell you that there certainly was a lot of power involved in the initial moments of universal expansion. So, since God is ascribed all power...it would seem that he is adequate to the task of being the cause. He is, on the issue of power, a sufficient cause and thus on that basis this qualifies as a good reason to "infer" (not assume) that God could have done it.

There was certainly a lot of energy there, but it is not a given that there was a "cause" in the sense of everyday phenomena for the origin of the universe.
 The word "God" is just a label. It doesn't mean anything in this context.
 
 
But that's what theists do.

   Might be that some do. Fair enough. But I don't think that it is fair to say that of all.
 
If they don't have a rational explanation, they will immediately defer to a god explanation.

   I think I have offered a reason(that power argument was the reasoning)...so, I don't think I fit your stereotype.
 
That is something I refuse to do. You are free to do it.

Well, I am not offering you that kind of alternative. I am not asking you to abandon reason...on the contrary...I am asking you to embrace it.


No. You have offered an apologetic. Religion doesn't really give us knowledge or understanding, it exploits our ignorance in an attempt to get us to adopt its narrative. Religion is
a kind of mental virus---a chain letter.
 
You have plenty of company which will agree to what you are doing--believing with no evidence.

I hope you will not continue to claim that the power needed for the universe coming into existence does not point to God as a possible explanation...as he kind of has that kind of power. So, the evidence seems to fit for him being the cause.


The term "God" is meaningless in a scientific sense. It is simply another way of saying "I don't know".
 
 
But don't try to impose your baseless beliefs on people who insist on having objective evidence. Just because there is no evidence-based explanation for anything is no reason to assume god. Your god explanation  is not the default, yet you wish to posit it as a default for no rational reason. 

LL

LL

John

 
 


>  
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Loose Women have faced a backlash after running a poll



On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 15:48:45 UTC+1, LL wrote:







On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:27 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:



      Here in England an ITV talk show has come under severe criticism after

      running a poll after comments by Chrissie Hynde about "taking responsibility."



How about men who wear fancy clothes, drink alcohol and drive fancy cars?  Are they asking to be robbed? Should they "take responsibility" for looking like chumps?

LL


                             LL,

                                     There may well be those who would answer in the affirmative, I wouldn't know.
                                     
horses for courses and all that  malarky.

                                      Be that as it may the "Loose Women" failed to address that question in their poll,
                                      it might perforce, therefore be seen to be irrelevant to their query, but I am unable to
                                      ascertain a response that would gratify your keen interest and strong feeling on this subject,
                                      Judging by other comments you have made, me thinks thou mayest have suffered like me
                                      and have some personal sore experience. As a listener for many years with Samaritans,
                                      please feel free to contact me privately when I will be only too willing listen to your story.

                                      Whilst blasting with all guns blazing on this site to no-one and everyone may give you a
                                      measure of satisfaction, it will never address a deep rooted hurt that is raging to be assuaged.
                                      I cannot offer a panacea for any malady that besets you, but whist it may be trite it is known that
                                      a problem shared, may indeed be halved and it would be my enjoy to be of some small service to you.
                   



 

    Loose Women have faced a backlash after running a poll asking whether it is

   "ever a woman's fault if she is raped".

    The vote, posed by panellists Ruth Langsford, June Sarpong, Nadia Sawalha

    and Janet Street-Porter, came in today's episode of the ITV talk show, which

    has returned from its summer break.

    It followed comments made by Pretenders singer Chrissie Hynde, who told

    the Sunday Times that victims have to "take responsibility".


       The result of the vote, which in my view was fool-hardy and should never have been contemplated was

       overwhelmingly responded to by women and reading some individual comments today were undoubtedly

       biased by outraged feminists. Gawd bless 'em.....How-ever this does raise some serious questions, which

       need sensible consideration.


        Here I should make it clear I am expressing my own personal view, nothing I say is intended to imply any

        official view.


        Rape and rape laws should apply to both men and women: What is rape?.....Rape is ANY attempt to have sex

        with another person against their will and free choice so to do and without the influence of drugs and or

        alcohol, free choice becomes null and void if the alleged victim is under the influence of some inhibitor.

        Even if a person agrees to sex, it may still be deemed rape if the victim is under some kind of stress or

        or fear of retaliation or outrage say of a disgruntled husband or friend, or if the victim is not of an age deemed

        commensurate with the laws of the land for age of consent. Of course any use or threat with a weapon is
        rape with intent and inexcusable.


        Rape victims should no longer be "blamed" by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze

        and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker. * The word "attacker" should be consider with caution.

        It should not necessarily imply a vicious attack..... It is no longer acceptable to imagine that some men and

        women actually mean yes when they say no, even though some are known to want to be involved in a struggle as part

        of their sexual foreplay. NO must always mean NO! and must always be respected for what-ever reason NO is used.


        The term common sense is frowned upon here, but assuming it is understood to mean good sense and sound

         judgement in practical matters. we should be able in a rational society to demonstrate respect for each others feelings,

         even under the pressure of emotional sexual desires, perhaps even more so. Lack of self-control is no excuse for

         ignoring the expressed wishes of another. It becomes a question of responsibility to ones fellow human being and

         simple respect and the-do-unto-others,-as-you-would-they-would-do-unto-you analogy. This should be common sense,

         even if we beg to differ.


         Here comes the hard part: With respect comes RESPONSIBILITY.  And women, no longer considered the fairer innocent

         sex, have as much if not more responsibility than men, to act and show respect and responsibility for their own actions.


          The term pejorative expresses disgust and disapproval. The term SLUT invites what-ever befalls from the meaning of

          both terms;  men tend rightly or wrongly to look upon sluts as prick-teasers, and have no regard and or respect,

          because ANY woman who goes out deliberately to tease, is In my view acting irresponsibly and is calling down upon

          herself disrespect.... Any woman who dresses herself up to attract men in the manner of prostitutes and parades

          herself in order to deliberately attract men is asking to be noticed by men who are attracted to them. Woman cannot

          and should not expect that their behavour and actions in flaunting themselves are without consequence.

          I am all for women dressing and behaving just as they wish and please to. That being the case they should take account

          of there responsibility first to themselves and to the message they send to other men and women and the pejorative

          conclusions which may and or may not be drawn from other observers. If women want the respect and responsibility

          of men it is perforce their responsibility to earn it.


          Looking to nature, when the female is in season she is ripe for copulation from any number of suitors who do not

          ask her permission, they either fight over her for the right or just jump her.... that is nature.... we as humans are not

          animals and I am not suggesting we resort to animal tactics. What I am saying or suggesting is that it is part of human

          nature to want to copulate it is what drives our sexual desires, it is instinctive.


  Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: The challenge for atheism isn't God; it's finding an alternative to Spock-ism

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:04:12 PM UTC-6, GT wrote:


On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 10:44:56 AM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
Anlashok writes:
Atheism and science face a real challenge: To frame an account of science, or nature, that leaves room for meaning. According to this article, atheists have pinned their flag to Mr. Spock's mast. But they need Captain Kirk. Quoting: "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek. I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior. Spock-ism gives us a false picture of science. It gives us a false picture of humankind's situation. We are not disinterested knowers. The natural world is not a puzzle. ... The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value."
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/09/13/2140210/why-atheists-need-captain-kirk

There is nothing scientific about atheism. And it's not science's challenge to disprove God anyhow. Once again atheism is claiming science supports its 'non'-position, when it doesn't.

Science is "atheistic" the way that "plumbing" or "automobile repair" is atheistic, in that there is nothing about the subject that has anything to do with religious dogma.

We however, cannot say the same about some religionists (creationists and other Biblical literalists) who adopt a religion-based anti-science agenda,  which they insist be taught along
side science in the science class.

-John


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Religion after the discovery of a multiverse

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 10:27:45 PM UTC-6, GT wrote:


On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5:15:01 AM UTC+10, John Stockwell wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:05:38 PM UTC-6, GT wrote:


On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:06:46 AM UTC+10, John Stockwell wrote:
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 1:42:25 PM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:
http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/22957/religion-after-the-discovery-of-a-multiverse

Scenario: Scientists haven't found any universes that are hypothesized to be very similar to to our own, but they can prove that while choosing which new universes to look at is random, the multiverse is infinite and had no beginning as thus universes just like our own are almost certainly infinite in number.


It has occurred to me that were to get substantial evidence we lived in a infinitely large and old multiverse, the effects on religions would be massive.



I ask: What would be the effects on pantheist religion?



I disagree that the discovery of a multiverse would have a "massive" impact on religion. Remember that scientific theories are not religious dogmas, and religion is not evidence based. So, as with any other scientific theory, a well supported multiverse theory is going to be just another scientific theory, which fundamentalist religionists will ignore or treat as an atheist plot, or if they are liberal religionists, they will just view it with awe and wonder as being part of the "greater glory of God".


Theory is not fact, Dishonest John. You are misrepresenting science with this.

Theories are the working goal of science. The "facts" in science are the data. Without theories we have no way of understanding those observations. Some theories are so well supported that
we may consider the major aspects of those theories to be "facts". Examples are common descent in biology, the notion of drifting continents and the great age of the earth in earth science,
and the expansion of the universe in cosmology.

-John

Personally we might believe whatever we want. But what becomes a problem is when personal beliefs start setting the agenda. This is what is happening. For example, the 'theory' of evolution becomes in effect fact when it is not taught alongside a God theory.

There is no "God theory" in a scientific sense.
 

And, you are mistaken when you believe that data and theory add up to being fact, in any situation. Conclusions like that are not necessarily valid and are not scientific at all.  And, consider this, if there were a God, then there would be no actual facts counter-indicative of there being a God. A situation that is true.

Everything in science is subject to revision upon the acquisition of new information. The real problem with injecting "God" or other undefinable unobservables is that we have no theory
that tells us how they do and do not operate, nor do we have a way of disproving them if they do not, in fact, exist. In short there is no "science of God" nor is there any "theory of God" that
we can test to resolve the matter or to actually tell us what "God" is supposed to be. Finally, in the community of God believers, there is no ethic that would permit people to toss their
idea of God if it were proven wrong.

-John



 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] The godless pledge of allegiance to the US?








On Sep 2, 2015, at 1:38 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Actually, this pledge was taken mostly by theists:

And forced on nearly every American. 

LL

Should the US return to this older version or do away with it altogether?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.