This is what I mean when I say...

I thought the only perfect Christian was Christ.

But science has an advantage over Christianity in that regard. As soon as a person does something the community frowns upon they are not true Christians. If a scientist engages in bad behaviour it's a conspiracy.

But really we both know that both camps have taken hits for bad behaviour. There's not much good in judging an entire group based on the misdeeds of a subset. I'm sure we can agree that there are disappointing people in any group.

 

1- Jesus wasn't perfect, we know that because he said so himself-
"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)

2- Sure some "christians" are not True Christians at all, but they can't get under JC's radar..-
"Not all who call me "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matt 7:21-23)

3- Regarding scientists, they've got the gift of a thirst for knowledge, but for some reason a lot of them like to attack Christianity, I dunno why.
Paul said- "We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us.." (Romans 12:6-8 )

 

I think Christ was perfected through his suffering, otherwise his death wouldn't have balanced out the sin of Adam. Isn't that how it works? He was such a humble guy though.
Hebrews
"7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek."

No doubt there have been a lot of "attacks" both ways. It's up to you and me to try to make sure we get along with each other. Theres not much we can do about the behaviour of others except be an example right?

 

Wouldn't it help, first, to define "God"? Even the major religions aren't good at doing that.

 

'God' is pretty much nomenclature for the Christian 'god' but, your point would still stand even in that case since there appears to be as many versions of 'God' as there are Christians; almost like 'God' is just a reflection of themselves.

Now, a meaningful description of 'gods' would be useful. You know, one that you would recognise as 'gods' if you were a theist or atheist.

Someone should start a thread about this.

 

Thank you god - I now know I'm not alone on this planet. 'There's no business like show business' ought to be NASA's theme tune.

 

Letting people make up their own definitions only leads to confusion.
Use the dictionary definitions. And refer everyone to them.

 

Or don't use the word 'fruits' when you mean 'apples'.

If you are using an applicable dictionary definition for a word then by all means refer to a dictionary otherwise, define or explain how you are using a word and change that use if it is clearly not appropriate. Personally, if someone is resorting to word games and definitions because being smug and right about something is more important to them then I don't respond to them other than to 'poke' at that insecurity.

 

I just go my own way mate and do my own thing, and if people want to string with me that's fine, and if they don't- good riddance..
Personally I can't suffer fools at all and I cross the street to avoid them, including avoiding some mushbrained "christians"..
As a great prophet once said- "If you hang around with losers you become a loser"- Donald Trump

 

God does exist but not here. He is on YouTube. Reinventing Trance into psychedelic new age.

Forget your false gods of metal and rock. God loves Trance.

[video=youtube;NbYwvcdflu8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbYwvcdflu8[/video]

 

Fools are fun. Why else use forums. The next time see bible thumpers on the street. Don't avoid them. Tell them about Zeus. Thor.

The Christians plagiarised the Greeks. Your Jesus, didn't have a hammer.

 

It is NOT a rhetorical question. It is a question I ask atheists often and it never gets answered in any reasonable, logical, scientific form.

I claim ALL of the evidence is ambiguous...and cannot be used to make a meaningful guess...which is the reason that theists and atheist essentially use the same evidence to come to polar opposite conclusions.

What do you see as unambiguous evidence that gods exist...and what do you see as unambiguous evidence that there are no gods?

Name the items...and we'll examine them.

Let's deal with that...then go on to the other things.

 

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation (something we do not know and probably never will)...then whatever created it...is a god.

IF that is the case and that god is a creation...then whatever created that god...is a god also.

We can possibly have lots and lots of gods.

IF the non-dualist speculations turn out to be the REALITY...then god is that non-dual mind that "everyone" is using.

Fact is, the "what is god" question is normally nothing more than a stall from atheists who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that they are the opposite side of the coin from theists.

The actual question is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

We do not know.

Nothing wrong with people making blind guesses...and I guess there is not a lot wrong with some of them kidding themselves into thinking they are not actually doing that...

...but "I do not know" is the truthful response everyone should give (unless you are a god)...which leaves us with "We do not know."

 

I am comfortable stating there are no intelligent beings existing currently on Mars. I am comfortable stating none of the Human created versions of a "God" are accurate descriptions of what may exist. There is no data to compel me that either deserve my intellectual belief as reality based possibility, and multiple data points to explain that they do not....logically they are both false.

 

But all dictionaries do is to tell us how the word is currently used.

Often the "definitions" are quite different from dictionary to dictionary.

"Atheist" is an example.

Some atheists here insist they are atheists ONLY because they "lack a belief" in any deity...and that they do NOT have a "belief" in the opposite direction. (I happen to think those people are kidding themselves.)

They can offer dictionary definitions showing "atheist" to mean "lacking a belief in a deity."

Some atheists acknowledge they are atheists because they actively "believe" there are no gods.

They can offer different dictionary definitions showing "atheist" to mean, "someone who believes there are no gods."

So...an explanation of how one is using a word IS in order.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/atheism
the belief or theory that God does not exist

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=atheism
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist?a=british
someone who believes that God does not exist

 

The kind of "insecurity" that goes into a post like yours here, William...is an indication that perhaps calling others "insecure" is something you ought refrain from doing.

Anyway...ME, I don't poke. Mostly people will make themselves look foolish easier on their own than when motivated by others. I just laugh at them when they do it.

 

I could not agree more, Tecoyah.

Insofar as you are saying most of the gods humans have worshiped during the centuries seem to be human-made...I agree. I also agree with the notion that the "human created versions" are by definition...not gods...but are human created. I also am skeptical that humans are getting the description right...IF THERE ARE GODS.

I have no idea of what that is supposed to mean.

If you are saying there is no reason for you to suppose the existence of gods is an impossibility...I disagree completely.
If you are saying you don't happen to guess the way others are guessing on this issue...thanks for sharing that.

Once again, I have no idea of what you were trying to say here.

If you are saying that it is impossible that gods exist AND it is impossible that no gods exist...you have me confused.

 

My statement cannot be made more clear than I have done, thus your lack of understanding them is not my doing...I will nevertheless make an attempt.

I did not indicate "Most" human versions of God are inaccurate I indicated ALL. By stating most to imply you believe at least one does not fit this category...please explain which this is. Humans may have been created by something but what that may be must be speculation so I instead dwell in possible explanations not supernatural based. It seems important to make it very clear to you that my mind works on verification vs. stipulation and thus usually avoids absolute impossibility until something becomes pure fiction.

 

Thank you.

It does not necessarily imply that at all.

It may imply (in this case, it DOES imply) that I do not KNOW all the versions that have ever been offered on planet Earth. Maybe there is one in there that does accurately depict a god that exists...like the god I have posited.

If you do know all the versions that have been offered...and can say with authority that the ALL are wrong...

...good for you. (I tend to think you are overstating your abilities here, Tecoyah.)

EVERYTHING, including humans, MAY have been created by something. We don't know what the something is. If you want to arbitrarily exempt one possible reality...fine with me.

But I think that unreasonable.

As for "supernatural"...IF there are gods...they are part of nature. IF there are invisible (to humans beings)...they are part of nature.

Whatever.

But if you are saying you have ruled out the existence of gods...that does not seem to fit in there very well.

GODS, Tecoyah...MAY exists. GODS...MAY NOT exist.

We really do not know which it is...and to rule out one on a whim is not logical, reasonable, or scientific.

 

As it seems you wish to place your words into my statements and cannot understand my positions I bid you good day.

 

I have already answered that question. Multiple times actually. I am an agnostic-atheist. I have clarified the meaning of it mulitiple times and the answer to that question is in the definition.

My agnosticism is a result of a lack of data. My atheism is a result of warranted belief.

 

And yet here you are talking to a Dirty Rotten Imbecile.

Do you consider Donald Trump a prophet or are you joking?

 

I'm not asking you about your "agnostic atheist" stuff. And agnostic atheist...IS AN ATHEIST. The "agnostic" is added to show some intelligence. The "atheist" is to show that a blind guess is going to be made and that the person will try to pass the blind guess off as something more than a blind guess.

What I was asking you about was something you wrote:

I'm asking: What do "you know" that deals with the likelihood of gods existing or not existing?

I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, KNOW anything that tells us about the likelihood of "There is at least one god" or "There are no gods."

So it is not a rhetorical question...and you have not answered it.

Yeah...your atheism is the result of "warranted" blind guessing. That's what I said.

 

What you think is irrelevant. Hence why one should use the dictionary definition.
You only want to change a definition because you are insecure in the current definition. It doesn't suit your mindset.
As I said, it only leads to confusion.

To me, those definitions are all saying the same thing.

 

I am not insecure about this...in fact, I am VERY SECURE.

Well then, that's the problem!