Atheism or God? - our perception of reality.

[thedoc]

thedoc -
I have repeatedly posted that I do not accept the Bible or Biblical accounts as history. I see the OT as mythology and I question the events of the NT but not the lessons taught. So where have I posted that I value the testimony of the apostles over more recent testimony?

I'm having a problem with these two statements. If the above is so, then what is the source of this:

I consider myself a Christian, by my definition, and not by anyone else's. My belief is very simple, I believe there is a God and Jesus was the Christ. I would stress that this is what I believe, I don't claim to know.

?

And that courtroom drama was wonderfully apt. Why, after all, would the police check the whereabouts of an accused before bringing charges? Why, indeed, would either prosecution or defence attorneys during pre-trial depositions? Faith-based jurisprudence.

I really don't see the problem, I state that I do not question the lessons, and one of the lessons was the existence of God and the Christ.

The court room drama was fiction, and the variations from actual police procedures and legal practices would be chalked up to writers license.

[thedoc]

Thanks Leo.

Channeling Bill now...

A couple of details that should be pointed out, if you haven't already noticed, there is a stick of dynamite right behind the sign with a lit fuse. There is an eyeball on the cloud right behind the God figure. There is what looks like a piece of pie on the cloud in front and to the side of the sign, but I can't figure the meaning of the "Pie". The meaning of the dynamite seems obvious, but I also do not have an idea about the eye ball.

[Dalek Prime]

I didn't even notice the pie or the dynamite before, to be honest, Doc. I was concentrating on the "God in the mind" joke. And if you consider it, the fact that God is there answering to the joke, is an agument for God. It's a two way visual joke.

The pie, I would surmise, is the pie in the sky reference. The dynamite? I supose the desire to wipe God from the mind of man. The eyeball? Haven't the foggiest.

Now Doc, you have always treated me respectfully. It is never anything personal when I start going off. I'm just being spirited, in the moment. Text doesn't show this, and because I'm typing on a phone or iPad usually, I do keep things short. And so I don't say what I want to, in the best way. Intent doesn't always show through.

Cheers.

[Dalek Prime]

Oh, I have a theory. The eyeball could belong to a previous God "killed" by disbelief. Eg Roman, etc. The pie, I'm beginning to think, is a logo for the group who did the cartoon.

Anyways, over-analyzing now lol! I should stay off the religion forum for my own health. Then again, where would I go? Talk to Bob in politics? Ugh.

[thedoc]

I didn't even notice the pie or the dynamite before, to be honest, Doc. I was concentrating on the "God in the mind" joke. And if you consider it, the fact that God is there answering to the joke, is an agument for God. It's a two way visual joke.

The pie, I would surmise, is the pie in the sky reference. The dynamite? I supose the desire to wipe God from the mind of man. The eyeball? Haven't the foggiest.

Now Doc, you have always treated me respectfully. It is never anything personal when I start going off. I'm just being spirited, in the moment. Text doesn't show this, and because I'm typing on a phone or iPad usually, I do keep things short. And so I don't say what I want to, in the best way. Intent doesn't always show through.

Cheers.

Thankyou, I post from a computer so I don't have any excuse for being brief, and especially for not being able to say exactly what I mean, but I do often get it wrong. I have said many times that text on a page fails to convey much of the content that face to face conversation would, that is the main failing of posts on a forum, and it works both ways. No-one is safe from this failure. You've done very well in keeping it civil, and I appreciate that, I have been on many forums and encountered many different posters, and a few have been down right rude and crude. Those types are usually the first on my ignore list. That's not to say that I haven't fallen into that trap myself, a "reply in kind", is sometimes just too easy.

[thedoc]

A thought just occurred to me, here we are discussing a somewhat derogatory cartoon, presumably about the Christian God, and I don't remember any great cry's of outrage over it. If that were about Mohammed there would be demonstrations and calls for the executions of those responsible. Sort of makes you glad that most Christians are not so thin skinned, otherwise atheists would be in real danger.

[henry quirk]

Posted the following elsewhere...believe it was lost amidst a flurry of posts...sumthin' Dalek posted up-thread (in this thread) prompts me to re-post here...

-----

If 'god' exists then I can only (off the top of my head) conclude...

(1) It's 'all powerful' but (for some reason) chooses not to involve itself in the world (I see no evidence of divine intervention in the world...do you?).

Since 'god' is not involved: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who sits back and does nothing but play voyeur (or, maybe, is off doing something else entirely).


(2) It's not 'all powerful' and -- for that reason -- can't do anything in the world.

Since 'god' is limited: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who may want to intervene but is incapable.


(3) It's so alien in the way it thinks (in agenda, goal, purpose, etc.) its action in the world is incomprehensible and indistinguishable from natural occurrence.

Since 'god' is an alien: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who is so far removed from me I can't hope to frame an entreaty it could even understand.


(4) It's a tricksy, manipulative, jackass playing with the world like my nephew does a June bug.

Since 'god' is a fucker: I'm on my own. Only good reason to spend time thinking about 'god' (in this case) is to figure out how to fly under its radar.


Of course: there may be no 'god'...in which case: I'm on my own...*shrug*

[Dalek Prime]

You often say what I want to say Henry. So sometimes I just let you do it, with a "uh-huh" from me. Not that I want you speaking for me, as you said to Melchior.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Dalek Prime]

HA!

"Yeah, what he said!"

[Dalek Prime]

A thought just occurred to me, here we are discussing a somewhat derogatory cartoon, presumably about the Christian God, and I don't remember any great cry's of outrage over it. If that were about Mohammed there would be demonstrations and calls for the executions of those responsible. Sort of makes you glad that most Christians are not so thin skinned, otherwise atheists would be in real danger.

True enough Doc.

[Skip]

I really don't see the problem, I state that I do not question the lessons, and one of the lessons was the existence of God and the Christ.

No contradiction at all? The lessons you believe are in the scriptures you doubt. Those scriptures you doubt are the only primary source of the lessons you believe. The pre-edited biblical documents are, as far as I know, the only original source of information about the nature of God. Perhaps you have access to those and have chosen the credible ones and discarded the suspect. Otherwise, you can ignore the bible entirely and go with Paul.... Perhaps he had access to eye-witness repo..... oh, wait....

[thedoc]

I really don't see the problem, I state that I do not question the lessons, and one of the lessons was the existence of God and the Christ.

No contradiction at all? The lessons you believe are in the scriptures you doubt. Those scriptures you doubt are the only primary source of the lessons you believe. The pre-edited biblical documents are, as far as I know, the only original source of information about the nature of God. Perhaps you have access to those and have chosen the credible ones and discarded the suspect. Otherwise, you can ignore the bible entirely and go with Paul.... Perhaps he had access to eye-witness repo..... oh, wait....

It seems that you and I read the Bible differently, either to find fault and criticize, or to find what truth is there. Suit yourself.

[Skip]

It seems that you and I read the Bible differently, either to find fault and criticize, or to find what truth is there. Suit yourself.

I didn't find fault with or criticize the bible. It just happens to be the only source of information about the God of Judea, Islam and Christianity, and the saviour, and his lessons. I don't believe any of it is historically factual. The OT is mythology; the NT is folklore with a big dollop of RC propaganda added 3 centuries later. But then, I also don't believe in the god depicted in the old part, nor his sacrificial son in the new part. I find absolute disbelief in all of it consistent and satisfying.

Whereas, you state

thedoc -
I have repeatedly posted that I do not accept the Bible or Biblical accounts as history. I see the OT as mythology and I question the events of the NT but not the lessons taught. So where have I posted that I value the testimony of the apostles over more recent testimony?

"the lessons taught" - by whom, if not the person the apostles talked about? What more recent testimony? Where did get your God and Christ, if not from the bible? How selectively do you have to read for what truth is there? And on what basis do you decide which is myth and which is truth?

[Obvious Leo]

And on what basis do you decide which is myth and which is truth?

You decide on the basis of the most favourable outcome for yourself, Skip. If you tell a bloke not to touch the wall because the paint's still wet then he'll poke his finger into it just to test this proposition for himself. However if you tell him that his own existence was brought about because of a personal decision made by a supernatural being there's a fair chance that he'll accept it without question. Why would he do such an absurd thing? The answer is he wouldn't unless you added a few embellishments to the story. The most alluring such embellishment is that if you grovel before this being and subject yourself to all manner of humiliations in his service he will reward you with immortality. Just to be on the safe side it also helps if you sling a few bucks in the direction of the self-appointed spokespersons of this being. Coincidentally these spokespersons are the guys who decide what sort of grovelling and self-abasement would be the most pleasing to the tooth fairy.

Sorry I meant leprechaun, or was it unicorn, or was it Santa Claus?

I'm buggered if I can remember but it's a fucking Ponzi scheme, Skip, and I'm just pissed off that I never thought of it first.