Well, after breaking 2000 comments on the previous thread, I think it’s time to move to a new one. Feel free to continue the conversation here.
Also, I want to make a note about future posts. The tone on this blog for the last month or so has been decidedly different than what it used to be. While that’s definitely made things interesting, I’d like to move back to a tone more in line with the way things used to be. So going forward, I want the comments on all new posts to remain civil. We can all make our points, and I expect to see a wide range of opinions. But I don’t want to get into name-calling and bashing when we can’t all agree on particular issues. Let’s try to stay focused on the points and not get side-tracked with personal stuff. Let’s also keep each comment substantive so we don’t rack up so many comments in such a short period of time that it’s hard for everyone to keep track.
If you don’t feel like you can participate within those guidelines, then feel free to continue posting within this thread (and any future “Kathy” threads, if they’re needed), because I won’t be enforcing any guidelines here. But if you want to comment on any other posts, you’ll need to abide by the rules I just laid out. Otherwise, your comment will be subject to deletion, and after a warning, you might find yourself banned from at least that thread, if not the entire blog.
If there are any questions, let me know.
Thanks
as I mentioned earlier, Ruth, scientists, for example, assemble facts and put them together, like puzzle pieces, until a picture emerges – theists begin with a picture, and reject any facts, however valid, that don’t lead to the construction of that picture.
I was attempting to make a point, though I don’t think it will be well received. Kathy thinks everyone else lacks honesty and objectivity. She is the ultimate holder of truth and a beacon of objectivity in her mind. But could she not have an interpretation wrong? Could she not be mistaken?
We’ve all argued our points of view and, in my opinion, done so with sound logic and reason. But if we use our logic and reason and it comes to a different conclusion we’re not objective. We’re dishonest. Because she can’t possibly be wrong.
She keeps claiming we haven’t backed up our reasons. We’ve done so with a lot more evidence than she has. Her evidence is her conclusions drawn from her own bias.
LikeLike
but ruth, she’s trying to do what’s right, and she believes in god, the one true god, so as long as her biases and conclusions agree with the one true god’s bible, then of course she’s right and any who disagree are wrong.
why cant you understand that? oh yeah, you’re a liberal.
LikeLike
And all the while refusing to read anything that might challenge her presuppositions labeling it as not objective without even having read it. She wants us to cherry pick and give her examples so she can discard it out of hand.
Do I expect her to read everything? No, but it would be nice if she read something someone gave her a reference for without trying to decide it’s objectivity first. How does one decide that without actually reading it for themselves. Something tells me she already has her mind made up because of Paine’s conclusions they he lacks objectivity. So she won’t bother to read it because it doesn’t affirm her faith.
LikeLike
“would this be credible evidence for santa’s elves if there were such martyrs?” – Today, William, such people would be locked away for their own protection – in early Iron Age Israel, they likely would have started a new religion.
LikeLike
William, you have a lot more patience for this than I do.
LikeLike
ruth, it’s not patience, it’s boredom. This is a source of entertainment, even though at times of the tragic sort.
But I guess i want any silent passerby to see that the ridiculous arguments can be countered. Even if i dont do the best job at countering them, an intelligent person could see what’s better and more reasonable.
And I couldnt stand it if the faulty logic were to end up being the final word here. It’s petty of me, but competition spurs me onward.
LikeLike
“Kathy thinks everyone else lacks honesty and objectivity. She is the ultimate holder of truth and a beacon of objectivity in her mind.” – Ironically, Ruth, that’s the very same “sin of Pride” that she’s been preaching against!
LikeLike
Ironically, Ruth, that’s the very same “sin of Pride” that she’s been preaching against!
I was starting to think irony was what she was going for.
LikeLike
“I was starting to think irony was what she was going for.” – Nah, she’s strictly Permanent Press.
LikeLike
RE the compelling evidence of Kathy’s martyr’s:
I offer you, “the earth is flat,” “the sun revolves around the earth,” etc.
LikeLike
Sure. Go ahead. Keep mocking Santa and his elves. You won’t be laughing on Christmas morning.
“Presents come in; milk and cookies run out. You can’t explain that!”
LikeLike
and who makes the presents if not the elves? logic would dictate that it’s the elves.
LikeLike
Arch — LOVE Carl Sagan. He made some very profound statements/observations. Unfortunately, there are those who are too blind to recognize (understand?) his wisdom.
And –sigh– you were right. As you said, she’s not going to read any books we suggest because … I’m reading the most important Book. No other book has nearly as much wisdom.
Obviously Kathy is not the adventurous type. She would rather stay in her little cocoon of safety and read her beloved book (you know, the one written by her “all-loving god”) than to venture into a world that might conflict with her cozy and warm belief system.
Kathy, no one says you have to agree with any of the books we’ve suggested. If fact, you can sit there and shake your head throughout the entire book. All we’re asking is that you open that very closed mind for just a little while and allow some new thoughts to enter. Besides, rather than change your thinking, it might give you new ammunition to use against us heathens. HA!
LikeLike
“and who makes the presents if not the elves? logic would dictate that it’s the elves.” – I’d call that compelling evidence.
LikeLike
Carmen,
“Kathy –
There is no such thing as a boogeyman called satan either.
It’s clear, however, that you have been so bamboozled that it’s probably impossible for you to reach any kind of objective viewpoint. I feel for you and your family.”
Do you know something that Christians don’t? Please share this information..
and also, do you watch the news at all? All people aren’t “good”, it’s clear that evil exists.
Where are you getting all this knowledge from Carmen?? It seems to be from your own mind and nothing more.. sorry but that’s not good enough for me and others who apply objectivity and reason.
LikeLike
“sorry but that’s not good enough for me and others who apply objectivity and reason.” – kathy
of course it isnt. For you to buy into it, it requires a collection of old books that claim to speak for god.
LikeLike
“Do you know something that Christians don’t? Please share this information.. – actually, most of us know MANY things that Christians don’t, because Christians like you, due to the “faith” requirement, rarely research the origins of their own religion, so we not only know what Christians know, many of us having BEEN Christians, and since having our blinders removed, have also researched the origins of the Bible, and thus know many, MANY things that most Christians don’t.
Although you likely haven’t had time to read down that far before you asked that question, you will eventually come to my comment that “Satan” is actually “Lord Set,” or “Set Ten” (“ten” meaning “Lord”), the evil brother of the Egyptian god, Osiris.
Geb, the Egyptian god of the earth, and Nut, the Egyptian goddess of the sky, had four children – two twin boys, Osiris and Set, and two twin girls, Isis and Nephthys – Osiris married his sister, Isis, and fathered Horus, while Set married his sister Nephthys (they did that a lot in those days, and still do, in some parts of the American South).
So the Judeo/Christian religion borrowed their “Satan” from the Egyptians, just as they borrowed their “flood” from the Sumerians, and their “Moses” from the Amurrites. And I’m reasonably sure that you and most other Christians don’t know any of that.
Actually, the popular motif of Isis suckling her son Horus, lived on in a Christianized context as the popular image of Mary suckling the infant son Jesus from the fifth century onward. (Loverance, Rowena (2007). Christian Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 117 – I know how much you like evidence, at least when it’s given by others. Providing it? Not so much!).
LikeLike
Yeah, Carmen, evil comes from da bad, bad, debbil. Don’t ya know anything?!?
LikeLike
None of you liberals will be laughing when you’re burning in hell with Joseph Stalin and Walt Disney.
Why cant any of you understand that the bible’s authors claimed to speak for god and the fact that people actually died over those claims is extraordinary evidence that it’s all true.
if you want to go on mocking your claimed savior, then please explain what on earth makes more sense than all of that?
LikeLike
Ruth,
“I didn’t mean to imply that crucifixion and flogging wasn’t horrendous.”
I know you didn’t mean to.. but the point is that you did.. which shows a lack of objectivity.. it reveals your bias.
“But what I’ll continue to point out to you is that in light of eternity, which is what we’re talking about, this was hardly a blink of an eye for God.”
No, what we’re talking about is God and His love for us. And this is what atheists don’t want to talk about. You don’t want to address what God has done for you.. only what God is doing “wrong”.
“You contend that we will all suffer for eternity for our disbelief because we weren’t appreciative enough of a relatively small sacrifice on God’s part.”
There you go.. you did it again. You need to diminish what He did for you.
“When you look at the “big picture” you believe that it is just for people to suffer for eternity for mere disbelief in something that is quite possibly all just a myth. You are the person here who starts with the premise, the presupposition, that all if this is absolute truth. ”
Wrong Ruth.. my whole argument is that you/ atheists/ liberals lack objectivity. But you refuse to acknowledge that. This is dishonest. And it’s a sin. And look at the damage this sin had done to you and others… you dismiss God. You “claim” it’s because of lack of evidence etc.. but I’m claiming and have proven that it’s because of lack of objectivity. That’s the big picture Ruth.
You reject God and what He’s done for you.. even worse.. you try to diminish in the eyes of others what He’s done for all of us. Anyone who applies honesty wouldn’t attempt to dimisnish the suffering Jesus went through as you have… to you it’s a “relatively small sacrifice”.
“I don’t believe that Jesus went to hell for three days. Because I don’t believe there’s a hell. So that leaves us with his crucifixion, which while horrendous, there are many people who have suffered worse fates. Yes, I’m supposed to bow the knee to a God who sacrificed himself to himself to save me from himself.”
I don’t know of any passages in the Bible that claim Jesus went to hell for 3 days.. so I don’t believe that either.
Yes, some have suffered worse fates.. but voluntarily? Well, the disciples.. but the BIG difference here is that they weren’t God. In all other religions the god doesn’t suffer in any way for their followers.. much less die a horrific death. It’s the ultimate demonstration of love of our Creator, for us… that you, again, call a “relatively small sacrifice”.
“I noticed you didn’t answer my point about freewill.”
Because it was just another bad point showing you refuse to accept the concept. For the record.. that’s the reason I bypass many comments here.. I have to be selective, I don’t have the time for every bad point.
No matter how you try to argue it away, you have free will in this life. You’ve demonstrated this yourself. God gave you / all of us the free will to follow Him or reject Him.
“Can you elaborate on what you mean here? If Nate gives examples, and those examples don’t line up with your interpretation does that mean that the interpretation lacks objectivity and your interpretation is necessarily the correct interpretation….on everything?”
No. It means that Nate was incorrect when he claimed that lack of objectivity couldn’t be a factor.
LikeLike
I know you didn’t mean to.. but the point is that you did.. which shows a lack of objectivity.. it reveals your bias.
There you go.. you did it again. You need to diminish what He did for you.
I don’t need to diminish anything that anyone has done for me. I simply don’t believe that Jesus was any God or that God sent Jesus to be any kind of sacrifice for me or anyone else.
Do you really not understand what it means to disbelieve?
LikeLike
I was simply trying to show you the screwed up logic it takes to get love from this so-called sacrifice. You need a scapegoat.
LikeLike
None of you liberals will be laughing when you’re burning in hell with Joseph Stalin and Walt Disney.
Yeah, and Kathy wants to be there to see us get what’s coming to us all, too.
LikeLike
Ruth cont..
“This is exactly what you have been doing. You have been “reminding us” of our future in the fires of hell if we don’t turn from our wicked ways. You’ve encouraged us all to hedge our bets if for no other reason than to escape what’s going to happen to us. They’re not twisting anything you haven’t attempted to use yourself.”
I’ve NEVER talked about “the fires” Ruth. I’ve been very careful when addressing what happens to non believers according to the Bible. It seems that I should just not talk about that at all.. but for Christians it’s a reality and it’s a critical part of the picture. The difference is that I’m NOT trying to use it intentionally to intimidate or coerce.. that’s not what God wants.. it’s clear in the Bible since it is mentioned so infrequently.. which I was just wondering if Islam’s book does mention hell frequently as an intimidation tactic to force people to submit.. I’m sure it does. That’s what Islam means.. to submit. Surely one of the reasons that religion breeds so many savages.
And I’m not encouraging you to “hedge your bets” either.. I’m trying to show that your CHOICE of rejecting God goes AGAINST the odds. And because of that, it proves your bias/ lack of objectivity.
LikeLike
“I know you didn’t mean to.. but the point is that you did.. which shows a lack of objectivity.. it reveals your bias.” – kathy
this is kind of a jerk move here. Earlier you’re comments have implied that all muslims are murders. When called on it, you just said, “I never said “all”…”
Your reply didnt even own up to your mis-communication, but even so, we accepted your clarification without holding you to what you originally implied – whether intentional or unintentional.
Now, after a clarification, you’re saying that you wont accept it and must hold her to what you originally understood and then have the audacity to call her “unobjective” and “biased.”
pretty crappy.
you’re certainly revealing yourself.
LikeLike