Dionysus Voice? What a name choice. Didn't the original followers dress up in skins and have huge orgies and KILLED any who resisted their horde? (Also known to eat the flesh of whatever or whoever they killed raw) Just saying, Ironic choice of god to emulate. >.> Have a nice day.
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit
So what's the lesson we can use from this god-written lesson ...
Having God with you makes no difference ?
God is only on your side when you're winning .. like some half-hearted football fan who sits at home and only supports his team when they're winning ?
When you win you give credit to God, but when you lose it is someone else's fault?
BAHAHAH at the TheShel8777 .. deluded christians are SOOO funny. So your defense for believing something stupid for no reason is that there are other idiots like you who do the same, so it MUST be true. Hmmm .. seems legit :P
@MrRonslow So legit that you can't even send me a response, and have to copy my user name, to hide your COWARDLY insults huh? Epic Fail Sir. Epic Fail..
@TheShel8777 You stay deluded and be the angry COWARD that you seem to be, without doing ANY RESEARCH if the Bible is TRUE or not (which it is) the fairly tale land of something coming from nothing- even TOP atheist debaters have left that behind. If somebody in your family turned you off from the truth. I'm sorry for that, but thinking BILLIONS of people throughout history blindly believe for NOTHING without checking if its true, Is YOUR err. Better not die anytime soon..
Not so, I've heard this in church. The reliance of ignorance to condemn God's work is pitiful. This video and its ideology proves that many have been held back in terms of progress, their brains I mean. Sad really.
Put an end to all of the guilt that you hold inside from the choices that you have made. Start life over with the slate wiped clean. Moreover, ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
For you guys debating on that moral arguement, check out william lane craigs video on objective moral values and you could also check out his debate with atheist Sam Harris on where morality comes from (Craig wins).
The "he" after the colon is definitely not God, but Judah. So it's actually like this: "And the LORD was with Judah: and Judah drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
@ndrummer99 morals are universal. most people can agree, independantly of thr bible, that murder is wrong. what the last guy told you is pretty true. its instinctive and it doesnt differ vastly.(except for a few bad apples, but even christianity has some of those)
Religion is not the source or inventor of morality. In fact, it erodes it. Anyone who thinks I don't know the difference between right and wrong because I don't worship anyone or anything is very sadly mistaken.
But THEY could not drive out the people from the plains.These were harsh times and wars were necessary. Get your facts straight. These were MEN fighting MEN. The Lord can be with you and you won't get everything magically handed to you. Struggles strengthen our character. They were defeated because they disobeyed the Lord. Read the WHOLE story next time, big thinker.
Proof there is a GOD: A new series to help my family who is religious or agnostic know what I follow to obey ALAH and avoid hell! Called "The Awaited Reformer" DO NOT MISS IT! ww.youtube. c0m/user/DRAGON4EVA21
@xfire7 They are the funniest books ever written and people believe it as true. Same reason people like the Jackass movies. Example, the Jews were lead through the desert by God a pillar of fire at night and a column of smoke during the day. Egyptian military lead troops with a fire on a pike during then night and smoldering coals during the day. Reason is you don’t want to get your forces broken up. The two should seem similar but one doesn't claim to be supernatural.
@xfire7 Because we find it so fucking hilarious. And most of the time Christians deny the fact that christians killed thousands via Crusade. And possibly the Spanish Inquisition, but I think they were catholic. Also, many horrible things were encouraged by god in the bible. Examples: Slavery, stoning homosexuals, beating slaves. Then the bible says not to do these things. God broke his own ten commandments, and told others to do the same, and sent them to hell for it later.
@xfire7 cuz it's fun. and since we have no super natural beliefs of our own to mock, we must cast about in search of other such beliefs to mock. and yours happens to be the funniest.
STRAWMAN JUDGES 1:19 (read the whole thing in context) 1:19 Could not drive - Because of their unbelief, whereby they distrusted God's power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent of your immoral ways of living. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
@SinnFein4ever How dare you suggest the one an only creator of all things good and evil is also a fairy. Hmmm... Wait a minute here. God's chosen people refer to themselves as conservative "Christian" republicans, and they crusade against homosexuality. Yet they are constantly being caught in homosexual acts and situations. I wonder if this equals causation, or mere correlation.
@SinnFein4ever which makes me think that (if he was real, hypthothetically speaking here), that god may have been one of the Fair Folk. ;) y'know, the version of faeries before they were bowderized according to prevailing victorian taste and sensitivities: tvtropes(dot)org/pmwiki/pmwiki(dot)php/Main/TheFairFolk
So wait, including disparaging information such as military failure makes the story less rather than more believable? You really to take me through the logic on that one, bet it is one twisted ride.
Besides, I bet if you actually studied the Bible, you'd find within it a biblical explanation for the failure...
@nicodemous52 "Besides, I bet if you actually studied the Bible, you'd find within it a biblical explanation for the failure..." Feel free to find one. Plenty of them have already been presented in the discussions here, but you're always welcome to dredge up more. It's often fun to watch the tortured lengths you theists will go to in order to justify some piece of obvious bullshit in the bible.
@TheMonk72 No thank you, I may or may not have such an answer...but you will not ever accept it unless it is revealed to you anyway. And, it will only be revealed to you through patient, dutiful study with a thirst for knowledge and the truth.
@nicodemous52 Actually I presented one of the many refutations of this particular post. Your assumption that I wouldn't accept your explanation is based on your own prejudice.
@TheMonk72 Or perhaps it is based on reading your other comments... "but you will not ever accept it unless it is revealed to you anyway. And, it will only be revealed to you through patient, dutiful study with a thirst for knowledge and the truth." Was what I actually said, and I still stand by it...
@nicodemous52 The difference between us obviously is that I DO care about the truth. Theists in general care about faith first, truth second. Apologists love to say that when the facts appear to contradict the bible, the bible is the one to believe since it is the word of god.
@TheMonk72 And...your point is that atheists have no presuppositions? Isn't being either an atheist or a theist an admission to a set of presuppositions?
@nicodemous52 "Isn't being either an atheist or a theist an admission to a set of presuppositions?" Many atheists now define their position as a rejection of theist claims due to lack of supporting evidence. No matter what theists say about atheists, the reality is simply that we don't believe your claims. We don't presuppose the non-existence of god, so what do you propose is the presupposition inherent in atheism?
@TheMonk72 You say this, but I do not believe you because I know sicentenst like Dawkins will accept any answer for the creation of the universe, any but GOD...Creationism he can accept, but only if it was "aliens" rather than GOD. Ya'll like to talk a good, "fair minded" game.(CON>>>)
@nicodemous52 "You say this, but I do not believe you because I know sicentenst like Dawkins will accept any answer for the creation of the universe, any but GOD..." We don't accept god as an answer because the existence of god is not demonstrated. Prove god exists and we'll be more likely to accept that god is an answer, not a question.
@TheMonk72 ...(<<<CON)but your actions speak much louder than your words. Besides, were you not the one saying we need to "move on, let it die", sound like you already have an idea in your head that is it in fact not real. So, your little lie here will not work on me. We already talked back and forth too much for it to...
@nicodemous52 You mistake my conclusion ("there is no god") for a presupposition. The difference is that a conclusion is DERIVED FROM perception and reasoning, while a presupposition SHAPES perception and reasoning.
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition
@nicodemous52 "Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none." *sigh* The burden of proof issue is another way that Theists often try to screw with atheists. You're the ones trying to establish that a thing exists, therefore you have the burden of proof. That's the way it works, always has, always will. I don't have to disprove god, you have to prove god.
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition...
@nicodemous52 What an utter obfuscation of fact. Scientific theory relies on evidence in support of notions, whereupon sufficient evidence bears out a hypothesis. Whereas, those things found to have little or no evidence in support are dismissed as not supported by evidence. Upon such a determination of lacking supportive evidence, the claim is considered false, until substantial evidence can be produced, and verified. Faith is belief without, and or, in spite of evidence.
@nicodemous52 That there is NO substantial evidence of a GOD, should lead a rational person to the resultant conclusion. Therefore, anyone who believes such an existence, in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidentiary support is not a rational individual, in the case of that belief. Belief in spite of evidence can be held to by otherwise very rational people. But, a cognitive dissonance is always implicated by such beliefs.
@nicodemous52 I believe I'm quite familiar with the difference between them. A conclusion is the resultant information after due consideration of all pertinent data and evidence related to a given hypothesis. An assumption is reached without any due consideration of data, and often, preemptively. So, in the next post, I will give an example of this, related directly to the subject matter at hand. to be continued in the next post.
@nicodemous52 Continued from previous post. Person "A" notices a lot of apparent order to the universe, due to innate pattern seeking behavior. Person "A" then ASSUMES a grand design, and thus a grand designer. Person "B" then considers all the evidence for a grand designer. Finding none that can be attributed solely to a grand designer, but a mountain of evidence which can be attributed to either a grand designer, or a natural order(self organizing systems). To be continued...
@nicodemous52 Continued... Person "B," after due consideration of the evidence, or lack thereof and the larger mountain of evidence for self organization, reaches the conclusion, there is no grand design, or designer. Person "A" then accuses person "B" of ignoring the "mountain" of evidence, which is ambiguous, and can be read a number of ways, of making assumptions, rather than reaching conclusions. Person "B" points out to person "A", that simply isn't the way science works.
@nicodemous52 So, professor, did I pass? Do I have any understanding of science at all? Or does my disagreement with your assumptions/conclusions still not meet with your approval? P.S. I intended to put all caps on "CONCLUSION" in that last post, just to remain fair to the subject matter, and the post before it. This is very beginner level stuff. If you want to get involved in such discussions, and make assertions, you have a long learning curve ahead of you. But, I am patient.
@TheMonk72 Thank you so very much for pointing this out. One can only hope it will be taken into consideration by the self deluded. Unfortunately, past experience would tend to suggest otherwise.
@4817Indian "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
This is the passage you are referring to, and I don't see where it says GOD couldn't find them, or even really tried to...
@nicodemous52 “Where are you?” This query denotes an active search, and an inability to fulfill that search. Thus, you are practicing a logical fallacy. If the man knew GOD was omnipotent, and omnipresent, then GOD, he would have known, was present when he ate of the fruit. That GOD did not admonish the man not to eat of the fruit before hand, shows a sense of apathy on the part of GOD. This DOES NOT equate to non interference in the "free will" argument.
"god" was an alien. worshiped as such for his "magical" abilities. any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as "magic" to an extremely primitive civilization
Certainly that since God chose Joshua as His instrument of destruction (Joshua 6:17) he was commanded to kill every single living thing. when J's warriors fail at removing the chariot valley dwelling people this says more for the failure of Joshua to persevere and complete the conquest. instead they chose to live in peace with them against Gods command. If you fail at something try a different tactic. what are chariots of iron to the walls of jericho? Stick with context plz.
@gregsees The reason given for their failure to complete their God-given mission of genocide was clearly "because they had chariots of iron", not "because their faith wavered" or "because they forgot God and went against his will".
@nooobsaibot Exactly. The gist of the story would seem to suggest that GOD, of the Hebrew Bible fame, is somehow weak against iron chariots. But, all knowing, and all powerful. The contradiction in these two thought processes alone should be enough to more than justify any doubt as to the validity of the whole. and yet, we are constantly faced with ad hominem attacks on character for holding such doubts.
@gregsees but if they do that, how will they ever twist scripture into the jokes and hate the need to reassure themselves that GOD doesn't really exist. Which really, the fact that they need so much reassurance tells us something about the nature of their beliefs...
@gregsees This is a conflation of two separate stories. Joshua at the walls of Jericho, with Judah at Miggido. So, yes, please keep it within context.
@fhab525 Yeah, it has no internal consistency. God is perfect, but god changes because of something that Jesus (who is also god) did. The bible says god exists and we trust the bible because god wrote it.
None of it makes sense to anyone who cares to really think about it.
@TheMonk72 Here is the deal, the story as is you call unbelievable because it defies, oddly enough, natural law. However, if my GOD were bound by the laws of the universe, what exactly would make that being "god"? AND, if the story did conform to the natural laws of science you'd likely ask what makes GOD so special if he can't rise above the limits of his own creation. No matter what, some will find an excuse to be their own god...
@nicodemous52 "Here is the deal, the story as is you call unbelievable because it defies, oddly enough, natural law." Not just natural law but reason and history too. The inconsistencies between what the bible says and what is observed in the real world lead to two possible conclusions: 1) After doing all these awesome things, your god covered up any evidence that some of these things ever happened, or 2) the book is a story, not a history.
@TheMonk72 It is both, or do you deny that the Jewish people have next to no history written outside of the bible? Also, isn't it strange how we've discovered many sights spoken of within the Bible that people thought never existed, and then surprise, they actually do?
@nicodemous52 "isn't it strange how we've discovered many sights spoken of within the Bible that people thought never existed, and then surprise, they actually do?" This isn't uncommon in fiction. Its amazing how many times a "historical fiction" writer has made shit up and then found out it was true
@nicodemous52 "Such as?" How about the Utahraptor? Jurassic Park didn't get much right about Raptors, but the setting for the first dig to discover a near-complete Raptor fossil in the US was scripted well before the actual discovery of the Utahraptor in 1993.
Then of course there's the reams of fiction surround the Architeuthis, or Giant Squid. Since these babies live at crushing depths the stories of them grabbing ships are pure fiction.
@nicodemous52 "It is both, or do you deny that the Jewish people have next to no history written outside of the bible?" By both you mean both story and history? Glad to hear you say that, since most theists don't agree that it is a story. The bible is a mixture of fact and fiction.
@nicodemous52 "No matter what, some will find an excuse to be their own god" How about instead we just acknowledge that there probably isn't any god, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway, and just let the whole "god" concept fade off into history. Religion is such an outdated concept, and one we no longer require. Let's just let it die.
@nicodemous52 "You say it makes no difference, then why kill what doesn't matter?" I don't think the existence of god or not makes any difference in the real world. Those who believe in god are responsible for a lot of atrocities, so killing religion would be a net benefit.
@TheMonk72 Okay, admittedly, the follow up response does indicate this... However, it was only in response to the original suggestion of nicodemous52.
@nicodemous52 This is an emotional appeal. No one said anything about killing religion, which is an active response. What was suggested was simply to allow it to die, of its own accord... In much the same way as so many ancient, and no longer believed religions/gods have died in the past. When people no longer believe in, or worship gods, they simply fade away into myth and fair tale existence. For instance Greek and Norse "Mythology." Both, once believed, and real religions.
@fhab525 No, it really doesn't. We are punished for our own sins, the garden of Eden explains the origin of sin. there is a difference...ALL sin leads to death, but we are all judged by our own sins. And because sin did enter the world we all can't help but fall prey to it. That is why we need a savior.
@nicodemous52 That is why we need a savior." Funny... I could have sworn it was the Christian contention, we already had such a savior, in the Jesus character. hence the pseudonym, Christ. Christ is a fore shortening of the Greek term, Christos, which means savior, and extends from previous Greek lore. That's right folks, Christ wasn't really his name. It was a title.
@zebraman60 Dude, define trolling. Never mind, allow me to do that for you...a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. I have done none of these things. However, the accusation could be seen as such.
@zebraman60 I saw nothing in the description that suggested a post limit. And, as you will notice, if you bother to read those posts, I have not been inflammatory, or off topic, since i have been primarily addressing what other have already said. I think you are a bit off base with this one.
@frankleeseaux its just courtesy. plus, youre just proving how little a life you have. do you really think anyone cares about every aspect of your opinion? jeez...
@zebraman60 Umm, it is Sunday... I'm not religious, so I didn't go to church today. My girlfriend, in a rare twist of fate, isn't here with me this whole weekend, and I got nothing better to do. Sue me.
I find it particularly interesting that the censorship started around the time I raised the Free Will vs Omniscience question. It's a good question, too. Did it bother someone do you think?
And you know what? I thought Christians were supposed to be nice people. Jesus tells them to be nice, even to their enemies. And their own god tells them not to lie.
OK, he also tells them to kill people, but not to kill people. I guess Christian morality is a matter of interpretation and selective reading.
Atheist morality is a lot stronger than that, for which I am truly grateful.
@TheMonk72 "he also tells them to kill people, but not to kill people." This is a misunderstanding of Exodus 20:13. The correct translation is "You shall not murder", not kill. All murder involves the taking of life, but not all taking of life is murder. Capital punishment takes life, but is not murder. In fact, the next chapter capital punishment is sanctioned. Killing in self-defense is not murder. War in defense of the innocent or against an unjust aggressor is also not murder.
@ndrummer99 This might surprise you, but I already knew this. These translation errors are the source of many of the misunderstandings in bible reading, and are proof that bible inerrancy is a myth.
Murder is "the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another." How then do you define "unlawful" to allow the genocide of an entire race - including babies - to NOT be murder? And yet god commands this of his followers.
@TheMonk72 Yes, the translations are not inerrant. God's Word is.
Israel was a theocracy. God determined what was law, therefore His command was not unlawful. God as the giver of life also has the right to take life. He is sovereign. However, He takes no pleasure in death, not even of the wicked.
@ndrummer99 If the translations are not inerrant, then the bible is tainted. I can probably find 20 English-language versions of the Bible, each with a slight spin on the translation.
And even when they agree they disagree with the oldest manuscripts we can find. There are inconsistencies in translation that could have gone either way.
And so now we have people who believe that genesis is talking about creation of the universe in under a week. Get real.
@TheMonk72 "they disagree with the oldest manuscripts we can find" How would you know that? Are you saying you alone hold the correct interpretation of the MSS and that all scholars are wrong? Inconsistencies? 99% of the manuscripts are textually pure. That means that of all the ancient New Testament documents, there is very little manuscript deviation. Most of the deviations are word order changes, misspellings, etc. They do not affect the meaning or the accuracy of the text.
@ndrummer99 No, I have followed the discussions that various religious groups have given that talk about things like the translation of the days of Genesis. Apparently the ancient Hebrew texts use a word (yom) which was used historically to mean either a day (24 hours, as we know them now) or as an indefinite period that could equally mean billions of years. Substitute "period" for "day" in Genesis and it reads like a bad understanding of big bang theory and evolution.
@ndrummer99 Additionally, if the bible was pure and untainted there would be fewer religions based on it. There are many Christian sects, all (or most) drawing from the same book, all with different takes on what it means. And many of them claim that they are the one true faith, that everyone else is damned to hell for not believing as they do.
The bible is nothing more than a badly written fairy tale. It's not historically accurate, and certainly not internally consistent.
@TheMonk72 And how does one's interpretation of the Genesis account amount to a disagreement with the manuscript? Or how does the different takes on the Bible equal it being false? People have many different takes on history. Does that prove history false? You have made several unfounded statements which beg the question are you being intellectually honest about the matter?
Being intellectually honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to reach valid conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs, and seeking to override or reduce those biases. I’m afraid your beliefs have been shaped more by your malicious attitude toward God than logic.
@ndrummer99 I make no bones about my bias, but that doesn't affect the validity of my arguments. Free Will vs Omniscience, Bible Inerrancy, Morality of God, Lack of Evidence for God... how I chose to pursue those arguments may be flawed because of the bias, but the arguments retain their validity despite it.
@TheMonk72 You underestimate the power of a biased opinion. I'm afraid your bias, which you have openly admitted to, renders your evaluation of the evidence unreliable. This proving there is no God is evidently something personal for you. The emotionalism which you bring to this issue, directed against a God you claim isn’t there, introduces a non-logical motivation into your heart which debilitates you from coming to an objective and logical conclusion.
@ndrummer99 As previously stated, religion is based on emotions and bias. That's about all there is to it, really. There's certainly no objective or logical evidence, and you have not come to your conclusions objectively and logically. Instead you've accepted a fantasy that you want to be real.
@ndrummer99 "I'm afraid your bias, which you have openly admitted to, renders your evaluation of the evidence unreliable." This is a false statement/evaluation. A person who can admit to their biases is less likely to be driven by them, and more likely to approach them from alternate perspectives. Whereas, a person who holds to their biases, and refuses to acknowledge them, is far less likely to reconsider their own evaluations, in the light of reason, evidence, and verifiable facts.
@frankleeseaux I agree. However, I still find my analysis accurate. Often people reject the idea of God not because of an implausibility of their being a divine entity but because they don't want to be held morally accountable for their lifestyle if there is. If you believe what you like, & reject what you don’t, it's not the truth you believe, but yourself.
@ndrummer99 I must point out It is the supposed morals held true within the text, so many atheists object to. Not because they prefer to live some perverse lifestyle, but because the Bible seem so perverse. Most atheists were once theists who realized contradictions within the text, and context of the scriptures, which caused them doubts as to its validity. It is these doubts, not some imagined lifestyle, which caused atheism to well up within them.
@frankleeseaux ...we are ALL BORN ATHEISTS. None of us are born with any knowledge or relationship with God. Only those who are PREDESTINED BY GOD...come to know Him in a personal way.
@bornagain001 Ah, but by your own words, atheists, and all other peoples who do not believe the same as you, are "predestined" not to believe. As such, they can hardly be held accountable for their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore, it would be immoral for a GOD, or anyone else to damn them to eternal torture. It would also form a non sequitur to accuse anyone of "choosing" to believe a certain way.
@frankleeseaux ...you seem to be confused about your accountability. Your accountability is based on whether you have kept God's 10 Commandments. Those are the only 10 Laws which God will judge your guilt or innocence. Ifb you have kept all 10...you are good to go for eternity. Broken even ONE...and you have an eternal problem starting on Judgment Day. All of the lying and stealing you have done will determine your eternity....NOT whether you believed or did not believe.
@bornagain001 Probably not me. Far too many accounts have that the only thing a person can never be forgiven of is a lack of belief in, and or, a denial of the existence of GOD. Break any one, or even all "10" commandments, but beg forgiveness, and confess a belief in GOD and your ticket to Heaven is bought an paid in full. Keep all 600 plus commandments, but fail to acknowledge the existence of GOD, or his divinity, and supremacy, and it is the firey pit for all eternity.
@frankleeseaux .... "Break any one, or even all "10" commandments, but beg forgiveness, and confess a belief in GOD and your ticket to Heaven is bought an paid in full."
Don't fool yourself. It doesn't work that way, although many atheists do live under that delusion. There are MANY things atheists are wrong about. This is just one of them.
So you disagree with Scripture on a moral basis? I strongly suspect the true issue here is not the lack of moral order in the Word of God, but rather the insistence of deciding for oneself what is right and what is wrong, in spite of what we intuitively know to be true.
@ndrummer99 Define intuition, would you please? Intuition could be defined as those thought processes which are hardwired due to evolutionary survival tactics, and biological function, or the resultant thought processes of biological function/survival impulses. For instance, we can intuit that a hungry tiger will leap up and lunge forward on its prey(potentially us). So, we can anticipate an attack from above, and prepare for such. However, the tiger could go low, and evade counters.
@frankleeseaux Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason. It's knowing something without knowing why you know it. It's a fact that man has an inborn sense of right and wrong. How do you explain it? If it's merely an evolutionary mechanism for survival why isn't it present in the animal kingdom and why does it differ so vastly in humanity?
@ndrummer99 All, or almost all animals exhibit "pattern seeking behavior." As such, we begin to recognize patterns in everything within nature... Even when no real pattern is present. Thus, we can easily intuit information based on rapid evaluation of our immediate environment. This is an important survival trait. We also(noticed within the remaining animal kingdom, as well) exhibit a trait which has come to be known as empathy. That is concern for others. It is equally important.
@frankleeseaux If intuition is simply a formerly recognized pattern how does a baby sea turtle know to swim to the ocean when it's life has just begun? There are somethings we just know. They aren't learned, they are inborn. We call them instincts, I call them intelligence. This leads us to a greater question. Where did the information in our DNA come from?
@ndrummer99 Baby sea turtles do not have the "finely tuned" intellect of humans. There are a great many mental capacities which humans possess, which are not found in the rest of the animal kingdom. These abilities take time to develop in humans. As such, most of what we know, we learn after we're born. The ability to balance, to walk, and to move with "purpose," and to speak with clarity are all learned behaviors. They are not innate in humans.
@ndrummer99 That is kind of a tricky subject, mostly because of linguistics. Right and wrong, as moralistic concepts are almost certainly learned behavior, by my own experience. But, Empathetically speaking, they do tend to make a lot of sense for survival within a community. You are probably attempting to determine some means, or mechanism for determining "right" from "wrong" from an atheistic worldview... Perhaps as a means of understanding our motivation for moralistic behavior.
@frankleeseaux So if right and wrong are learned behaviors do you believe they even exist? Are they merely tools for survival or is there actually such a thing as injustice?
@ndrummer99 I believe that right and wrong, as moralistic concepts, are abstract concepts. They have little or no basis in reality. There is benefit and harm. These, we can all agree upon. But, what action equals right tends to vary from culture to culture. In many cases, what has been defined as right or wrong behavior has been due to social conditioning within an era and a region, and have altered over time. In light of this, it is difficult to make such holistic determinations.
@frankleeseaux When I take money from someone it benefits me and harms them. Is it right for me and wrong for them? If right and wrong are merely abstract ideas that have no bearing in reality why should we feel compelled to honor them? In an objective sense, there would be no such thing as morality. This is why I believe so strongly when we fail to apprehend God, we go astray on all counts. If there is no moral law how can we be doing wrong?
@ndrummer99 You're gonna hate me for this... Money is an abstract as well. But, your question forms a linguistic nightmare. "Why honor something which is an abstract?(paraphrased)" It is akin to, though not exactly like asking, "why continue to pray to a God which we've already accepted as a parable, or as non-existent?" A better question may be to ask, "what can we replace as an equivalent, but more accurate term or concept?" Which I have begun to allude to in previous posts.
@ndrummer99 Most people have an instinctual-level understanding of morality. Even most animals could be found to have some form of "morals". Even assuming morality is an ephemeral thing, survival and propagation of the species keeps most of us from murdering each other. It becomes much more refined and intuitive through social contexts, but children display morality in surprising turns.
@ryu187 So why are some people moral and others not? If it's an inborn instinct why does it differ so vastly in people? Shouldn't it be a bit more universal? Man cannot decide morality for himself, independently of God. If there is no God, there is no universal standard for right and wrong, which means morals are relative to every man and doesn't really exist.
@ryu187 So why are some people moral and others not? If it's an inborn instinct why does it differ so vastly in people? Shouldn't it be a bit more universal? Man cannot decide morality for himself, independently of God. If there is no God, there is no universal standard for right and wrong, which means morals are relative to every man and doesn't really exist.
@ndrummer99 Do not mistake righteousness for goodness. Compassion not faith is my arbiter of good and evil. If you cannot for yourself determine good from evil how may you distinguish a good god from a wicked one? If you are kind only because it is your duty to your god then you have no charity. Charity and duty by definition cannot be mixed. If you are compassionate only because you fear God’s punishment and long for his approval, then your not compassionate but selfish at heart.
@ndrummer99 An injustice, for instance, might be perceived of banking institutions lending to people whom they know cannot repay the loans, and will almost certainly default, and lose everything in the process. However, within the financial realm, the burden of this injustice is shifted to the client who should have been aware, despite the desperate sales pitches of the bankers, that they could not afford all the hidden costs within the loan process.
So even the bible says that god is no match for science. Those darned mountain men and their Faraday cages. Brilliant.
medexamtoolsdotcom 14 hours ago 2
Dionysus Voice? What a name choice. Didn't the original followers dress up in skins and have huge orgies and KILLED any who resisted their horde? (Also known to eat the flesh of whatever or whoever they killed raw) Just saying, Ironic choice of god to emulate. >.> Have a nice day.
Zhemesor 1 day ago
LOLOL i love that song
rflooker 2 days ago
Holy shit I love this song who is it?
MrNilesFiles 2 days ago
@MrNilesFiles "God Will Fuck You Up," by John Butler Trio: watch?v=75UeVLbkXeg
YY4Me133 15 hours ago
Comment removed
JesusLivesNLovesU 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit
JesusLivesNLovesU 3 days ago
@TheShel8777 You do realize we are both atheists? We both don't believe in Isis, Thor, Zeus etcetera? I just subtract one more deity than you do...
misanthropyeternal 5 days ago
@TheShel8777 You do realize how murderous the Israelites were? And that this was all sanctioned by "God", of course?
misanthropyeternal 5 days ago
Drave???
ThomasTrue 5 days ago
So what's the lesson we can use from this god-written lesson ...
Having God with you makes no difference ?
God is only on your side when you're winning .. like some half-hearted football fan who sits at home and only supports his team when they're winning ?
When you win you give credit to God, but when you lose it is someone else's fault?
Hmmm
MrRonslow 6 days ago
BAHAHAH at the TheShel8777 .. deluded christians are SOOO funny. So your defense for believing something stupid for no reason is that there are other idiots like you who do the same, so it MUST be true. Hmmm .. seems legit :P
MrRonslow 6 days ago
@MrRonslow So legit that you can't even send me a response, and have to copy my user name, to hide your COWARDLY insults huh? Epic Fail Sir. Epic Fail..
TheShel8777 6 days ago
ANOTHER BIBLE VERSE TWISTED TO MAKE A USELESS POINT FOR AN ATHIEST - HELL AWAITS SIR, IF YOU DON'T STOP LYING TO YOURSELF
TheShel8777 1 week ago
@TheShel8777 Stop lying to yourself. There isn't a god. You're going six feet under unless you see a shrink.
LLOYD19851012 6 days ago
@TheShel8777 You stay deluded and be the angry COWARD that you seem to be, without doing ANY RESEARCH if the Bible is TRUE or not (which it is) the fairly tale land of something coming from nothing- even TOP atheist debaters have left that behind. If somebody in your family turned you off from the truth. I'm sorry for that, but thinking BILLIONS of people throughout history blindly believe for NOTHING without checking if its true, Is YOUR err. Better not die anytime soon..
TheShel8777 6 days ago
Not so, I've heard this in church. The reliance of ignorance to condemn God's work is pitiful. This video and its ideology proves that many have been held back in terms of progress, their brains I mean. Sad really.
h2omanz 1 week ago
god is a myth the buybull is a fairytale.
billbo1154 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Put an end to all of the guilt that you hold inside from the choices that you have made. Start life over with the slate wiped clean. Moreover, ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 week ago
For you guys debating on that moral arguement, check out william lane craigs video on objective moral values and you could also check out his debate with atheist Sam Harris on where morality comes from (Craig wins).
ObscureDEG 1 week ago
@ObscureDEG
Craig did not come close to winning that debate.
hkkorly 1 week ago
The "he" after the colon is definitely not God, but Judah. So it's actually like this: "And the LORD was with Judah: and Judah drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
ClawedImperial 1 week ago
@ClawedImperial Aren't all things possible with God though?
Elpha22 1 week ago
@ClawedImperial So, even the most primitive of man's inventions are more effective and reliable then god's support? Thanks for clearing that up. :D
CoyoteMao 1 week ago
@Phx8ball602 you dont need a 2000 year old book to tell you how to behave.
Phx8ball602 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 morals are universal. most people can agree, independantly of thr bible, that murder is wrong. what the last guy told you is pretty true. its instinctive and it doesnt differ vastly.(except for a few bad apples, but even christianity has some of those)
Phx8ball602 1 week ago
cool...
myapothyosis 1 week ago
Religion is not the source or inventor of morality. In fact, it erodes it. Anyone who thinks I don't know the difference between right and wrong because I don't worship anyone or anything is very sadly mistaken.
MrPaulbyron 1 week ago
ahhh hell yeah...awesome.!!
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 week ago
hahaha, great video
TheAmargao 1 week ago
"... and God fails on the rebound."
greiner3 1 week ago
lol! just shows how ridiculous it is!
beyallluv 2 weeks ago
But THEY could not drive out the people from the plains.These were harsh times and wars were necessary. Get your facts straight. These were MEN fighting MEN. The Lord can be with you and you won't get everything magically handed to you. Struggles strengthen our character. They were defeated because they disobeyed the Lord. Read the WHOLE story next time, big thinker.
ChaunaDyan 2 weeks ago
im going to play rock, iron, god. i wonder what will win.
agenerichuman 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof there is a GOD: A new series to help my family who is religious or agnostic know what I follow to obey ALAH and avoid hell! Called "The Awaited Reformer" DO NOT MISS IT! ww.youtube. c0m/user/DRAGON4EVA21
AdamAndHuwwa313 2 weeks ago
Why do atheists spend so much time mocking religion?
xfire7 2 weeks ago
@xfire7 They are the funniest books ever written and people believe it as true. Same reason people like the Jackass movies. Example, the Jews were lead through the desert by God a pillar of fire at night and a column of smoke during the day. Egyptian military lead troops with a fire on a pike during then night and smoldering coals during the day. Reason is you don’t want to get your forces broken up. The two should seem similar but one doesn't claim to be supernatural.
Growapair4once 2 weeks ago
@xfire7 Because we find it so fucking hilarious. And most of the time Christians deny the fact that christians killed thousands via Crusade. And possibly the Spanish Inquisition, but I think they were catholic. Also, many horrible things were encouraged by god in the bible. Examples: Slavery, stoning homosexuals, beating slaves. Then the bible says not to do these things. God broke his own ten commandments, and told others to do the same, and sent them to hell for it later.
nuggetking1012 2 weeks ago
@xfire7 ....because it deserves to be mocked.
politicoochie09 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from DionysusVoice
@xfire7 cuz it's fun. and since we have no super natural beliefs of our own to mock, we must cast about in search of other such beliefs to mock. and yours happens to be the funniest.
qwyzl 2 weeks ago
was this made with ms paint?
mikeymikemikey1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
STRAWMAN JUDGES 1:19 (read the whole thing in context) 1:19 Could not drive - Because of their unbelief, whereby they distrusted God's power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
That's some funny shit right there man keep up the good work!
joshanator1 3 weeks ago
"He'll fuck you uuuppp!"
Words of a true poet.
godzillaguy1336 3 weeks ago
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent of your immoral ways of living. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 3 weeks ago
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
s0be2266 3 weeks ago
Only Dionysus is Lord, Amen.
SidewaysQuark 3 weeks ago
ffuckkk yahweh
singhaditya317 3 weeks ago
Interestingly, iron is also supposed to protect one from faries.
SinnFein4ever 1 month ago
@SinnFein4ever How dare you suggest the one an only creator of all things good and evil is also a fairy. Hmmm... Wait a minute here. God's chosen people refer to themselves as conservative "Christian" republicans, and they crusade against homosexuality. Yet they are constantly being caught in homosexual acts and situations. I wonder if this equals causation, or mere correlation.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@SinnFein4ever which makes me think that (if he was real, hypthothetically speaking here), that god may have been one of the Fair Folk. ;) y'know, the version of faeries before they were bowderized according to prevailing victorian taste and sensitivities: tvtropes(dot)org/pmwiki/pmwiki(dot)php/Main/TheFairFolk
winzo89 3 weeks ago
where can i get this song?
00mrlost 1 month ago
What is the song in the intro ? XDXDXD
lumo1937 1 month ago
@lumo1937 God Will Fuck You Up, by John R. Butler. It ways at the end of the video.
IseeRightThrough2you 1 month ago
this is soo funny
0rshippraiseandw 1 month ago
ummmm they did read this in my church.
cooldaddyjames2814 1 month ago
@cooldaddyjames2814 And you just sat there and didn't raise any kind of questions about this at all like a good member of the herd.
personEks 1 month ago
So wait, including disparaging information such as military failure makes the story less rather than more believable? You really to take me through the logic on that one, bet it is one twisted ride.
Besides, I bet if you actually studied the Bible, you'd find within it a biblical explanation for the failure...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "Besides, I bet if you actually studied the Bible, you'd find within it a biblical explanation for the failure..." Feel free to find one. Plenty of them have already been presented in the discussions here, but you're always welcome to dredge up more. It's often fun to watch the tortured lengths you theists will go to in order to justify some piece of obvious bullshit in the bible.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 No thank you, I may or may not have such an answer...but you will not ever accept it unless it is revealed to you anyway. And, it will only be revealed to you through patient, dutiful study with a thirst for knowledge and the truth.
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 Actually I presented one of the many refutations of this particular post. Your assumption that I wouldn't accept your explanation is based on your own prejudice.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 Or perhaps it is based on reading your other comments... "but you will not ever accept it unless it is revealed to you anyway. And, it will only be revealed to you through patient, dutiful study with a thirst for knowledge and the truth." Was what I actually said, and I still stand by it...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 The difference between us obviously is that I DO care about the truth. Theists in general care about faith first, truth second. Apologists love to say that when the facts appear to contradict the bible, the bible is the one to believe since it is the word of god.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 And...your point is that atheists have no presuppositions? Isn't being either an atheist or a theist an admission to a set of presuppositions?
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "Isn't being either an atheist or a theist an admission to a set of presuppositions?" Many atheists now define their position as a rejection of theist claims due to lack of supporting evidence. No matter what theists say about atheists, the reality is simply that we don't believe your claims. We don't presuppose the non-existence of god, so what do you propose is the presupposition inherent in atheism?
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 You say this, but I do not believe you because I know sicentenst like Dawkins will accept any answer for the creation of the universe, any but GOD...Creationism he can accept, but only if it was "aliens" rather than GOD. Ya'll like to talk a good, "fair minded" game.(CON>>>)
nicodemous52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nicodemous52 "You say this, but I do not believe you because I know sicentenst like Dawkins will accept any answer for the creation of the universe, any but GOD..." We don't accept god as an answer because the existence of god is not demonstrated. Prove god exists and we'll be more likely to accept that god is an answer, not a question.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 ...(<<<CON)but your actions speak much louder than your words. Besides, were you not the one saying we need to "move on, let it die", sound like you already have an idea in your head that is it in fact not real. So, your little lie here will not work on me. We already talked back and forth too much for it to...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 You mistake my conclusion ("there is no god") for a presupposition. The difference is that a conclusion is DERIVED FROM perception and reasoning, while a presupposition SHAPES perception and reasoning.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
Comment removed
nicodemous52 1 month ago
Comment removed
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition
nicodemous52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nicodemous52 "Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none." *sigh* The burden of proof issue is another way that Theists often try to screw with atheists. You're the ones trying to establish that a thing exists, therefore you have the burden of proof. That's the way it works, always has, always will. I don't have to disprove god, you have to prove god.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition
nicodemous52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMonk72 Ah, but you have just as much evidence that there is a god as that there is not a god... which is exactly none. So, without proper evidence, how does one make that claim? I can because I fall back on faith, what is it you fall back on? Unless things have changed and hard, empirical data is no longer the standard for those with no faith... that is, unless you are indeed using a presupposition...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 What an utter obfuscation of fact. Scientific theory relies on evidence in support of notions, whereupon sufficient evidence bears out a hypothesis. Whereas, those things found to have little or no evidence in support are dismissed as not supported by evidence. Upon such a determination of lacking supportive evidence, the claim is considered false, until substantial evidence can be produced, and verified. Faith is belief without, and or, in spite of evidence.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 That there is NO substantial evidence of a GOD, should lead a rational person to the resultant conclusion. Therefore, anyone who believes such an existence, in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidentiary support is not a rational individual, in the case of that belief. Belief in spite of evidence can be held to by otherwise very rational people. But, a cognitive dissonance is always implicated by such beliefs.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux You do know the difference between a conclusion and an assumption, correct?
nicodemous52 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 I believe I'm quite familiar with the difference between them. A conclusion is the resultant information after due consideration of all pertinent data and evidence related to a given hypothesis. An assumption is reached without any due consideration of data, and often, preemptively. So, in the next post, I will give an example of this, related directly to the subject matter at hand. to be continued in the next post.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 Continued from previous post. Person "A" notices a lot of apparent order to the universe, due to innate pattern seeking behavior. Person "A" then ASSUMES a grand design, and thus a grand designer. Person "B" then considers all the evidence for a grand designer. Finding none that can be attributed solely to a grand designer, but a mountain of evidence which can be attributed to either a grand designer, or a natural order(self organizing systems). To be continued...
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 Continued... Person "B," after due consideration of the evidence, or lack thereof and the larger mountain of evidence for self organization, reaches the conclusion, there is no grand design, or designer. Person "A" then accuses person "B" of ignoring the "mountain" of evidence, which is ambiguous, and can be read a number of ways, of making assumptions, rather than reaching conclusions. Person "B" points out to person "A", that simply isn't the way science works.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 So, professor, did I pass? Do I have any understanding of science at all? Or does my disagreement with your assumptions/conclusions still not meet with your approval? P.S. I intended to put all caps on "CONCLUSION" in that last post, just to remain fair to the subject matter, and the post before it. This is very beginner level stuff. If you want to get involved in such discussions, and make assertions, you have a long learning curve ahead of you. But, I am patient.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@TheMonk72 Thank you so very much for pointing this out. One can only hope it will be taken into consideration by the self deluded. Unfortunately, past experience would tend to suggest otherwise.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
And when Adam and Eve hid in a shrub the creator could not find them.
4817Indian 1 month ago 3
@4817Indian yet somehow he is all knowing and all seeing...sounds like he is a lying douche no matter how you slice it or dice it.
HopeAngel777 1 month ago
Comment removed
nicodemous52 1 month ago
Comment removed
nicodemous52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4817Indian "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
This is the passage you are referring to, and I don't see where it says GOD couldn't find them, or even really tried to...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 “Where are you?” This query denotes an active search, and an inability to fulfill that search. Thus, you are practicing a logical fallacy. If the man knew GOD was omnipotent, and omnipresent, then GOD, he would have known, was present when he ate of the fruit. That GOD did not admonish the man not to eat of the fruit before hand, shows a sense of apathy on the part of GOD. This DOES NOT equate to non interference in the "free will" argument.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@4817Indian It must be the same bush he set on fire for Moses so it's a special shrub.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
"god" was an alien. worshiped as such for his "magical" abilities. any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as "magic" to an extremely primitive civilization
jsmorel86 1 month ago
@jsmorel86 There is no evidence for that. It is more likely that he doesn't exist at all.
vOddy75 1 month ago 4
@jsmorel86 Yep, that is much less crazy...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
In that land which were the Caananites.
gregsees 1 month ago
Certainly that since God chose Joshua as His instrument of destruction (Joshua 6:17) he was commanded to kill every single living thing. when J's warriors fail at removing the chariot valley dwelling people this says more for the failure of Joshua to persevere and complete the conquest. instead they chose to live in peace with them against Gods command. If you fail at something try a different tactic. what are chariots of iron to the walls of jericho? Stick with context plz.
gregsees 1 month ago
@gregsees The reason given for their failure to complete their God-given mission of genocide was clearly "because they had chariots of iron", not "because their faith wavered" or "because they forgot God and went against his will".
nooobsaibot 1 month ago
@nooobsaibot Exactly. The gist of the story would seem to suggest that GOD, of the Hebrew Bible fame, is somehow weak against iron chariots. But, all knowing, and all powerful. The contradiction in these two thought processes alone should be enough to more than justify any doubt as to the validity of the whole. and yet, we are constantly faced with ad hominem attacks on character for holding such doubts.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@gregsees but if they do that, how will they ever twist scripture into the jokes and hate the need to reassure themselves that GOD doesn't really exist. Which really, the fact that they need so much reassurance tells us something about the nature of their beliefs...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@gregsees This is a conflation of two separate stories. Joshua at the walls of Jericho, with Judah at Miggido. So, yes, please keep it within context.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
What hymn is this song set to?
proud2bpagan 2 months ago
I fucking love the song.
someonenobodycares 2 months ago
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16
yet the same book tells us we're being punished for something our "parents" did in the garden of eden..
fhab525 2 months ago
@fhab525 Yeah, it has no internal consistency. God is perfect, but god changes because of something that Jesus (who is also god) did. The bible says god exists and we trust the bible because god wrote it.
None of it makes sense to anyone who cares to really think about it.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@TheMonk72 Here is the deal, the story as is you call unbelievable because it defies, oddly enough, natural law. However, if my GOD were bound by the laws of the universe, what exactly would make that being "god"? AND, if the story did conform to the natural laws of science you'd likely ask what makes GOD so special if he can't rise above the limits of his own creation. No matter what, some will find an excuse to be their own god...
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "Here is the deal, the story as is you call unbelievable because it defies, oddly enough, natural law." Not just natural law but reason and history too. The inconsistencies between what the bible says and what is observed in the real world lead to two possible conclusions: 1) After doing all these awesome things, your god covered up any evidence that some of these things ever happened, or 2) the book is a story, not a history.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 It is both, or do you deny that the Jewish people have next to no history written outside of the bible? Also, isn't it strange how we've discovered many sights spoken of within the Bible that people thought never existed, and then surprise, they actually do?
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "isn't it strange how we've discovered many sights spoken of within the Bible that people thought never existed, and then surprise, they actually do?" This isn't uncommon in fiction. Its amazing how many times a "historical fiction" writer has made shit up and then found out it was true
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 Such as?
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "Such as?" How about the Utahraptor? Jurassic Park didn't get much right about Raptors, but the setting for the first dig to discover a near-complete Raptor fossil in the US was scripted well before the actual discovery of the Utahraptor in 1993.
Then of course there's the reams of fiction surround the Architeuthis, or Giant Squid. Since these babies live at crushing depths the stories of them grabbing ships are pure fiction.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nicodemous52 "It is both, or do you deny that the Jewish people have next to no history written outside of the bible?" By both you mean both story and history? Glad to hear you say that, since most theists don't agree that it is a story. The bible is a mixture of fact and fiction.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 "No matter what, some will find an excuse to be their own god" How about instead we just acknowledge that there probably isn't any god, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway, and just let the whole "god" concept fade off into history. Religion is such an outdated concept, and one we no longer require. Let's just let it die.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 On what grounds? You say it makes no difference, then why kill what doesn't matter?
nicodemous52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nicodemous52 "You say it makes no difference, then why kill what doesn't matter?" I don't think the existence of god or not makes any difference in the real world. Those who believe in god are responsible for a lot of atrocities, so killing religion would be a net benefit.
TheMonk72 1 month ago
@TheMonk72 Okay, admittedly, the follow up response does indicate this... However, it was only in response to the original suggestion of nicodemous52.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 This is an emotional appeal. No one said anything about killing religion, which is an active response. What was suggested was simply to allow it to die, of its own accord... In much the same way as so many ancient, and no longer believed religions/gods have died in the past. When people no longer believe in, or worship gods, they simply fade away into myth and fair tale existence. For instance Greek and Norse "Mythology." Both, once believed, and real religions.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 ... And, no matter what, some will seek and find any excuse to believe another a GOD.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@fhab525 No, it really doesn't. We are punished for our own sins, the garden of Eden explains the origin of sin. there is a difference...ALL sin leads to death, but we are all judged by our own sins. And because sin did enter the world we all can't help but fall prey to it. That is why we need a savior.
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@nicodemous52 That is why we need a savior." Funny... I could have sworn it was the Christian contention, we already had such a savior, in the Jesus character. hence the pseudonym, Christ. Christ is a fore shortening of the Greek term, Christos, which means savior, and extends from previous Greek lore. That's right folks, Christ wasn't really his name. It was a title.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux dude, stop trolling. you left like 50 comments already on this one vid.
zebraman60 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 Dude, define trolling. Never mind, allow me to do that for you...a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. I have done none of these things. However, the accusation could be seen as such.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 I saw nothing in the description that suggested a post limit. And, as you will notice, if you bother to read those posts, I have not been inflammatory, or off topic, since i have been primarily addressing what other have already said. I think you are a bit off base with this one.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux its just courtesy. plus, youre just proving how little a life you have. do you really think anyone cares about every aspect of your opinion? jeez...
zebraman60 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 Umm, it is Sunday... I'm not religious, so I didn't go to church today. My girlfriend, in a rare twist of fate, isn't here with me this whole weekend, and I got nothing better to do. Sue me.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@nicodemous52 That is why, so often in the Bible, he is referred to as "the Christ."
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
I find it particularly interesting that the censorship started around the time I raised the Free Will vs Omniscience question. It's a good question, too. Did it bother someone do you think?
TheMonk72 2 months ago
And you know what? I thought Christians were supposed to be nice people. Jesus tells them to be nice, even to their enemies. And their own god tells them not to lie.
OK, he also tells them to kill people, but not to kill people. I guess Christian morality is a matter of interpretation and selective reading.
Atheist morality is a lot stronger than that, for which I am truly grateful.
TheMonk72 2 months ago 13
@TheMonk72 "he also tells them to kill people, but not to kill people." This is a misunderstanding of Exodus 20:13. The correct translation is "You shall not murder", not kill. All murder involves the taking of life, but not all taking of life is murder. Capital punishment takes life, but is not murder. In fact, the next chapter capital punishment is sanctioned. Killing in self-defense is not murder. War in defense of the innocent or against an unjust aggressor is also not murder.
ndrummer99 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 This might surprise you, but I already knew this. These translation errors are the source of many of the misunderstandings in bible reading, and are proof that bible inerrancy is a myth.
Murder is "the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another." How then do you define "unlawful" to allow the genocide of an entire race - including babies - to NOT be murder? And yet god commands this of his followers.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@TheMonk72 Yes, the translations are not inerrant. God's Word is.
Israel was a theocracy. God determined what was law, therefore His command was not unlawful. God as the giver of life also has the right to take life. He is sovereign. However, He takes no pleasure in death, not even of the wicked.
ndrummer99 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 If the translations are not inerrant, then the bible is tainted. I can probably find 20 English-language versions of the Bible, each with a slight spin on the translation.
And even when they agree they disagree with the oldest manuscripts we can find. There are inconsistencies in translation that could have gone either way.
And so now we have people who believe that genesis is talking about creation of the universe in under a week. Get real.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@TheMonk72 "they disagree with the oldest manuscripts we can find" How would you know that? Are you saying you alone hold the correct interpretation of the MSS and that all scholars are wrong? Inconsistencies? 99% of the manuscripts are textually pure. That means that of all the ancient New Testament documents, there is very little manuscript deviation. Most of the deviations are word order changes, misspellings, etc. They do not affect the meaning or the accuracy of the text.
ndrummer99 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 No, I have followed the discussions that various religious groups have given that talk about things like the translation of the days of Genesis. Apparently the ancient Hebrew texts use a word (yom) which was used historically to mean either a day (24 hours, as we know them now) or as an indefinite period that could equally mean billions of years. Substitute "period" for "day" in Genesis and it reads like a bad understanding of big bang theory and evolution.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 Additionally, if the bible was pure and untainted there would be fewer religions based on it. There are many Christian sects, all (or most) drawing from the same book, all with different takes on what it means. And many of them claim that they are the one true faith, that everyone else is damned to hell for not believing as they do.
The bible is nothing more than a badly written fairy tale. It's not historically accurate, and certainly not internally consistent.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@TheMonk72 And how does one's interpretation of the Genesis account amount to a disagreement with the manuscript? Or how does the different takes on the Bible equal it being false? People have many different takes on history. Does that prove history false? You have made several unfounded statements which beg the question are you being intellectually honest about the matter?
ndrummer99 2 months ago
Being intellectually honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to reach valid conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs, and seeking to override or reduce those biases. I’m afraid your beliefs have been shaped more by your malicious attitude toward God than logic.
ndrummer99 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 I make no bones about my bias, but that doesn't affect the validity of my arguments. Free Will vs Omniscience, Bible Inerrancy, Morality of God, Lack of Evidence for God... how I chose to pursue those arguments may be flawed because of the bias, but the arguments retain their validity despite it.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@TheMonk72 You underestimate the power of a biased opinion. I'm afraid your bias, which you have openly admitted to, renders your evaluation of the evidence unreliable. This proving there is no God is evidently something personal for you. The emotionalism which you bring to this issue, directed against a God you claim isn’t there, introduces a non-logical motivation into your heart which debilitates you from coming to an objective and logical conclusion.
ndrummer99 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 As previously stated, religion is based on emotions and bias. That's about all there is to it, really. There's certainly no objective or logical evidence, and you have not come to your conclusions objectively and logically. Instead you've accepted a fantasy that you want to be real.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
@ndrummer99 "I'm afraid your bias, which you have openly admitted to, renders your evaluation of the evidence unreliable." This is a false statement/evaluation. A person who can admit to their biases is less likely to be driven by them, and more likely to approach them from alternate perspectives. Whereas, a person who holds to their biases, and refuses to acknowledge them, is far less likely to reconsider their own evaluations, in the light of reason, evidence, and verifiable facts.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux I agree. However, I still find my analysis accurate. Often people reject the idea of God not because of an implausibility of their being a divine entity but because they don't want to be held morally accountable for their lifestyle if there is. If you believe what you like, & reject what you don’t, it's not the truth you believe, but yourself.
ndrummer99 2 weeks ago
@ndrummer99 I must point out It is the supposed morals held true within the text, so many atheists object to. Not because they prefer to live some perverse lifestyle, but because the Bible seem so perverse. Most atheists were once theists who realized contradictions within the text, and context of the scriptures, which caused them doubts as to its validity. It is these doubts, not some imagined lifestyle, which caused atheism to well up within them.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux ...we are ALL BORN ATHEISTS. None of us are born with any knowledge or relationship with God. Only those who are PREDESTINED BY GOD...come to know Him in a personal way.
bornagain001 2 weeks ago
@bornagain001 Ah, but by your own words, atheists, and all other peoples who do not believe the same as you, are "predestined" not to believe. As such, they can hardly be held accountable for their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore, it would be immoral for a GOD, or anyone else to damn them to eternal torture. It would also form a non sequitur to accuse anyone of "choosing" to believe a certain way.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux ...you seem to be confused about your accountability. Your accountability is based on whether you have kept God's 10 Commandments. Those are the only 10 Laws which God will judge your guilt or innocence. Ifb you have kept all 10...you are good to go for eternity. Broken even ONE...and you have an eternal problem starting on Judgment Day. All of the lying and stealing you have done will determine your eternity....NOT whether you believed or did not believe.
bornagain001 2 weeks ago
@bornagain001 Probably not me. Far too many accounts have that the only thing a person can never be forgiven of is a lack of belief in, and or, a denial of the existence of GOD. Break any one, or even all "10" commandments, but beg forgiveness, and confess a belief in GOD and your ticket to Heaven is bought an paid in full. Keep all 600 plus commandments, but fail to acknowledge the existence of GOD, or his divinity, and supremacy, and it is the firey pit for all eternity.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux .... "Break any one, or even all "10" commandments, but beg forgiveness, and confess a belief in GOD and your ticket to Heaven is bought an paid in full."
Don't fool yourself. It doesn't work that way, although many atheists do live under that delusion. There are MANY things atheists are wrong about. This is just one of them.
bornagain001 2 weeks ago
So you disagree with Scripture on a moral basis? I strongly suspect the true issue here is not the lack of moral order in the Word of God, but rather the insistence of deciding for oneself what is right and what is wrong, in spite of what we intuitively know to be true.
ndrummer99 2 weeks ago
@ndrummer99 Define intuition, would you please? Intuition could be defined as those thought processes which are hardwired due to evolutionary survival tactics, and biological function, or the resultant thought processes of biological function/survival impulses. For instance, we can intuit that a hungry tiger will leap up and lunge forward on its prey(potentially us). So, we can anticipate an attack from above, and prepare for such. However, the tiger could go low, and evade counters.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason. It's knowing something without knowing why you know it. It's a fact that man has an inborn sense of right and wrong. How do you explain it? If it's merely an evolutionary mechanism for survival why isn't it present in the animal kingdom and why does it differ so vastly in humanity?
ndrummer99 2 weeks ago
@ndrummer99 All, or almost all animals exhibit "pattern seeking behavior." As such, we begin to recognize patterns in everything within nature... Even when no real pattern is present. Thus, we can easily intuit information based on rapid evaluation of our immediate environment. This is an important survival trait. We also(noticed within the remaining animal kingdom, as well) exhibit a trait which has come to be known as empathy. That is concern for others. It is equally important.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux If intuition is simply a formerly recognized pattern how does a baby sea turtle know to swim to the ocean when it's life has just begun? There are somethings we just know. They aren't learned, they are inborn. We call them instincts, I call them intelligence. This leads us to a greater question. Where did the information in our DNA come from?
ndrummer99 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 Baby sea turtles do not have the "finely tuned" intellect of humans. There are a great many mental capacities which humans possess, which are not found in the rest of the animal kingdom. These abilities take time to develop in humans. As such, most of what we know, we learn after we're born. The ability to balance, to walk, and to move with "purpose," and to speak with clarity are all learned behaviors. They are not innate in humans.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@frankleeseaux Agreed. We are definitely a privileged species. Do you believe the idea of right and wrong is also learned?
ndrummer99 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 That is kind of a tricky subject, mostly because of linguistics. Right and wrong, as moralistic concepts are almost certainly learned behavior, by my own experience. But, Empathetically speaking, they do tend to make a lot of sense for survival within a community. You are probably attempting to determine some means, or mechanism for determining "right" from "wrong" from an atheistic worldview... Perhaps as a means of understanding our motivation for moralistic behavior.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@frankleeseaux So if right and wrong are learned behaviors do you believe they even exist? Are they merely tools for survival or is there actually such a thing as injustice?
ndrummer99 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 I believe that right and wrong, as moralistic concepts, are abstract concepts. They have little or no basis in reality. There is benefit and harm. These, we can all agree upon. But, what action equals right tends to vary from culture to culture. In many cases, what has been defined as right or wrong behavior has been due to social conditioning within an era and a region, and have altered over time. In light of this, it is difficult to make such holistic determinations.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@frankleeseaux When I take money from someone it benefits me and harms them. Is it right for me and wrong for them? If right and wrong are merely abstract ideas that have no bearing in reality why should we feel compelled to honor them? In an objective sense, there would be no such thing as morality. This is why I believe so strongly when we fail to apprehend God, we go astray on all counts. If there is no moral law how can we be doing wrong?
ndrummer99 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 You're gonna hate me for this... Money is an abstract as well. But, your question forms a linguistic nightmare. "Why honor something which is an abstract?(paraphrased)" It is akin to, though not exactly like asking, "why continue to pray to a God which we've already accepted as a parable, or as non-existent?" A better question may be to ask, "what can we replace as an equivalent, but more accurate term or concept?" Which I have begun to allude to in previous posts.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 Most people have an instinctual-level understanding of morality. Even most animals could be found to have some form of "morals". Even assuming morality is an ephemeral thing, survival and propagation of the species keeps most of us from murdering each other. It becomes much more refined and intuitive through social contexts, but children display morality in surprising turns.
ryu187 1 week ago
@ryu187 So why are some people moral and others not? If it's an inborn instinct why does it differ so vastly in people? Shouldn't it be a bit more universal? Man cannot decide morality for himself, independently of God. If there is no God, there is no universal standard for right and wrong, which means morals are relative to every man and doesn't really exist.
ndrummer99 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryu187 So why are some people moral and others not? If it's an inborn instinct why does it differ so vastly in people? Shouldn't it be a bit more universal? Man cannot decide morality for himself, independently of God. If there is no God, there is no universal standard for right and wrong, which means morals are relative to every man and doesn't really exist.
ndrummer99 1 week ago
@ndrummer99 Do not mistake righteousness for goodness. Compassion not faith is my arbiter of good and evil. If you cannot for yourself determine good from evil how may you distinguish a good god from a wicked one? If you are kind only because it is your duty to your god then you have no charity. Charity and duty by definition cannot be mixed. If you are compassionate only because you fear God’s punishment and long for his approval, then your not compassionate but selfish at heart.
RicenCoal 4 days ago
@ndrummer99 An injustice, for instance, might be perceived of banking institutions lending to people whom they know cannot repay the loans, and will almost certainly default, and lose everything in the process. However, within the financial realm, the burden of this injustice is shifted to the client who should have been aware, despite the desperate sales pitches of the bankers, that they could not afford all the hidden costs within the loan process.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago