The benefits of being christian. Where are there???

[Banned]

Rational thinking is expected of God, but it is not to be the ultimate criterion for authority on truth. The Bible is that standard.

No, the bible is the claim. If all you have to prop up your god is the storybook, then you lose the race at the first fence, because then you need to establish why we should take the storybook any way seriously. See, if we're talking about gods, pointing to mythology is a monstrous red herring. And I don't chase red herring. Swallowing the mythology uncritically is precisely the opposite of critical thinking. Remember the evidence filter?

That's it - the Bible is the claim.

[Cyberman]

Great. Now can you substantiate that claim?

[Banned]

I'm not a Christian but I like a challenge...

Actually, I don’t see heaven as a reward.

Think about it. You’re going to spend eternity with a god who knows your thoughts before you think them and will hold you responsible for your thoughts even if you don’t act on them.

How long will you be happy in a situation like that?

The bible speaks of angels who left heaven and married women. These aren’t even the angels that rebelled with Satan. What was it about their heavenly experience that was so unsatisfactory they preferred to be with human women at a time when there was no Ivory soap or Right Guard?

It's not my conversation, so pardon my interuption, you are right about such a place being totally unsuitable for ordinary people. Luckily it's not true at all. Happy researching.

---

Great. Now can you substantiate that claim?

The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

[Cyberman]

Great. Now can you substantiate that claim?

The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

Okay. Why did you steal my car?

[Banned]

In nearly all of your posts you make references to the other end of the torso, why is that?

Because xhristards are full of shit.

And you? Why would someone as resiliant as you be bothered by that?

---

The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

Okay. Why did you steal my car?

Because it had wheels?

[Cyberman]

No, I'm saying you came around to my home and stole my actual car, for real. I'm asking why.

[Banned]

No, I'm saying you came around to my home and stole my actual car, for real. I'm asking why.

It's your reality vs mine.

---

What's next in this hypothetical?

[Rhondazvous]

No, the bible is the claim. If all you have to prop up your god is the storybook, then you lose the race at the first fence, because then you need to establish why we should take the storybook any way seriously. See, if we're talking about gods, pointing to mythology is a monstrous red herring. And I don't chase red herring. Swallowing the mythology uncritically is precisely the opposite of critical thinking. Remember the evidence filter?

That's it - the Bible is the claim.

"The Bible?"

As if there were only one. As if they all said the same thing. Please tell me that they do. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine.

---

Actually, I don’t see heaven as a reward.

Think about it. You’re going to spend eternity with a god who knows your thoughts before you think them and will hold you responsible for your thoughts even if you don’t act on them.

How long will you be happy in a situation like that?

The bible speaks of angels who left heaven and married women. These aren’t even the angels that rebelled with Satan. What was it about their heavenly experience that was so unsatisfactory they preferred to be with human women at a time when there was no Ivory soap or Right Guard?

It's not my conversation, so pardon my interuption, you are right about such a place being totally unsuitable for ordinary people. Luckily it's not true at all. Happy researching.

Everything I said is from "the" Bible

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

You know when I sit down and when I get up.
   You know my thoughts before I think them.

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

[vulcanlogician]

But the fuckers are constantly stressed.  They can't fart without offending their silly-assed god.

In nearly all of your posts you make references to the other end of the torso, why is that?

Have you met Catholic Lady yet?

No, the bible is the claim. If all you have to prop up your god is the storybook, then you lose the race at the first fence, because then you need to establish why we should take the storybook any way seriously. See, if we're talking about gods, pointing to mythology is a monstrous red herring. And I don't chase red herring. Swallowing the mythology uncritically is precisely the opposite of critical thinking. Remember the evidence filter?

That's it - the Bible is the claim.

Great. Now can you substantiate that claim?

The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

You claim that critical thinking is "the great humanistic pill that nearly all will swallow" but critical thinking predates humanism by quite a few centuries. Furthermore it is possible to be a critical thinker without being a humanist (See Friedrich Nietzsche or H.L. Mencken).

One could argue that critical thinking existed before him, but the process was first put into coherent form by Socrates around 400 B.C. and then expounded upon by Plato. These two thinkers assumed a God figure, but (at the same time) they thought it was beneficial to ask others to substantiate claims. They were not humanists either. If critical thinking is some kind of "humanist conspiracy" it has been taking shape for quite a long time and has inspired Christians and atheists alike in their pursuit of the truth. If you are going to relate critical thinking to humanism, would you please explain yourself?

Asking you to substantiate the bible is not a trick question. If you actually managed to substantiate it (even in some small degree) I'm sure that Cyberman would admit that you had a point. His asking you to produce such substantiation is completely fair. You would do the same thing in his position.

If someone approached you with an outrageous claim -- like "You stole my car"-- you would demand that they substantiate it. It would be your right to make such a demand, wouldn't it? (I'm not sure this is where Cyberman was going, but it's my best guess.)

What if a Hindu approached you and said that Krishna is the Lord of the cosmos? Would you just believe him? Neither would I. What if, when you denied his claim and told him you believed the Bible, he said, "Oh, that Christian pill that many more will swallow..."? Would you take him seriously? Think about our perspective in regards to the statements you are making. If a Hindu made the sort of statements YOU are making, except in regards to Hinduism, would you be convinced? What if he pointed to a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and said that it substantiates itself? Would that convince you in the slightest?

You and all atheists have something in common. We completely agree on the credibility of the Bhagavad Gita. Now that we have found some common ground, please explain why we should regard the bible any differently than the Gita? Why do you believe what you believe? 

In many (but not all) cases, people believe stuff simply because they were told to. Do you believe the bible simply because you were told to by other people? Or is there another reason? What is that reason?

[Banned]

Have you met Catholic Lady yet?

That's it - the Bible is the claim.
The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

You claim that critical thinking is "the great humanistic pill that nearly all will swallow" but critical thinking predates humanism by quite a few centuries. Furthermore it is possible to be a critical thinker without being a humanist (See Friedrich Nietzsche or H.L. Mencken).

One could argue that critical thinking existed before him, but the process was first put into coherent form by Socrates around 400 B.C. and then expounded upon by Plato. These two thinkers assumed a God figure, but (at the same time) they thought it was beneficial to ask others to substantiate claims. They were not humanists either. If critical thinking is some kind of "humanist conspiracy" it has been taking shape for quite a long time and has inspired Christians and atheists alike in their pursuit of the truth. If you are going to relate critical thinking to humanism, would you please explain yourself?

Asking you to substantiate the bible is not a trick question. If you actually managed to substantiate it (even in some small degree) I'm sure that Cyberman would admit that you had a point. His asking you to produce such substantiation is completely fair. You would do the same thing in his position.

If someone approached you with an outrageous claim -- like "You stole my car"-- you would demand that they substantiate it. It would be your right to make such a demand, wouldn't it? (I'm not sure this is where Cyberman was going, but it's my best guess.)

What if a Hindu approached you and said that Krishna is the Lord of the cosmos? Would you just believe him? Neither would I. What if, when you denied his claim and told him you believed the Bible, he said, "Oh, that Christian pill that many more will swallow..."? Would you take him seriously? Think about our perspective in regards to the statements you are making. If a Hindu made the sort of statements YOU are making, except in regards to Hinduism, would you be convinced? What if he pointed to a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and said that it substantiates itself? Would that convince you in the slightest?

You and all atheists have something in common. We completely agree on the credibility of the Bhagavad Gita. Now that we have found some common ground, please explain why we should regard the bible any differently than the Gita? Why do you believe what you believe? 

In many (but not all) cases, people believe stuff simply because they were told to. Do you believe the bible simply because you were told to by other people? Or is there another reason? What is that reason?

The snake has many heads, or socks if you like.
In a few forums you are only ever talking to one creep. But I treat the words as if they are coming from different individuals and not the one person or group of people. It won't be long before you are talking with yourself on this forum (panel). But it is essential that all be given their final opportunity to make a decision about the truth, so that their fate may be sealed. The term wicked is more specifially aimed at those who pretend to be ignorant of the truth and war against it. It is not aimed at those who have had the misfortune of never knowing any better, whose lives are influenced for evil through the first.

As far as substantiation is concerned, the Bible can substantiate itself. End of argument.

And as far as humanism is concerned, I am not talking about it as a recognizable fashion, but as a principle. Humanism was taught by Satan in the garden or Eden, "ye shalll be as gods, knowing good and evil." It was a supposition that people had the brains to do without God.
The second demo of humanism came with Cain who murdered his brother Abel.