(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Subject Of Story Contradictory

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 1:22 a.m.

A recent article in the paper about “freethinker” Doug Krueger has prompted a few responses to his seemingly illogical opinions.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/28/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

COMMENTARY: School Funding Reaction Raises Do...

Skepticism is a requirement of the job for any journalist. Cynicism is one of the job’s hazards, best avoided by nurturing a hope that most people will choose honesty over ... Read »

Next Story »

LETTERS

Kids’ rights trampled I think that our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they were here today. They did not imagine how the Second Amendment would be misi... Read »

The usual falsehood:

>>This is only his opinion, since (unless he knows everything in the universe)he cannot prove there is no God,....

Neither can you prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

Posted by: cdawg

January 28, 2013 at 1:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Yes, cdawg, there is an Easter Bunny. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist that abounds and gives our lives the highest beauty and joy. cdawg, certainly nobody sees the Easter Bunny, but that is no sign that there is no Easter Bunny. Haven't you found that the most real things in the world are those that we cannot see.

Come into a warm house, after being caught in a blizzard; can you see the heat, no, but you can feel it, right cdawg? And it warms and makes you happy. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the worders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You can tear apart a baby's rattle and see what makes to noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest army could tear apart. Only faith, hope, love, and imagination can push aside the veil that we might see the supernatural beauty and glory beyoud. Is it real, cdawg asks, Ah, in all this world there is nothing else so real and abiding.

No Easter Bunny! Thank God he lives, and a thousand years from now, he will continue to live and the proof of his existance is the joy and gladness in the heart of a child."---adapted from New York Sun, Sept 21, 1897, Francis Pharcellus Church

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 2:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>My belief is based on an appeal to an ultimate standard of truth and morality, but for an atheist there is no ultimate standard.

Beliefs do not produce either truth or morality.

Posted by: cdawg

January 28, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution IS a given for most people for whom fact is more persuasive than dogma. Bill Corbin represents the dogmatic thinker's point of view.

Evolution is clearly not impossible, but is accepted by scientifically literate thinkers everywhere as the core organizing principle of the biological sciences. Corbin's assertions regarding evolution are simply the products of ignorance.

Stating that the "principles of physics say nothing happens by itself" may seem a reasonable assertion for a dogmatic, non-quantum thinker like Corbin, but it's not true for theoretical physicists and cosmological thinkers. Lawrence M. Krausse, Ph.D., explains that "nothing" is an unstable state from which "something" is constantly being created.

Corbin's thinking errors are compounded by ignorantly conflating the science of evolution with the sciences of cosmology and abiogenesis. No wonder the conclusions don't bear up.

"No scientific discovery has disproved anything in the Bible," except of course innumerable scientific discoveries in the broad fields of biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, astronomy, cosmology, etc. No rational person can accept a literal seven day creation.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 28, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A day with God could be a thousand years and a thousand in the Hebrew mind is an indeterminate nunber of years. See Bullick, "Number in Scripture"

How old is the creation, Only God Knows.

"The world is older and bigger than we are. This a hard truth for some folks to swallow."---Edward Abbey

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 5:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What an intellectual mess eh? I keep trying to lure Doug to drop by, but he says he's just too busy.

Let's unpack Bill's stuff:

***
Bill: [Krueger on God.] This is only his opinion,... he cannot prove there is no God,...">>

Doug didn't say anything about proving anything. God claims are carefully constructed to be unfalsifiable. That is not a point in their favor. As one fellow put it:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." --John McCarthy

Bill: "My belief is based on an appeal to an ultimate standard of truth and morality,...">>

You can appeal to whatever standard you want, you can even call it "ultimate," but reasonable people with a modern sense of morality can see that since you are looking to guidance on moral issues from an ancient anonymous bronze age book that condones slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, polygamy and cannibalism, your're not really following the morals of that book, you're just paying lip service. And for this we can all be thankful.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/mor...

Bill: "...for an atheist there is no ultimate standard.">>

No one can ever show there is an "ultimate standard," but some people do like to pretend. This is clearly explained at the link above.

Bill: "If there is no ultimate standard, anything is permissible.">>

No, that doesn't follow. Humans are quite capable creating the abstract concept of morality, and then also making rules about things that are and are not permissible. A great many of your "ultimate standard" morals in the Bible are now illegal. And with good reason. Christians, like their Bible, can't agree on any single pressing moral issue of the today.

Bill: "atheists live as if the Ten Commandments... were true.">>

Bill isn't thinking clearly here. I don't know any atheists that live as if the 10 C's are true. Bill would know this if he had bothered to read them. Traditionally, the first three go:

Thou shalt have no other gods.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD in vain.

Why would someone who doesn't believe in a god live as if these are true? That's just silly.

And that's the wrong list anyway. See: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/ten...

And atheists, and Christians, don't care about that list either (the 10 C's were given to the Hebrews).

Bill: "atheists live as if... Jesus’ Golden Rule were true.">>

It isn't Jesus' golden rule. It was referred to by at least nine philosophers before he supposedly uttered it, at best, he was borrowing.

Observe: (con't...)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pre-Jesus references to Golden rule:

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." --Pittacus, 650 B.C.E.

"Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."
--Confucius, 500 B.C.E.

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." --Thales, 464 B.C.E.

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." --Sextus, a Pythagorean, 406 B.C.

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us." --Aristotle, 385 B.C.E.

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own." --Aristippus, 365 B.C.E.

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you." --Isocrates, 338 B.C.E.

"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." (Mahabharata, 5, 1517. Around 300 B.C.)

"Do not to others what you would not like others to do to you." --Hillel, (Talmud, shabbat, 31a) 50 B.C.E.

Bill: "Evolution theory is a belief system (religion)">>

The bucket of silly goes deep regarding Bill's comments about evolution. FrankLloyd sums it up best with:

"Corbin's assertions regarding evolution are simply the products of ignorance."

Bill: "scientific principles that show evolution is impossible.">>

Of course Bill doesn't tell us what one of these principles might be.

Bill: "...evolution says the principles of physics arose accidentally,">>

No it doesn't.

Bill: "...the Bible still stands true.">>

Except for all the parts that are not true. That bit about the earth being flat? That's not true: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fla...

Bill: "I know of no contradictions.">>

That's unfortunate but common among biblical literalists. Here's a book by a local author that refers to a couple hundred examples of well understood Bible contradictions that aren't controversial and scholars have known about for centuries: http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/m...

A few dozen examples are given at that link. You might not see the contradictions until you gather the courage to study your Bible with some careful consideration and scrutiny.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill: "The Bible refers to evils like slavery and murder but does not condone them.">>

Murder is by definition wrong (that's what the word means), so you are just repeating yourself if you say "murder is wrong." The Bible not only condones slavery, it claims to have instituted it:

Yahweh instituted slavery at Exod. 21:2. Leviticus 25:44 explains where to get slaves and that you can hand them down to your children. Exod. 21:21 allows a slave owner to beat a slave to death, as long as it is an unintentional result of the severe beating. Ephesians 6:5 has: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Colossians 3:22 says: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it,… with sincerity of heart and reverence for the LORD." --ibid

Bill: "no scientific discovery has disproved anything in the Bible">>

I think the flat earth example does a good job of that. Many more examples can be given.

Bill: "If anyone can prove the Bible in error, then Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all disproved.">>

This is such a common false dichotomy (the Bible must be all true, or not), there is a whole section on it in the book referenced above. "The all or none ruse," page 95. Most Christians understand that Christianity can have value, and/or be in some sense true, even though the Bible obviously has bunches of obvious errors in it.

Bill: [someone said] “God either exists or not - both propositions terrify me.”>>

Neither proposition scares me in the least. Maybe people should stop being afraid of their shadows and stand up to the fear peddlers that use scare tactics to motivate followers like Bill to believe absurdities.

D.
--------
"God is dead: but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown." --Nietzsche

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Virtually every world religion includes some version of the Golden Rule:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rec...
We don't know how far back human beings developed this "Ethic of Reciprocity" but it had to be widespread by the time civilization began (7000 BC?) or people could simply not have been able to live together in large groups.

Posted by: Coralie

January 28, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Exactly right Coralie. Other primates do this too:

***
"Altruism blossoms in tamarin monkeys"

Excerpt:

"For cotton-top tamarin monkeys, the golden rule rules.

Though the tiny creatures look more like gremlins than humans, they do seem to share one trait with us: altruism. Tamarins give their partners a tasty treat even when it doesn't benefit them, and even when their mate had been stingy with them in the past, according to a study published online July 14 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The findings show that altruism blossoms in cultures that divvy up child-care duties, and hint that the human instinct to help others stems from our communal child-care system, said primatologist Charles Snowdon of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, co-author of the study.

"They are more likely to be altruistic since they're cooperating so much in terms of child care, detecting predators, finding food and communicating that to each other," he said. "It's the social system of family that promotes selflessness."

http://www.jsonline.com/features/heal...

Here's a wonderful clip showing how primates have a sense of fairness, which probably developed because it benefits the tribe, no "ultimate standard" books required.

"Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynr...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ah, Freeby, could you tell the rest of us what you are trying to say in a concise thought of, maybe, one post of a hundred or less words without going on and on and on and on. Me thinks you have too much extra uneeded junk in the little used portions of you mind. Get your thoughts together, boy. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well all this publicity for the "freethinkers" has done one thing: stir up a conversation.

FFT says 70 some odd folks showed up to his "freethinkers" meeting at the public library. I'm still not sure what the stance of the law is on that since it could be construed as a religious gathering/meeting in a publicly funded institution (kind of like those "lectures" claims have been made to have had taken place at the University of Arkansas). Of course, circumstances dictate who is determining what "religious" is. Well, maybe that all would or wouldn't be interesting for the folks with the nesessary background and resources to explore. Who knows?

Some people worship a higher power, some worship themselves and/or other humans.
I wonder how many people showed up to other meetings on Sunday. I'm willing to bet way more than 70. There has to be some good in the latter, even if the folks are branded "intellectual cowards" that look to a higher power in times of need.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 12:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, I think Freeby thinks he is a monkey. The other 69 must be lessor monkey followers. They spend most of their time proclaiming the non-diety of a God they claim as dead or nonexistant. This gives them a good feeling because 70 is a big number to a deviant little pustule group on the backside of NW Arkansas.

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 12:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "...not sure what the stance of the law is on that since it could be construed as a religious gathering/meeting in a publicly funded institution...">>

Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. The library has various rooms available for rent to the public (sometimes schools do too, even to religious groups, and this is entirely appropriate as long as if they do it, they don't show a preference to a group). There are lots of groups and clubs in the area. We're a skeptic, freethought club. There really wasn't hardly any thing about religion at this last meeting, not that it would matter if there was (there usually is). The meeting notice/description along with links to clips played is posted here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Hope you approve.

Tnk: "those "lectures" claims have been made to have had taken place at the [U. of A.]).">>

Yes, every year the secular student group Occam's Razor's invites/sponsors us to come and conduct a "Freethinker Bible Study." It's open to everyone and is always well attended. We talk about standard mainstream Bible scholarship that is taught at every non-fundie University in the world. This differs somewhat from what you apparently are hearing at your church.

Tnk: "...some worship themselves and/or other humans.">>

You mean like Jesus?

Tnk: "I wonder how many people showed up to other meetings on Sunday... way more than 70.">>

We have about 450 on our list. No formal membership. We are one of about 7 groups in the region. The category of "nones" (not identifying with any of the standard religions) is growing, rapidly, especially among the youth.

And you know what they say, the children are the future. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

D.
----------
"Losing Our Religion: The Growth Of The 'Nones'" http://tinyurl.com/a4kmtak

And:
"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics"
http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 29, 2013 at 1:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I'm still not sure what the stance of the law is on that..."
Fortunately for the Fayetteville Freethinkers and the public at large, the staff and administration of the Fayetteville Public Library are more knowledgeable.

RE "...since it could be construed as a religious gathering/meeting in a publicly funded institution"
Only by somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about.

RE "There has to be some good in the latter"
Sunday morning is a great time to shop and run other errands. There's more parking, the lines are shorter, and there's less likelihood of getting shot.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 29, 2013 at 1:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sunday morning is a good time to get killed by and drunk left over from the party on Saturday night.

Thank what would happen then Alpha, why you would be inna grave without a shovel.

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Sunday morning is a good time to get killed by and drunk left over from the party on Saturday night."
I'm not out that early on a Sunday.

RE "you would be inna grave without a shovel."
Not being a ruler of men, I would also be without a slave or two to dig me out. However, I propose to be cremated and either scattered in the water supply or baked into wafers. If the latter, Communion will be observed at my wake.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 29, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I like that, Cat, I need to know one thing, however, if baked into wafers, would they be kosher?

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"Fortunately for the Fayetteville Freethinkers and the public at large, the staff and administration of the Fayetteville Public Library are more knowledgeable."

Fortunately for the public at large, there are people in this world that to go to school for many years to figure things like that out and might disagree.

RE-

"Only by somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about."

There are plenty of people that disagree.

FFT,

RE-

"Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist."

Not nearly as much as you probably give yourself credit for. I try to let emotional responses remain for those things positive in life, not blasphemy nonsense. "Try" being the key word.

RE-

"We're a skeptic, freethought club."

Yours is an atheist club the revels in mocking believers in God and actively proselytizes. You dabble in other stuff, but don't church-up (pun intended) your chief purpose.

RE-

"standard mainstream Bible scholarship"

According to non-believers. Yeah, got it.

RE-

"And you know what they say, the children are the future. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."

I know your goal is to indoctrinate the youth. You've got a congregation all your own enabling you in your efforts.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"All religions must be tolerated... for... every man must get to heaven his own way."
~Frederick the Great

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Yours is an atheist club...">>

I'm for letting people and groups label themselves, within reason. Anything else is ad hominem (name calling). We have no doctrinal requirements of any kind, and like I said, not even a formal membership. Some people come to meetings, some people don't. We've never polled what those who attend believe on the God question, because we don't care. There are atheist groups, but I've never been a member of one. It's apparently you who is obsessed with the atheist question. For some it's an itch they just can't resist scratching. Scratch away.

Tnk: "...[that] revels in mocking believers in God and actively proselytizes.">

Reveling and mocking are subjective opinions, which as usual you provide no basis for. Other than the campus Freethinker Bible Study, the only time we actually, actively promote our group is at our yearly Springfest booth, which we haven't done in about two years (and I think Springfest is kaput now). But your suggestion is a good one and at the last meeting some said we should more actively promote and run ads (radio and newspaper). That's a good idea, so we'll start. And this is a good thing, because we have a very positive "good news" message. But if grow just a wee bit more, we'll have a hard time finding a large enough room.

Tank: "You dabble in other stuff,...">>

Apparently didn't read the meeting agenda at the link provided. What "we do" is clearly stated here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml

TNK: ["standard mainstream Bible scholarship"]
"According to non-believers. Yeah, got it.">>

No, according to standard mainstream (even Christian) Bible scholarship. But you would need to be familiar with that to know what I am referring to, and like so many (hence the need to educate), you probably aren't. I don't hold any beliefs about the Bible that aren't based upon standard mainstream (even Christian) Bible scholarship. Something I've studied since before you were born. If you think you know that not to be true, then let's see you support your claim with examples.

Your bluff is called.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 29, 2013 at 11:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "You've got a congregation all your own enabling you in your efforts.">>

Flattery will get you no where.

Tnk: "There are plenty of people that disagree." [regarding library]>

Really? Name one.

You will really want to drop that line of silliness. Many of the founding fathers were freethinkers and the notion that they, or local tax paying citizens shouldn't be able hold public meetings at their local library because they might talk about religion, is really too stupid for words. The notion that what people talk about at a public meeting is a church/state separation issue, is also ludicrous.

I suppose we could assign community censors who attend various group meetings to make sure religion isn't mentioned, but that seems a little Soviet don't you think? Might be unconstitutional, don't ya think?

This differs from state school teachers directly indoctrinating students with religion or by leading prayer, don't ya think?

Try this thought experiment: the library is, as you say, a "publicly funded institution." Should it be allowed to have books that mention... religion?

Think about it.

D.
------------
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."
--Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 420.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 29, 2013 at 11:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

All one need to do is visit your group's sight to know what you are interested in. You talk about Soviet thinking. They were the people that bashed believers. Sound familiar?

Something about wolves in sheep's clothing comes to my mind for some reason..... Or was is a goat's clothing?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Bnw3ynUFc1A...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Fortunately for the public at large, there are people in this world that to go to school for many years to figure things like that out and might disagree."
That sounds like it might be a waste of years of schooling.

RE "There are plenty of people that disagree."
Because they don't know what they're talking about. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the history of its interpretation that could lead a knowledgeable person to construe that a meeting of freethinkers is a religious gathering for purposes of enforcing federal law. This is true whether the meeting room is rented or used gratis. Freethought is not a religion.

Would you make the same argument about games at Razorback Stadium and Bud Walton Arena? The fervor of Razorback fans is religious in nature, and those assemblies are not discussions but full-out rituals. Yet I certainly know better than to construe in this case that public facilities are being used for religious gatherings.

RE "Yours is an atheist club the revels in mocking believers in God"
As you have never attended a meeting, you are not qualified to speak on what Fayetteville Freethinkers is or does, regardless of the victim mentality you have assumed regarding what fft or I (or other freethinkers-who-attend) post. fft and I represent, for example, less than three percent of the attendance at the last meeting. We were easily outnumbered by religious people who attended. We always are, as quite a few attend regularly.

RE "I know your goal is to indoctrinate the youth."
We used to give them toasters, just like the gay recruiters. These days toasters aren't such a good draw; they just show up on their own.

RE "You've got a congregation all your own enabling you in your efforts."
Actually, as many young people are turned off by the notorious hypocrisy of evangelical Christians and Christian-affiliated conservatives, there are lots and lots of congregations aiding the cause of freethought-- and not a one of them is us.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 29, 2013 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

As par normal, I appreciate your well-written and thoughtful posts. I do not assert free thought is a religion.

I think ferent atheism as displayed in billboards and long standing patterns of anti-belief meetings with efforts to sway people into disbelief meets the criteria of a religion in its own right.

Good analogy about Hog fervor. That will give me something to freethink on.

With respect for you and everyone else here,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 11:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"Many of the founding fathers were freethinkers and the notion that they, or local tax paying citizens shouldn't be able hold public meetings at their local library because they might talk about religion, is really too stupid for words."

Would you and your ACLU feel the same if it was a local church holding regular fellowship meetings at the library?

R/

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Would you... feel the same if it was a local church holding regular fellowship meetings at the library?">>

Of course. And as I said above, a public school would be fine and appropriate too, as long as all groups are rented to equally (after hours), not shown preference or subsidized. The JW's and Seventh Day Adventists regularly rent out local school auditoriums for their larger religious conventions. And that's fine and dandy too.

Tnk: "You talk about Soviet thinking.">>

Yes, because censoring a group from renting a room at the public library in order to keep them from exercising their right to free speech and assembly, would be the epitome of Soviet thinking.

Tnk: "They [soviets] were the people that bashed believers.">>

Commie totalitarian soviets were very much for "believing," for instance in blindly following the state. It's a very small step from that to blindly following a God or religion. So your guilt by association rather backfires on you. Totalitarians *hate* freethinkers and very much function on the fuel of goosestepping believers and there is nothing more anathema to freethinking than goosestepping believers. Hitler's totalitarian regime was quite straightforward about this and he once put it this way:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. from our point of view as representatives of the state, we need believing people. A dark cloud threatens from Poland. We have need of soldiers, believing solders. Believing solders are the most valuable ones. They give their all. Therefore we will maintain the confessional schools in order to train believing people through the schools, but this depends upon having truly believing teachers, not by chance Marxists who do not stand fully by their religious faith, as teachers."
--Hitler, [quoted from Helmreich, p.241]

[Godwin Law infraction duly noted]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Your response is appreciated, but please don't act like the Soviets were believers in the context I was using. You know that is not correct.

Godwin Law endnote recognized and accepted.

Good evening, sir.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 30, 2013 at 12:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaC: "We used to give them toasters,...">>

Actually, that's not such a bad idea. This would be the toaster to use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjR1r...

It's a 30 second clip showing a "Jesus toaster" which puts an image of Jesus on each piece of toast. Now some might misconstrue that as mocking of religion or Jesus when really, it's not. It's making fun of people that think someone in the spirit world is going to the trouble to put religious images on their toast (and a few other things).

Put "Jesus toast" in google and click on "images."

D.
-----------
"I give money for church organs in the hope the
organ music will distract the congregation's
attention from the rest of the service."
--Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) U.S. steel manufacturer, philanthropist

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 12:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "...don't act like the Soviets were believers in the context I was using.">>

I see fervent dogmatic belief that blindly follows church, or state, as very much the same. And it doesn't matter if the dogmatic believers doing the persecution are religious totalitarians or, soviet state worshipers doing it in the name of their godless totalitarian ideology. Same poop, different pile.

D.
-------------
"The majority of men...are not capable of thinking, but only of believing, and...are not accessible to reason, but only to authority."
--Arthur Schopenhauer: Supplements to the World as Will and Idea.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 12:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>I think ferent atheism as displayed in billboards and long standing patterns of anti-belief meetings with efforts to sway people into disbelief meets the criteria of a religion in its own right.<

That would be a howler to prove in a court of law which is where any imputed threat to FFT group must end in order for use of public facilities to be denied.

"Anti-belief" is a perfect description. First FFT meeting I wandered into the first prize question was about what separates a freethinker from a religionist.
Answer was, "the use of reason" versus faith (belief).

Millions of people are "anti-belief." It hinges upon which beliefs are being held out as a standard. Mormon beliefs, Islamic beliefs, Jewish beliefs, Animism beliefs, Taoist beliefs? The list could be much longer.

For example if you don't believe, as Mormons do, that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri then you're "anti-belief."
Or, if you don't believe, as Animist do, that rocks have living souls then you're "anti-belief."

If you don't believe, as Catholics do, that the Pope is official head of Christendom then you're "anti-belief."

If you don't believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and all water, light, land and life were created in 7 days as fundamentalist Christians do then you're "anti-belief."

Posted by: cdawg

January 30, 2013 at 2:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is an excerpt from my second 2009 book:

"Its one thing to know the land, know the plants, know the animals, but its another thing to know whats different than normal." Cole peered closely but saw nothing. He had no idea what the big mountain man was trying to show him.
"Come on, Cole! Get down close. Look where my finger is."
Cole kneeled down, wiped a drop of sweat out of his eyes and finally he saw it. There was one tiny spot of brownish red on a leaf. "Is it blood?"
Thats good, Cole," praised Meeker, patting the boy on the shoulder. "It is blood. Look close now and tell me which way the animal was running?"
Cole staired at the drop of blood, then moved to search the area for tracks, just something to point out a direction of travel to him, but there was nothing and he had to admit to the big man his failure.
"Thats all right. I saw yuh lookin' around fer tracks or somethin', but yer need to gather all yuh can from this fore yuh go on. This little drop of blood is like the first part of a book and yuh need to read it real close fore turning the page. See how that blood of blood is in kinda a teardrop shape, but with a longer than usual tail. Somethin' moving fast droped this and the tail is pointin' the way it was going. Now put a big stick down in that direction so as yer' can see it from a ways off. Now ya' look fer" tracks."
Cole was intensely interested, he wanted to see if Meeker could find this wounded animal.
"Look for anything different, out of place, sometin' just not the way it should be. See that clump of grass on ahead, some of tha' leaves are broken, and jus' a bit further on I see another drop of blood. Keep to the side of the tracks or signs, yer' never wanta' spoil yer' trail. If it's man yer huntin', an' hes smart enought to take his boots off, he don't leave nothin'. Even moccasins c'n give yer' a trail ever now and then."

The reason I did is to illustrate that in nature, everything that passes through leaves tracks. These signs, if you know how to read them, will lead you to the one who made them. But you have to know the animal or the man your tracking, the changes in what is normal, and have the wisdom to know the difference.

If you freethinkers really wanted to find God, He is right in front of your noses, He is not invisible, but just like Cole in the excerpt above, you don't know what to look for or how to interpret the signs God leaves behind when he passes by. Because you don't know what is normal you can't see the abnormal. Because you don't know the creature (God) you are tracking, you don't know the hidden signs He would leave behind. Because you are blind, you assume everyone else is too.

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 5:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "I think ferent atheism as displayed in billboards and long standing patterns of anti-belief meetings with efforts to sway people....">>

That's some good stuff right there. People trying to "sway people?" At a public meeting? Say it isn't so.

And then there are those terribly provocative seven words a National Campaign put on a local billboard, for a month:

"Are you Good without God? Millions are."

Picture here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/

"Anti-belief meetings!"

D.
---------------
"The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by such learned dunderheads [priests and pedants]; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe -- that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power, and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent."
--H. L. Mencken wrote (Prejudices, Fourth Series)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 1:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money, you could replace "God" with "Science" or "Reason" in your last paragraph and have nearly the exact same arguement for Athiesm. It's human nature to think we know better than others, to scoff when presented with viewpoints different from our own, it's called cognitive dissonance, and it is a part of what makes us human.

The track to God in your analogy would be like tracking a deer that bleeds grass and twigs, impossible to follow unless by some divine circular knowledge. Alternatively, the path left by scientific advancement and emperical evidence would be a day-glo line on a well maintained and thoroughly blazed trail. Unfortunately, we're still not sure exactly where that trail leads, they may even merge at some point down the road, but that's half the fun isn't it?

Posted by: Rwiseman

January 30, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, Rwiseman, yours is the first intelligent comment I have seen defending athiesm on this thread. I would add the athiesm is the normal state of scientific reasoning and the belief in a God is a disruption in the force. (Some movie I saw) To see the not so blazed trail, one has to know the animal (God) that is being tracked and thus you have to be looking for it. Otherwise, if you don't believe in or have never seen the animal you are looking for the success would be near impossable. All trails may merge into one or like Frosts', two roads and you cannot travel both.

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "...defending athiesm on this thread. I would add the athiesm is the normal state of...">>

Pssst... > Would it be too much to ask that you learn to spell the title of the topic you are presuming to know something about?

>

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Still the first intelligent comment.

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, honest mistake. I before E and all of that.

Posted by: Rwiseman

January 30, 2013 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shows you're human, Rwiseman and just not a free stroking, free thinking, spell checking machine.

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 1:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually, I don't think anybody has been "defending atheism" on this thread, including freethinker, cdawg, me, or even Rwiseman.
Free and I have explicitly said that we are not atheists. By atheism I mean "denying the existence of a god or gods" (positive atheism) rather than "disbelief in a god or gods" (negative atheism).
In my case the first definition wouldn't apply but the second would.
Also a great deal depends on what you mean by 'god'. Online definition: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
Monotheistic religions include Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. But there are other religions and their followers shouldn't be characterized as atheists.
As cdawg said above, "Millions of people are "anti-belief." It hinges upon which beliefs are being held out as a standard."

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Christianity and Islam are the largest world religions in terms of how many followers.
The third largest number are non-believers-- secular/aheist/agnostic (1.1 billion). The fourth are Hindus (900 million). Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion but not pollytheistic either. http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism...
Various folk religions and animistic beliefs account for another 794 million adherents.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By...
Our constant arguments about religion here always assume that Christianity is the only belief in the world--and not only that, Bible-Belt Christianity, not mainstream Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox.

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'll give you a better definition of God;

God is a Jewish carpenter, who took a piece of wood, three nails, and made it possible for man to live forevermore.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption."---1
Corinthians 15:42

"You only live twice."---John Barry

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your definition only works for Christians. Dictionary definitions have to fit all cases.

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My comment at 1:05 may have been confusing. Some online sources make the distinction between positive and negative atheism.
Most people would use the term 'agnosticism' instead of negative atheism.
In the past, I've called myself an agnostic, but actually things are a bit more complicated than that.

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hinduism includes several different perspectives within one religion. It isn't written in stone.
I like that approach.

"The philosophical Hindu texts advocate a pantheistic view of ultimate reality. These texts, most notably the Upanishads, explain that there exists a single Supreme Reality, called Brahman. Brahman is often personified and presented as the One that must be sought, and can begin to sound like monotheism. Yet the ultimate revelation of the Upanishads is that the self (atman) is identical with Brahman. Life is therefore best spent not in rituals and offerings to the gods, but in deep meditation on the self until this truth is experienced firsthand.

So is Hinduism polytheistic, pantheistic, or monotheistic? Contributing to the difficulty of answering this question is the fact that Hindus are not nearly as concerned as are western thinkers with such labels and categories. After all, it is a favorite Hindu saying that "The Truth is One, but different sages call it by different names."

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism...

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE-

"Bible-Belt Christianity, not mainstream Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox."

What is exactly is the atheist slant on those pesky "Bible-Belt" Christians? What is mainstream anyway... according to someone who actually believes in the first place?

There are belts that fit all sizes in America. Folks that don't like the snugness are "free" to "think" about finding a belt a little looser.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 31, 2013 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My problem is that so many of those Bible Belt believers act as if their beliefs and interpretations are the only form of Christianity and that these beliefs define Christians.
I assume those who write letters to the editor or who post here are representative.
According to various online sources such as Wikipedia, Catholics are the largest single denomination in the U.S. at about 24% but white evangelicals, which includes Southern Baptists and Pentecostal churches, are the largest group of believers at about 26% (including all races it may be 30-35% of U.S. Christians).
That's a large group but obviously it is not everybody.
What are called the mainline churches (I misspoke calling them mainstream) are those such as Methodist, Lutheran, Presbytarian, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, and several others including some Baptists.
They generally have a longer history.

Posted by: Coralie

February 1, 2013 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, I don't know what the "atheist slant" is on evangelical Christianity because I am not an atheist (as explained above).
I believe you are demonstrating my point that some/many? evangelical Christians find their beliefs to define Christianity.

Posted by: Coralie

February 1, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If a person's life were displayed on a background that stretched to infinity, it would only be a flash delivered in a nanosecond or some less smaller time. That is not much time to gain a lot of information, yet there are a few who hold themselves up as having all the answers. Those "intellectuals" are able to determine what is true and false, (according to them.) Written records mean nothing to them if those records conflict with their opinions. God chose the nation of Israel to manifest himself. He used prophesies that later came true as He said. He prophesied that the Jews would go into Egypt and stay 400 years. It came true. Millions of Jews came out of Egypt on the journey to the land God gave Abraham and the record says their shoes did not wear out and neither their clothing for 40 years. They were fed by manna that formed on the ground at night. A cloud overshadowed them by day to protect them from the sun and a pillar (cloud) of fire went in front of them by night when they needed to travel. All this was written down and millions of people witnessed it. If one does not want to accept the written record then the pat answer is "it was written by man", never mind that those who deny it were not there are thousands of years removed from it, yet can say with false certainty that none of it is true, or at least none of it that goes contrary to their conclusive beliefs. Early doctors in this country did not believe in germs existed that were first proposed in Europe because they could not be seen. Radio waves cannot be seen but they are there. They would never have been discovered if no one ever looked for them. Germs would never have been discovered if no one had looked for them or spent their lives denying their existence. The "intellectual" approach by a vast minority is that God does not exist because they do not see him. The "intellectual" approach is if one cannot see it, touch it, taste it, kick it, have it bite them in the butt, smell it or weigh it, it just isn't there.

Posted by: kinggeorge

February 1, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seventy percent of the people of the world are not Christian (or Jewish).
They have other beliefs and other holy books, or they are secular.
+++
Many of those who are considered to be Christians have a very shallow understanding of their own religion and little commitment to following the teachings of Jesus.
+++
kinggeorge, many religious people might be considered intellectuals, and many people who don't have a religious belief are not intellectuals.
Are you against people thinking?

Posted by: Coralie

February 1, 2013 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

king, you are really the king of this post. Radio waves is brilliant, wish I had thought of it.

And Coralie, we are all slaves to the process of thought. However much you wish to be in control of your thought process, it is controled by your experiences of the past combined into the present, but certainly not the future. We should rid ourselves of labels and the blame game and just live.

Posted by: JailBird

February 1, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's nice when MrD/KingG drops by to demonstrate the limits of human belief, which is say, he shows there are no limits. If a child is taught, with fear and trembling, that the world came from a three headed popsicle that smells of lavender and toots out rainbows, then that's what the child will usually believe. Now, the Exodus and Bible prophecy? Good choice.

KG: "a few who hold themselves up as having all the answers.">

That's not true. That's your strawman again. No one holds themselves up as having all the answers. But we do have some of the answers. You should learn about them!

KG: "[they claim to be] able to determine what is true and false,">>

In many cases yes. That's why your computer works. Understanding the difference between true and false has enabled science to extend human life expectancy by 33 years (US), in just the last century. It also put a rover on Mars, and a few other things. Learning to determine what is true and false, has testable, real world results.

KG: "Written records mean nothing to them if [they] conflict with their opinions.">>

No, they are revealed as mythology if they conflict with observable reality. We know the story of the Exodus is literally false, for very well established reasons.

KG: [God] prophesied that the Jews would go into Egypt and stay 400 years. It came true.">>

The story of the Jews going in out and of Egypt is pure mythology, but even if we accept the Bible story by blind faith, the story is still a contradictory mess. Observe:

1) God foretells slavery and affliction for 400 years.

"And he said unto Abram, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" Gen. 15:13

Acts agrees:
"And God spake on this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years." Acts 7:6

Vs.

2) The slavery in Egypt was for 430 years.

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt." Exod. 12:40-41

Galatians agrees:
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Gal. 3:17

I commend you for presenting an example of Bible prophecy this time, but even if these claims and the numbers here were consistent (and they aren't), and we knew the prophecy was made beforehand (we don't), this would still fail to verify a Bible prophecy because not only can the Exodus be confirmed, we have good reason to know it could not have happened.

cont....

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 1, 2013 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KG: "Millions of Jews came out of Egypt on the journey...">>>

The conservative branch of Judaism discarded a literal Exodus many years ago. And they didn't do it without good reason. Nicely explained in this NYT's article:

"New Torah For Modern Minds" http://tinyurl.com/3wmmb9q

KG: "this was written down and millions of people witnessed it.">>

In reality, an anonymous person wrote a story (we've known for centuries it wasn't "Moses"), so there is not an actual "witness." Just one anonymous story, handed around and adjusted who knows how many times.

KG: "The "intellectual" approach... is that God does not exist because they do not see him.">>

Again, you keep saying this but it only reveals that you have never bothered to read an argument against God's existence. No one, certainly no intellectual, would *ever* argue that your God doesn't exist because they "do not see him." Your suggestion is absurd, a caricature.

By the way, the Bible is flatly contradictory on this question too. Observe the two parts to this contradiction:

1) No man can see God and live. No man has seen God at any time. (backparts not included)

"An the LORD said unto Moses... Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exod. 33:17, 20, 22-23

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,..." John 1:18

"Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37

"No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John 4:12

"...the King of kings,... whom no man hath seen, nor can see..." 1 Tim. 6:15

Vs.

2) Many have seen God, and lived.

"Behold, thy servant Jacob... he said,... I will see his face;... And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32:20, 30

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel:... they saw God, and did eat and drink." Exod. 24:9-11

"...the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Exod. 33:11

"Job... said... I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee." Job 42:1, 5

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up... Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone... for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Isaiah 6:1, 5

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 1, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just the fact that so many attack those that believe in the Bible and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ, enforce my belief that the Bible is true. Why does it offend so many? It is a message of hope and love. Believers are the most moral, generous, kind, loving people I know. Satan wants to destroy Christ and Christians.

But, Romans 16:20 The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.

Yes!

Posted by: mycentworth

February 1, 2013 at 9:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent: "so many attack those that believe in the Bible">>

There is an important difference between attacking a claim, and attacking a person. Claims are not persons. Your beliefs, are not persons. You are not your beliefs. For some reason some experience an illusion that they are. They aren't. I responded directly to KG's claims, I did not attack him and I don't have any animosity toward Christians. In fact, I'm thinking of joining again. I used to associate with the Quakers and then later the Unitarians. The Episcopalians are looking good, if they'll have me. When Bishop Spong came to town and gave a series of lectures, I wanted to become a priest. I'm actually a very spiritually minded person (don't believe in spirits though).

Mycent: "Believers are the most moral, generous, kind, loving people I know.">>

Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I was just pointing out on this forum a few days ago that a certain local Reverend is (in my opinion), Fayetteville's finest human.

Mycent: "Satan wants to destroy Christ and Christians.">>

Satan wasn't invented until well into the Bible making process, and then he only had a very minor yet *supporting* role (examples upon request). But the notion of an adversary against an all powerful God is really quite absurd when you think about it. Most people don't think about it. Perhaps Ingersoll made this point best:

"The Christians now claim that Jesus was God. If he was God, of course the devil knew that fact, and yet, according to this account, the devil took the omnipotent God and place him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and endeavored to induce him to dash himself against the earth. Failing in that, he took the creator, owner, and governor of the universe up into an exceeding high mountain, and offered him this world—this grain of sand—if he, the God of all the worlds, would fall down and worship him, a poor devil, without even a title to one foot of dirt! Is it possible the devil was such an idiot? Should any great credit be given to this deity for not being caught with such chaff? Think of it! The devil—the prince of sharpers—the king of cunning—the master of finesse, trying to bribe God with a grain of sand that belonged to God!
Is there in all the religious literature of the world anything more grossly absurd than this?'
--Robert Ingersoll, about 150 years ago, "The Gods" pg. 27

Mycent: "Romans 16:20 The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.">>

You do realize that verse was written one thousand nine hundred and fifty eight years ago right?

D.
-----------
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;..." Rev. 1:1

"Behold, I come quickly." Rev. 3:11

"I am coming soon!" Rev. 22:12

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 1, 2013 at 10:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who attacked anyone on these pages?
What in the world do you call "an attack?"
Reasoning? Dialogue? Disussion? Are those
practices "attacks?"

You're getting pretty silly and downright medieval.

Posted by: cdawg

February 1, 2013 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>You do realize that verse was written one thousand nine hundred and fifty eight years ago right?>

I seriously doubt it has the comprehension to grasp the irony.

Posted by: cdawg

February 1, 2013 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: I wasn't insinuating that you were attacking, but there are Christians in other countries being killed and persecuted because of their faith.

The war between satan and God has been going on since the beginning of creation. Satan has been crushed I imagine many times since then. It wasn't necessarily talking of the end times, the last battle. There are others verses that pronounce the same shortly/soon. Maybe since God knew that future generations would read the word, He made it ageless.

The bible says the word is up for debate, scrutiny, therefore, I try to defend it, in my feeble way, even though God tell us to 'note those that cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.and avoid them'.

The Bible may have some minor interpretation errors, I would think, but the message is clear to those that believe. Hope, faith and the Holy Spirit are needed.

Romans:5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us."

FFT, you do debate civilly, not like some on this post - cdawg. When one has to retreat to insults, I lose all interest.

You know that the "Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." John 1:1

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us....."

If I remember right, you didn't believe Jesus was God. Have a good night, FFt.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 1, 2013 at 11:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyCent: "If I remember right, you didn't believe Jesus was God.">>

That's right. And I don't think it's clear even Jesus thought he was God. Remember, the doctrine of the trinity evolved over a couple centuries. It's the trinity that squeezes two more Gods into what used to be only one.

Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies... By the end of the 4th century... the doctine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (Micropaedia, 1976, Vol. X, pg. 126.)

New Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century." (1976, Vol. XIV, pg. 299.)

Here are my reasons:

A) He clearly denied being equal with the Father.

I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all... John 10:29.

B) He denied being good, or God.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? and Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Luke 18:19, and Matt. 19:17.

C) He does not know the time of the end.

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the father. Mark 13:32

D) He could not do a powerful work in his own country.

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country... And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. Mark 6:1, 5-6.

E) He ranks lower than the Holy Spirit in the area of blasphemy.

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him... Matt. 12:31-32

F) Jesus refers to the father as his God and the God of all.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

G) Jesus prays to God (himself?).
And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. Mark 14:35

H) Jesus has a distinctly different will than God.
...Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. Mark 14:36 also John 5:30

I) Jesus is forsaken by God (himself?).
...Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matt. 27:46

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 2, 2013 at 12:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

One of the problems with you, Freeby, is that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Of all the bores in the world, the worst is the know it all bore. You are to this discussion like chalk screeching across a blackboard. If you only have some of the answers, which answers do you not have? Could be some of us would like to read what others have to say about what kinggeorge posted without having through your book about it and Coralie's numerous footnotes.

But, pardon me, its all about you and I should have known that,

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 4:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor moneym. Desperately wanting an ankle but... can't stop barking long enough to find one. All bark, no bite.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 2, 2013 at 7:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Finally a short and to the point post, Can we expect this reformation to continue in the future, or will you regress into your old orthodox ways?

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, best to avoid the "old ways." Below is an example of how bad it can be.

http://tinyurl.com/akg85ks

Posted by: cdawg

February 2, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Occasionally a rider on the happy NWAonline bus will pipe up and make whiney sounds about how they would prefer to be able to enjoy someone like MrD/KingG's prattle without the discomfort of some knowledgeable person coming along and pointing out in careful detail exactly how it's all an inaccurate pile of hooey.

There are forums that don't allow dissent, but they're not very much fun and fortunately, this isn't one of them.

If only there were a place, a faith based bubble land, where a MrD/KingG could go on and on and never a discouraging word is heard. No fact checking, no uncomforting realities to intrude on what is hoped for. But wait, such places do exist, and they are tax free, and legion. Perhaps MM could find out where MrD/KingG goes to church and sing along on the same hymn. A place where great sayings are spoken and heads necessary nod in agreement.

The very reason why folks like KMrD/KingG do so poorly when they get out in the wild, is because they have so adjusted themselves to the climate of their faithbased bubble where they pass around comforting stories that are entirely untrue, and have been known to be untrue since before the country was founded (it's the same reason Romney was so shocked when he got whupped). They don't learn about this, and perhaps even can't learn about this from inside the bubble where they are purposely surrounded by a flock of sheep that have voluntarily agreed ahead of time to pretend that an emperor is finely attired even though, as anyone can plainly realize after some know it all freethinker has pointed it out, he's stark naked and his naughty bits are out and about for all to see.

D.
-----------
"When we find out that an assertion is a falsehood, a shining truth takes its place, and we need not fear the destruction of the false. The more false we destroy the more room there will be for the true." --Ingersoll's 44 Complete Lectures (pg. 371)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 2, 2013 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth says "The war between satan and God has been going on since the beginning of creation."
I believe this is an ancient Zoroastrian belief and not especially Christian,

Posted by: Coralie

February 2, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." ~Mary Boyce.
...:
Founded by Zarathushtra in Persia, Zoroastrianism was probably the world's first monotheistic faith.
"It was once the religion of the Persian empire, but has since been reduced in numbers to fewer than 200,000 today. With the exception of religious conservatives, most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, the virgin birth of the savior, the slaughter of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zor...

Posted by: Coralie

February 2, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"One school of [Zoroastrian] thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.
The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow.
Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zor...


Posted by: Coralie

February 2, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - Below is a site that is very interesting and informative: I couldn't get the http address copied right, but if you put this in the search bar, it will come up.

Last Days Mystery - Satan, where is he now?

Posted by: mycentworth

February 2, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A more modern consideration of the simplistic God/Satan theme, in one short (nicely referenced) poster:

http://i.imgur.com/rjN2E.jpg

It would be a misreading to think the writer believes that either of these characters exist.

Or, as theologian Bill Maher puts it in five simple sentences:

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-con...

D.
-------------
"Is it not wonderful that the creator of all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange that after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered them from slavery, feed them by miracles, opened the sea for a path, led them by cloud and fire, and overthrown their pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their own making?" (Exod. 32:1-8) "...a God who gave his entire time for 40 years to the work of converting three millions of people, and succeeded in getting only two men, and not a single woman, decent enough to enter the promised land?" (Num. 14:29-30) --Ingersoll

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 2, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - Maybe that is why He repented of creating man. We hasn't changed much.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 2, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I'm back to the farm, after a day of fishing at the hot lake in Gentry and I see the know-it-all is still a post hog. I know, the Leopard and the spots thing.

Hang in there mycentworth. And, by the way, God defeated Satan on the Cross and defeated death on Easter morning. One of these days He is coming back with all the Old Covenant saints (the ones under the altar or the 140,000) and just about halfway the last trump is going to sound and the dead in Christ are going to rise, meet him in the air, and go to be with Him forever. Argument over!

Also, cdawg, I wouldn't be posting booking pictures on the post claiming that it is someone who posts here. That little game can work two ways. Wait until the next meth lab bust comes up and I'll post one of you. Be sure you are right before you start something you can't finish. The Washington Country Sheriff's office can find you from this site. I haven't decided yet if I will press charges for misuse of their website and slander on my part.

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM, "God defeated Satan on the Cross and defeated death on Easter morning. One of these days He is coming back"

Amen to that, So true - love the simplicity of that statement.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 2, 2013 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Give me a break with the simplicity. Simplicity is the problem.

This thread began with the ignorant comments of Mr. Corbin and proceeded on with ignorant comments from the ankle biting, pecuniary posters: Money and cent.

I'm sure it gives one great personal contentment to have faith in an omnipotent perfection, particularly when the primary article of that faith provides one with a supreme personal, i.e., selfish, reward for holding that faith.

It's absurd, of course. Absolutist religious beliefs only back the unfortunate believers into an intellectual corner where reason and evidence are always found to be more consistent with truth and reality.

Even in arguments about what the Bible has to say, the thinker, using reason and evidence always runs over the faith-based believers; it's clear who has actually studied the Bible and who hasn't. The freethinker has done his homework; the pecuniary ankle biters haven't cracked a Book.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 2, 2013 at 6:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FLL - The message of salvation is simple. It can't be any simpler than -

1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Some have studied the Bible their whole life and still find it fascinating. There are many intelligent people that believe the Word of God. I'm sorry that you aren't one of them.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 2, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sometimes there is a great difference between knowledge and understanding. Some of us don't think Mr. Corbin's comments were ignorant. You, Frank, could have used the word uninformed in place of ignortant, but no you chose a derogratory insulting term. Thats shame on you Frank.

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Also, cdawg, I wouldn't be posting booking pictures on the post claiming that it is someone who posts here."
Where did cdawg make that claim?

RE "The Washington Country Sheriff's office can find you from this site."
And if they can't, the FBI can.

RE "I haven't decided yet if I will press charges for misuse of their website and slander on my part. "
How has the site been misused? There is no prohibition against posting links, as long as they aren't pornographic or otherwise generally objectionable. And how has cdawg slandered you? He hasn't mentioned you by any name you use; in fact, he hasn't referred to you at all, and he has referred only obliquely to anything you have said.

RE "You, Frank, could have used the word uninformed in place of ignortant, but no you chose a derogratory insulting term."
"Ignorant" and "uninformed" are, for all practical purposes, synonyms. Although the origin of the word "ignorant" ties it to "ignore", and the word carries the additional meaning of "not knowing something that one should know", it is nevertheless important to use the correct vocabulary in making comments. FrankLloydLeft has done so. Mr. Corbin should have known more about science and the Bible before he essayed a criticism of the beliefs of another.

RE "Thats shame on you Frank."
No, it's shame on Mr. Corbin, but he's very probably too ignorant to know it. He did, after all, undertake to have his ignorant opinion published in a newspaper.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 2, 2013 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Corbin wrote, "Evolution theory is a belief system (religion) not only not supported by scientific proof, but discredited by scientific principles that show evolution is impossible."

That's clearly an uninformed opinion, but it's worse than that. It's volitionally ignorant.

Corbin, like many who use their Bible as a blunt weapon against an inclusive, contemporary baseline of knowledge, has made the conscious choice to be and stay uninformed.

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about” Anonymous

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 3, 2013 at 12:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think, Cat, that posting pictures of mug shots infering that is a poster, is a can of worms that you and your other filthy minded, like-minded don't want to open. Lets see wasn't there a child murder in Bentonville, would you like to be him?

Posted by: JailBird

February 3, 2013 at 2:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I think, Cat, that posting pictures of mug shots infering that is a poster"
Actually, you inferred that it is a mugshot of a commenter here; your claim is that cdawg implied it-- which he didn't.

RE "a can of worms"
It's your can of worms. You're the only person here who has connected that mugshot to somebody who posts here.

RE " that you and your other filthy minded, like-minded don't want to open."
You opened it. I hadn't even clicked on the link until you mentioned it. And what does any of this have to do with having a filthy mind?

RE "wasn't there a child murder in Bentonville, would you like to be him?"
Not at all, and you can't tempt me. I have found that the best way to not be him is to not murder children.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 3, 2013 at 2:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mary had a little Lamb,
His fleece was white as snow.

And everywhere that Mary went,
That Lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school each day.
When it wasn't against the rule.

He made the children laugh and play
To have the Lamb at school.

Then the rules changed one day.
Against the law it became.

To bring the Lamb of God to school
Or even speak His name.

Every day got worse and worse,
And days turned into years.

Instead of hearing children laugh and play,
You heard them crying tears.

What must we do to stop the crime.
That's in our schools today?

Let the Lamb come back to school
And teach our children to pray.

And on each and every front,
Oppose the evil with the God of love

There are men even on this thread
who support evil rules that murder kids.

They should repent of their evil thoughts
And let Mary's little Lamb come back to school

Amen

Posted by: JailBird

February 3, 2013 at 4:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another plagiarized rip from Mm.

When posting verbatim from other sources, it's customary to mention that fact.

And Mm claims to be a writer? Must keep his editors quite busy culling out the plagiarism.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 3, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

.

>>I think, Cat, that posting pictures of mug shots infering that is a poster, is a can of worms that you and your other filthy minded, like-minded don't want to open. <,

If said posted public police picture (linked) is not anyone posting on this page then why the upset?

.

Posted by: cdawg

February 3, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That character, whoever he is, can find his mug posted in other locations, too. The web is an equal opportunity tool for criminal research, for the filthy minded and non-filthy minded alike.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 3, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If we're going to out people now, let me out myself.
If anybody wants to read my books and comment here, you are welcome to do so (although they aren't NWA news).
http://www.ozarkia.net/koonce/index.html

Posted by: Coralie

February 3, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That character must be a VIP, being that he is allowed a computer in jail using it any time he wants to. Which mug shot on the Washington County Sheriff's web site would you like to be linked to cdawg?

I know left and wrong don't mix like oil and water, but the bunch of you better wash you mouths out with soap. The little lamb poem is linked to public domain and the author is unknown. I changed it a little so that it fits the leftist's on this sludge site.

Coralie, they started it, and I'm happy to finish it even though I'm outnumbered 15 to 4. Someone, probably Freeby, came up with a Philip character whom I had never heard of until cdawg linked a mugshot to me. So now if we want to out people, let's go. Lets see how nasty it can get! You free leftists always do that when you have lost in the game of wits and issues.

Posted by: JailBird

February 3, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What is the point of posting the mug shot? Pretty good picture whoever it is.

Coralie, Nice pic of you, too.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 3, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK. I'm out, too. I'm actually a yellow dog.

http://tinyurl.com/b9wgcrx

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 3, 2013 at 10:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, is just, well just, handsome! I bet she would run a mean daycare.

Posted by: JailBird

February 5, 2013 at 2:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Where is Freeby, I didn't mean to to be so hard on him that he took his toys and went home. Maybe if I let him win one every once in a while. Gawd, he is so easy and funny. He thinks I'm in jail and using my personal computar. Stupid is as stupid does. Maybe he went out to look for bigfoot. That seems to be stored in the back of his mind somewhere. I hope I didn't hurt his feelings.

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 1:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Maybe the Holy Spirit convicted him and he is studying the Word. Never know.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 9, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Could have been like Saul on the Damascus road, Free could come back with a different name and attitude.

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Of all the sad words of tongue and pen
The saddest of all; "It might have been."

A man can be what he wants to be
But, why oh why. can he not see
The narrow way that leads to light
Do all have to live in eternal night?

The saddest sound a man has wrought
Is for the Lord to say; "I knew you not."

---John Greenleaf Whittier, Kurt Vonnegut, and ME

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent: "Maybe the Holy Spirit convicted him...">>

Without even a trial? That would be just like him wouldn't it. Just like when they killed that guy for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.

Mycent: "...and he is studying the Word.">>

I did most of that studying in the '80's and '90's. And I refer not to just reading and believing, but actual critical examination and study of reference works by reputable Bible scholars. Too often what people call "Bible study" is just people getting together and agreeing to believe the same fibs they heard from someone else who hasn't given the book careful study. Other than the task our freethinker group has of educating people about standard Bible scholarship, I'm not so much interested in the Bible anymore. Always on to new hobbies and new areas of interest. I did get roped into having a meeting a fundamentalist pastor next week. A very religious acquaintance who is very curious about my skepticism wants to have their pastor teach Doug and I a few things about Bible truths. They were going to have a group of about twenty from the church for this but when I told the fellow that we had had a few hundred of these exchanges over the years and they always went quite well, they decided to just have two people... and see how it goes. Maybe I'll give an update if it's interesting.

D.
-----------
"The Sin of Silence
There is a sin among a large segment of the Christian clergy that I find despicable. It is the sin of omission, the sin of silence. It is the sin of promoting falsehoods in order to hold your job. It is the sin of not sharing with a congregation what you know to be true about the bible and Christianity.

Those graduating in religious studies from every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure, know certain facts to be true. They know that:

1. The entire Bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.

2. The stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.

3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

4. The 'Christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.

5. These facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.

Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission and silence, continue to promote superstition."

--William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 9, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT are any of these "exchanges" ever video recorded?

Inquiring minds.

Posted by: cdawg

February 9, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Welcome back, Free, you will never know how much I missed you. You are mindcandy. And I'm serious.

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg: "...are any of these "exchanges" ever video recorded?">>

No, but they should be.

When I referred to that large number of exchanges, a great many of those interactions would be from our Springfest booth over the years. Without those the number would still be many dozens.

Many of Doug's formal debates have been recorded and are available. See list here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/debates/

Let me know if you would like a DVD.

D.
-----------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 9, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, Free, I guess that your belief in transubstantiation is also shattered?

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: I'm sorry for your experiences as I have found not to put faith in men, but in my personal experiences and the Word. I could explain being under the law before Christ, but it wouldn't do any good.

Titus 3:9 - Avoid foolish questions, & geneologies and contentions and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I think I will take that advice.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 9, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good for you, mycent, I'll take care of Freeby he is childsplay. Don't worry girl everything is going to be OK and God honoring.

Posted by: JailBird

February 9, 2013 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )