A Gospel Challenge

[Diogenes]

You mean like the assumption without evidence that god exists?

All that is is evasion...and it doesn't matter if you ' were ' a christian at one point...you, by your own admission, have spent the last 30 years in denial of it...

long enough to embed deep-seated prejudices.

I find that most people who turn to religion do it for the same reasons other people turn away from it...and neither has anything to do with the religion itself.

Your words...

The Bible praises faith, belief without evidence or question.

do not show me that you have read the bible as you claim...what it does show me is a lack of scriptural knowledge. And if by chance you did read it you couldn't have possibly understood it based upon that statement.

Maybe this is why you turned away from it...not because it was wrong for you...but because you couldn't understand it...so your own inability to understand drove you away?

.................

Before you can understand religion you first and foremost need to understand what religion is.

Jesus came to heal the sick, he said himself he did not come to heal the healthy...Siddhattha explained religion as a raft that you use to cross a river then you let it go, you don't carry the raft upon your back...religion is a means to an end...and once you understand that your prejudice will vanish toward them.

It seems to me you need to be an atheist as much as some people need to be religious...you are both in need of a physician...both in need of a raft...

if you really understood...you would not let your prejudice guide your thoughts.

[Jack]

All that is is evasion

Not so. It's a fair question. I would contend it's obvious that religion provides a context of presumption that precludes an objective view of reality.

have spent the last 30 years in denial of it

Hardly. The only thing I can fairly deny is that theists have offered any convincing evidence to support their contentions. I grew out of religion, growing in knowledge and the appreciation for reality.

[Diogenes]

Hardly. The only thing I can fairly deny is that theists have offered any convincing evidence to support their contentions. I grew out of religion, growing in knowledge and the appreciation for reality.

Hummmmm...and therein lies the need...

as I said religion is a means to an end...if you understood that you would not be in so much need for it to prove itself or for you to justify your reasons for denying it.

I do not see how you are any different than a religious person...you are both clinging to what you believe ....refusing to let the raft go...demanding that you are right and they are wrong...

the reality is...you are both wrong...and you are both right.

................................

A philosopher was sitting in the audience listening to a speech...the man in front of him was complaining that the speaker was not speaking on the topic that was supposed to be...
the philosopher kicked the man's chair...
and said to him ' and what value would you assign to the speech that he gave? '
and the man wasn't able to answer because he was so busy complaining he never heard what was being said.

..................................

You are so busy trying to be heard that you never stop to listen.

[Diogenes]

Let's see how well you can listen...

Siddhattha taught that a man must be acquainted with the beliefs and religions of others as ignorance of them is not conducive to understanding.

Jesus taught that one should have compassion even on a religious holiday and should feed the poor and hungry.

Socrates taught that a man should strive toward the understanding and the mending of his own nature before condemning others for theirs.

which of these statements do you disagree with? If you say they are correct then you cannot be in opposition with them.

This is why you should never reject anything outright...because there will be points you agree with and those you do not.

If you understand this you cannot be atheist or theist.

Once you declare yourself to be one or the other you are both the same...you are both in need of that raft...both unwilling to cast it off even as you cross the river. When you finally reach a point in understanding you will no longer feel the need to label yourself to be this or that...you will no longer need to be a theist or an atheist you will just be.

[sonoman]

"Atheists refuse to blindly accept unsupported propositions. We prefer to understand reality in its natural state rather than project imaginary and magical beliefs onto it. Nature offers evidence of its processes. Religion doesn't. Religion requires acceptance on faith alone, offering no objective evidence of its validity. The evidence in nature leads to natural conclusions to those who haven't already reached the "god" conclusion, which distorts their perception of the evidence. Preconceived notions hamper honest inquiry."

Here it is. The above "rational answer" that completely misses the point. Missing spiritual receptors or spiritual receptors not functioning or very weak= mental disability=left brain dominancy to point of rejection of right brain reception of spiritual phenomena= disability in holistic consciousness. Sorry, atheists. Luckily, you can still function in most places in society where spiritual consciousness isn't required.

[Jack]

your reasons for denying it.

I do not see how you are any different than a religious person...you are both clinging to what you believe ....refusing to let the raft go...demanding that you are right and they are wrong...

You are so busy trying to be heard that you never stop to listen.

There, now I believe we have those in order. I'm denying nothing theistically beyond the fact that theists cannot provide convincing evidence to support their faith.
I'm not contending that I know anyone is wrong. I am saying that if they're right they ought to be able to convince me and everyone else of that. That they cannot does not prove them wrong, but neither does it validate their claims.

[Jack]

Missing spiritual receptors or spiritual receptors not functioning or very weak= mental disability=left brain dominancy to point of rejection of right brain reception of spiritual phenomena= disability in holistic consciousness.

Let's see some medical support for these supposed "receptors". This looks like new age rhetoric without an ounce of validity.

Better yet, let's get back on topic and address this in an appropriate thread.

[Diogenes]

There, now I believe we have those in order. I'm denying nothing theistically beyond the fact that theists cannot provide convincing evidence to support their faith.
I'm not contending that I know anyone is wrong. I am saying that if they're right they ought to be able to convince me and everyone else of that. That they cannot does not prove them wrong, but neither does it validate their claims.

OK...that is a very good answer/reply...I'm impressed...and I don't impress easily....except for one change...

theists cannot provide convincing evidence to support their faith.

theists cannot provide convincing evidence to support the parts of their faith that fly in the face of known science.

There...we agree.

[sonoman]

Let's see some medical support for these supposed "receptors". This looks like new age rhetoric without an ounce of validity.

Better yet, let's get back on topic and address this in an appropriate thread.

Proof is readily available to those who bother to look but some people don't want to have their cherished illusions broken. Here's a start where to look to find science information about spiritual brain receptors.:

Serotonin Receptors May Be Linked to Spirituality -- Arehart-Treichel 39 (1): 33 -- Psychiatr News

[Jack]

Spirituality is not necessarily a religious notion. Here's an older thread where spirituality was discussed.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...rituality.html

[sonoman]

Spirituality is not necessarily a religious notion. Here's an older thread where spirituality was discussed.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...rituality.html

Religion is necessarily a spiritual notion. Many people's brains are receptive to spiritual phenomena. According to statistics, the great majority of American brains seem to be thus receptive, thus indicating those in the small minority are deficient in full brain capabilities.

Here, handicapped atheist person, have a light stick to find your way to Father.

...sorry, I are a bad Christian..

[barts]

You have to remember that in 30AD their vocabulary was not as extensive as it is today...if they had a dictionary during those times it would have been a very small paperback.

I can't let this pass. Admittedly,it's been awhile since my few courses in linguistics while getting my undergraduate degree, but I do recall the professor making a point that languages tend be very rich in vocabulary regardless of whether or not they were ancient or "primitive."

Diogenes, do you have anything other than opinion to support the notion that the vocabularies in 30 AD in the Levant were not as extensive as today? I'll give you some of the technical and scientific words, but "intelligence"?