(February 8, 2012 at 2:38 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I don't. That's other people's misconception.

All I do is request respect for my beliefs in witchcraft.

Big difference.

You can demand respect for your right to believe whatever crap you want, but not respect for the belief itself.

(February 8, 2012 at 2:38 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I don't sit around banging my head against the wall constantly trying to justify witchcraft to myself. I personally don't have any problems with it. It's totally compatible with my scientific view of the world. And I've been a scientist my entire life, so I understand quite a bit about science. There simply is no conflict between science and witchcraft as I view either of them.

If you haven't tried to justify it, if you haven't examined its premises, then how do you know that it is compatible with science? What potential contradictions have you ruled out?

(February 8, 2012 at 2:38 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I see no reason why we can't all respect each other for having totally different views of life.

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong is the assumption that anyone and everyone deserves some respect, by default, for their views, irrespective of what those views might be.

Drawing an analogy with economics, consider a person's views and beliefs as a commodity. Then the respect is its price. Not all commodities have equal price by default. Not all commodities have any price by default. And the price is certainly not independent of the commodity itself.

And not a single fuck shall be given for "Witchcraft or Magick"

I'll see the OP and raise him this:

What can't the bible be interpreted to say

(February 8, 2012 at 2:59 am)Undeceived Wrote: Quite likely we'll be made of substance entirely different from the combination of protons, neutrons and electrons.

Oh, so not like Jesus' body like you said earlier.

Quote:Heaven's humanly-imagined concept being illogical to other humans sidesteps..........

Hang on! Are you now saying we can't imagine it? What happened to holding my new-born baby? You explained earlier how wonderful it would feel but now you are saying we can't imagine it. Why have you changed your mind so quickly?

Quote: All historical documents, artifacts, locations and knowledge of the time between AD 0 and AD 33 point to Jesus living, dying, the body vacating the tomb, and people believing him resurrected. There are no contradictions to these events.

You have gone off at a tangent but let me repeat your words and insert the name of a different god. The statement is equally valid/invalid....... All historical documents, artifacts, locations and knowledge of the time between AD 0 and AD 33 point to Mithras living, dying, the body vacating the tomb, and people believing him resurrected. There are no contradictions to these events. The evidence for Mithras, and several other gods, doing this way before Jesus is every bit as reliable as the bible. You have simply chosen to believe in one particular god and ignore the rest.

Quote:If we were truly honest, we’d say there is more testable/observable/demonstrative scientific evidence in favor of Jesus Christ than for evolution.

Tempting though it is to laugh in your face, I feel I should point out politely that you are talking out of your backside. You clearly have no idea what evidence there is for evolution. It may be amusing for you to present your 'scientific evidence in favour of Jesus' though. Do tell. Let us see what you think constitutes scientific evidence.

Quote:Well logically He wouldn’t create us for the sole purpose of hating us and wreaking havoc.

Supposition! Have you never seen a child with ants, worms, frogs, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs etc? Did that child love them and take them to look after them in paradise after death? Or did that child just let them die of thirst or hunger and leave them to live in their own filth?

Quote: Instead, most of our lives are fairly pleasant.....

Try telling that to the millions who die of thirst, hunger, and god-given disease every year - year after year after year.

Quote:...and the Bible (this God’s messaging device) explains....

If the bible is god's messaging device, why did he do such an abysmally poor job of inspiring people to write it? Not only is it full of hate and absolutely awful examples of how to behave, it is so open to interpretation that there are literally hundreds of different Christian denominations all with differing ideas about how it should be understood. This from some super brain? Hardly! I'm sure you know that the bible was written on the insistence of Emperor Constantine and that the Biscops resisted him as long as they could because they were desperately trying to iron out the inconsistencies. They were even arguing over whether the Old Testament should be included.

Quote: If we make God out to be evil and cruel some of the time and conveniently indifferent all other times, what have we done? We’ve used our own logic to conceptualize what God might be like, and made him out to be as illogical as we can.

I think the answer you are looking for there is that we have been honest rather than bowing to an uncaring deity in the hope that he may look after us. That's how all religions begin 'Undeceived'.

Quote:As said before, our personal God of the Bible would be too complex to analyze with our created, less-complex brains.

Pure assumption. Our brains are easily capable of writing a vastly more logical, more loving and consistent bible than your god so why assume he has a better brain than you?

Quote: Also, if the writers thought the God they portrayed was not logical, they would have rewrote Him to make Him seem more so. Why would fabricators risk writing an Old Testament judgment that would turn away thousands of readers?

It seems that you do not understand the origins of the various conflicting documents. It is not only the Old Testament that has thoroughly unpleasant examples of god's behaviour. Jesus said he had not come to bring peace.... "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Love and peace?


Like most Christians I have spoken to, you have not thought it through. You just made it up when flaws in your beliefs were pointed out. Your description of heaven and hell is just a tiny example and you still have not explained why you think heaven is real but hell is not. At least the Muslims have worked up a better explanation, I would far rather go to Jannah or Valhalla with their feasting and drinking than heaven with mind numbing boredom. All I would have to do is die in battle - easy!

(February 8, 2012 at 3:37 am)genkaus Wrote: If you haven't tried to justify it, if you haven't examined its premises, then how do you know that it is compatible with science? What potential contradictions have you ruled out?

I never said that I haven't tried to justify it.
What I said is that I don't sit around banging my head against the wall trying to justify it.
It's simply not hard at all to justify it from my perspective.

I have no clue where you think their might be contradictions so I certainly can't address those.
Nor would I care to hear about your objections.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of your objections are based on
erroneous ideas that you have concerning what you believe science has ruled out.

Why should I accept or adopt your opinions on that?
I have my own opinions on that based on a lifetime of having studied the sciences.
So why would I look to you to decide for me what I should deem to be scientifically plausible?

I'll gladly share with you a very strong personal opinion that I do currently hold.
It is my personal view that many scientists (and secular atheists) are
indeed spreading falsehoods about just exactly what science truly can and cannot rule out.
So as far as I'm concerned you may very well have bought into those
erroneous teachings and/or popular misconceptions yourself.

Why should I be concerned with that nonsense?

~~~

---

(February 8, 2012 at 3:40 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: And not a single fuck shall be given for "Witchcraft or Magick"

Thanks for the heads-up.

Next time I go to the cathouse I'll know to take cash with me instead of trying to barter my way in with an amulet.

---

(February 8, 2012 at 3:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: What can't the bible be interpreted to say

"God loves you unconditionally"

(February 8, 2012 at 3:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'll see the OP and raise him this:

What can't the bible be interpreted to say

God is evil
Jesus chose to sin
any basis for scientific discovery

(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(February 8, 2012 at 3:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'll see the OP and raise him this:

What can't the bible be interpreted to say

God is evil
Jesus chose to sin
any basis for scientific discovery

2Chr.34
[24] Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah:
[25] Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched.

God bringing evil upon people?
Surely sounds like an evil God to me.
His wrath shall be poured out and shall not be quenched?
Sounds like he really lost his temper on that day.
Open to interpretation anyone?

To undeceived:

How about standing in the middle of a field, where there are no train tracks and feeling you must warn your friends about a train? THAT is what you do, and it is silly.

(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(February 8, 2012 at 3:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'll see the OP and raise him this:

What can't the bible be interpreted to say

God is evil
Jesus chose to sin
any basis for scientific discovery

The bible can absolutely be interpreted to make god evil...I do it all the time, as do most of us here, next.

Mark 10:17 "And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Jesus just denied the divinity of christ, which is.....as far as I'm aware...sinful blasphemy..lol. Next.

Believe Stat and Ryft would tell you that the god described in the bible (our only source of information about this god) is the only god which meets the "neccessarry preconditions of knowledge"..and so..the bible, and the abrahamic god, are the only basis for scientific discovery of any kind. Got any more of these? Because I enjoy whittling down things like this.

@Aard, you don't have to die in battle, you can also hang yourself or throw yourself off a cliff, if death in battle is not an option. Though to choose these over the possibility of death in battle will not grant you entrance. They're measures for the elderly and infirm (or women..redundant as far as they were concerned..lol), not the young. The Aesir would rather you go pick a fight with a guy with a knife.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I never said that I haven't tried to justify it.

You've never said you have.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: What I said is that I don't sit around banging my head against the wall trying to justify it.
It's simply not hard at all to justify it from my perspective.

Don't tell, show.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I have no clue where you think their might be contradictions so I certainly can't address those.

Unless you present your justifications, I cannot point to any contradictions either.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: Nor would I care to hear about your objections.

Yes, I know that your position is "I don't know and I don't want to know".

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of your objections are based on
erroneous ideas that you have concerning what you believe science has ruled out.

No need to bet. We can find out here and now. You provide your justification, I'll provide the objections and we can see if they are erroneous or not.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should I accept or adopt your opinions on that?

Because they are rationally justifiable.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I have my own opinions on that based on a lifetime of having studied the sciences.

Then present your bases and justify your opinions.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: So why would I look to you to decide for me what I should deem to be scientifically plausible?

You shouldn't. You should look at reality. And if you were, you wouldn't be so reluctant to present your justification.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I'll gladly share with you a very strong personal opinion that I do currently hold.
It is my personal view that many scientists (and secular atheists) are
indeed spreading falsehoods about just exactly what science truly can and cannot rule out.
So as far as I'm concerned you may very well have bought into those
erroneous teachings and/or popular misconceptions yourself.

If you have any knowledge of what my misconceptions are or what are the erroneous teachings that I've bought into, then by all means, present them.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:46 am)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should I be concerned with that nonsense?

You aren't concerned about your own lack of knowledge?