An Easy Jesus for Practical Atheists

[A Vestigial Mote]

Please have mercy on me!

And if I refuse? Pfft.

I've noticed that the religious are quick to insult those who disagree with their beliefs. I can be sure.

Are you going to seriously sit there and act like you haven't also been trying to insult me? You have been doing so continually, in each post. Does that make you "religious?" What an idiotic thing to say.

What do you have to demonstrate that your morality is right and religious morality is wrong? The religious tend to see their morality as right and other morality as wrong.

Not "right", but more generally applicable and acceptable. That much is fact. That's what I have been saying. Not that I am "right" - but that the moral items I might generally believe ought be prescribed for BOTH myself and others make more sense. Because they are geared toward minimizing detriment to lifeform wellbeing. As stated earlier, something like "baptism" does no such thing. It has no effect like that, unless you want to count that being baptized offers you the possibility of less shunning and fewer chances of taking on emotional damage from the religious in a majority-Christian society who might otherwise shame you for not having been. What a "benefit" eh?

Much of this could be said of your own opinionated view of morality.

Not really... unless you want to cut against the grain on items like thievery, murder, rape, torture, slavery... need I go on? You should understand where I am going with this. Again - the things that have demonstrable impact on human/lifeform wellbeing... not some flip of the imagination that leads someone to decide that it is "wrong" to call out a curse to the ether.

But you are wrong in that your feelings matter very much since we are discussing the way the religious and the nonreligious are much the same.

My feelings need not matter to anyone but myself in the end. I fully understand this. I don't care if you don't care... I am going to come after you anyway, specifically because my feelings matter to me. Do you understand? You keep calling me "religious", and apparently just because I have opinions I hold and principles I adhere to, that see me acting in ways that correspond to those opinions and principles. If that, by your understanding of definitions is "religious", then fine - I am "religious." I swear you think that should count as some sort of insult to me... you just keep using it. It is pathetic at this point. You're accomplishing nothing... and certainly aren't contradicting anything I have to say. Instead you're trying to paint me a certain way, and therefore draw into question my character. This is the tactic of someone who hasn't got any better, honestly.

And by the way, I don't believe in any Gods, but I recognize that such a view could very possibly result in needless harm. To deny possibilities or refuse to consider them alleging bigotry while getting defensive is a hallmark of religion and apparently atheism as well.

This is just pitiful.

I've had the religious talk to me this way when I disagree with their religion.

And? What am I supposed to feel based on this inane observation of yours? Still not refuting anything I have said... still just trying to attack my character or motives, as if that is going to save your face from falling off. Why not try and actually say something with some actual substance on the matter at hand, instead of just more quips about "how religious" I am behaving?

 

[Jagella]

And if I refuse? Pfft.

You didn't refuse. Thank you for more quickly getting to the point this time. When corresponding with people online, it's important to be concise because people have difficulty manipulating huge amounts of text. It's also a good idea to politely accommodate reasonable requests. Otherwise, you might find yourself ignored.

Are you going to seriously sit there and act like you haven't also been trying to insult me? You have been doing so continually, in each post. Does that make you "religious?" What an idiotic thing to say.

It would be helpful if you would cite a particular example of something I've said you consider to be an insult. I should point out that even if you feel you've been insulted, it's not good form to return the barb.

Not "right", but more generally applicable and acceptable. That much is fact. That's what I have been saying. Not that I am "right" - but that the moral items I might generally believe ought be prescribed for BOTH myself and others make more sense. Because they are geared toward minimizing detriment to lifeform wellbeing. As stated earlier, something like "baptism" does no such thing. It has no effect like that, unless you want to count that being baptized offers you the possibility of less shunning and fewer chances of taking on emotional damage from the religious in a majority-Christian society who might otherwise shame you for not having been. What a "benefit" eh?

If you wish to distance yourself from the religious, then calling your morality more acceptable or more sensible than other moralities won't cut it because what is acceptable or sensible is strictly a matter of opinion.

Not really... unless you want to cut against the grain on items like thievery, murder, rape, torture, slavery... need I go on? You should understand where I am going with this. Again - the things that have demonstrable impact on human/lifeform wellbeing... not some flip of the imagination that leads someone to decide that it is "wrong" to call out a curse to the ether.

But you are a someone dictating right and wrong every bit as much as any priest or prophet. Based on what you are saying here, you set yourself up as a special person proclaiming a special morality that is above and beyond that of others. I fail to see you as inherently different from Moses in that regard.

My feelings need not matter to anyone but myself in the end. I fully understand this. I don't care if you don't care... I am going to come after you anyway, specifically because my feelings matter to me. Do you understand? You keep calling me "religious", and apparently just because I have opinions I hold and principles I adhere to, that see me acting in ways that correspond to those opinions and principles. If that, by your understanding of definitions is "religious", then fine - I am "religious." I swear you think that should count as some sort of insult to me... you just keep using it. It is pathetic at this point. You're accomplishing nothing... and certainly aren't contradicting anything I have to say. Instead you're trying to paint me a certain way, and therefore draw into question my character. This is the tactic of someone who hasn't got any better, honestly.

If you wish to argue that you are different in kind from the religious, then your own attitude and behavior are relevant to that claim and are fair game to be scrutinized.

This is just pitiful.

If that's all you have to say in response to my pointing out the similarity in defensiveness between atheists and the religious who get that way whenever the harmful potential of their beliefs is noted, then you concede my point.

And? What am I supposed to feel based on this inane observation of yours? Still not refuting anything I have said... still just trying to attack my character or motives, as if that is going to save your face from falling off. Why not try and actually say something with some actual substance on the matter at hand, instead of just more quips about "how religious" I am behaving?

In what way exactly does your behavior differ from the religious morally speaking? Are you more openminded than they are? Are you more willing to accept constructive criticism than they are? Do you value truth and reason over pet ideas more than they do?

 

[rational experiences]

If men name everything by title my man just a man first owns no names first. Man is the closest idea all humans.

As you have to place equality in his sick head.

Everything created.

Star fall gained by some men their brain changed burning gas. Hence star fall was taught evil. Moon only O God star that saved earth. O God by term in science.

The theme false science preaching.

As our heavens within space firmed it encompassed infinite space so is thin gases.

Not dense gas.

So gas burns as our heavens is either cold gas or hot gas.

In other words don't thesis clouds dense body liars.

A man designs civilization not science first as buildings. Then science.

His buildings gets set alight by falling star. After holding science constant earth mass converting.

Rome. Nero.

It was known.

In terms of his sciences man thoughts he says saving was a hero. Depicted as self images. No hero...Nero.

As his life saves himself. Water biology holy he says maintains me. Yet he's a man. Idea a misquoted quote everytime by not accepting natural man only.

As the review is what and why did human bio consciousness think for its own destruction.

What lesson we all face today. Sky net warnings world nuclear death.

So we ask our brother why did you do it? Hate family.

Star fall was the reason.

What does he want today in new resource thesis? Stars mass.

He says sun mass.. yet if you got the sun as its actual body the sun...
No life left on earth.

So what first position is his thesis a sun body?

If you used your brains for what they exist for. Advising is self survival.

So we do a thesis why a man is a destroyer. The answer is the scientist.

His answer is the rich man. Who formed cults. Science is one of his cults.

As he owned branches.

Pretty basic you want your own destruction and you want machines to give it to you.

The same human behaviour you have always expressed the rich man wants to get richer.

He said God earth powers stones made him rich now he wants cosmic power.

Is as basic advice a human has to state to get other humans indoctrinated attention.

Jesus title was updated by Baha'i yet Jesus was not any Baha'is DNA.

Why you can't work it out as only humans define the story.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Otherwise, you might find yourself ignored.

Then get on with the business of ignoring me. Sometimes it takes quite a bit of text to fully flesh out ones point. Since you haven't really been making any points (and have instead opted to simply call me "religious" every chance you get), I can understand how this might be foreign to you.

It would be helpful if you would cite a particular example of something I've said you consider to be an insult. I should point out that even if you feel you've been insulted, it's not good form to return the barb.

I have to imagine you are being purposefully deceitful here, in feigning ignorance. I have already many times pointed out that you are using terms like "religious" and "atheist" purposefully to evoke emotional response. You are weaponizing them, in other words. Please... please just go ahead and TRY to tell me that you haven't been calling me "religious" in attempts to "get my goat!" in attempts to rile me up, and call me something you think you know will be offensive to me. Please just try and tell me you haven't been doing that. It is so obvious that your little "I'm innocent" song and dance here is just wacky. You're worse than any theist I have ever come across who utilizes the same tactic. That is, one who says that atheism is "like religion." They at least are conscious of what they are doing, such that any time I have pointed out to them that they are attributing something dear to their hearts (religion) with something that irks them (atheism), they understand the link, and have (every time) conceded that their intention is not to disparage religion - which means it was most definitely to disparage atheism instead - thereby tacitly admitting that their intent included using "religion" as a derogatory term.

If you wish to distance yourself from the religious, then calling your morality more acceptable or more sensible than other moralities won't cut it because what is acceptable or sensible is strictly a matter of opinion.

Not when there is a stated goal it isn't! It simply isn't. For example, as soon as you state a goal for "morality" of "maximizing health and freedoms" (just as an example) then there are OBJECTIVE comparisons that can be made against various activities or situations that will cast them as "moral" or "immoral" according to that criteria. So, lopping off someone's head, for example, would not be "moral" because it doesn't "maximize health and freedoms" of that individual. Do you understand? And here, within our discussion, in order to widen the scope of what we mean by "moral" to include something like "don't use The Lord's name in vain," we'd have to make the stated goal of morality be something like "maximizing health and freedoms of individuals and not angering God." However, there is the rub! Right there, in the statement of the goal itself! We have 100% concrete evidence of the existence of humans, and complete understanding and experience with freedom/health and lack thereof. We have ZERO good evidence for the existence of God! A prescription of morality like that may as well instead be: "maximizing health and freedoms of individuals and not hindering unicorns in their secret runs across the land". Seriously... the statement may as well be that if you invoke God into it. So this silly game you are playing at isn't going to work. Exactly what I have been saying... some prescriptions of moral action don't make sense, and the goals you would need to ascribe morality in order to include the nonsensical in its scope are themselves nonsensical! As in, they do not conform to reality. And they aren't about to make sense just because you shout the word "opinion!"

But you are a someone dictating right and wrong every bit as much as any priest or prophet. Based on what you are saying here, you set yourself up as a special person proclaiming a special morality that is above and beyond that of others. I fail to see you as inherently different from Moses in that regard.

Nope. I am not "dictating" anything. I am saying that certain prescriptions of "right" and "wrong" simply CAN'T make sense. Or, that is, needn't make sense to any particular person. And if you can't display the intrinsic worth of something like that, which you literally DO want to dictate to them, then you aren't being rational to expect them to toe your line. Have I said what we MUST adhere to as moral prescriptions? I've given some pretty easy, low-hanging-fruit examples that you would display yourself as "immoral" to a good number of human beings were you to go against them - things like murder, slavery, rape, etc. But I have not once stated that those things MUST BE included in the scope of what you, or anyone else, consider "moral." It is all relative... however there are those items that a vast majority of humans are going to accept as "immoral" - and specifically because they OBJECTIVELY break lines with some pretty well-accepted stated goals of "morality." And then there are the items that one must CONVINCE others to accept as moral or immoral. Like any religious prescriptions that involve how we "treat" God. And how convincing can those entreaties be, honestly? They can't be, at all. Only to the most ignorant and gullible among us can they be compelling - because there is no good evidence for God. There is the same quantity and caliber of evidence for God as there is for unicorns. So if you include how you treat God in our ideas of morality, then you'd better sign up unicorns as well. And leprechauns, and vampires and dragons while you are at it.

If you wish to argue that you are different in kind from the religious, then your own attitude and behavior are relevant to that claim and are fair game to be scrutinized.

This entirely depends on your definition of "religious!" From what I have been experiencing in this thread, your definition seems to have wide and varying meanings, and encompass quite a lot of people who just "do things." And so, perhaps I am religious by your definition. What happens now? Do I suddenly have to come to terms with my own contradictory nature and submit to your "superior line of argumentation?"

If that's all you have to say in response to my pointing out the similarity in defensiveness between atheists and the religious who get that way whenever the harmful potential of their beliefs is noted, then you concede my point.

Once again (I find that I keep having to repeat myself with you... quite a bit actually. Are you just not reading, or are you forgetting? Maybe you are willfully ignoring the bits that don't fit your chosen script/narrative?), you calling me "religious" is not having the effect you apparently desire. A few posts ago, I stopped any and all attempts to reject the label. I simply don't care. I am religious! Do you hear that everyone!?! I AM THE MOST RELIGIOUS PERSON ON THIS SITE. ALL THE REST OF YOUR ADHERENCES AND MAINTENANCE OF PRINCIPLES PALE IN COMPARISON TO MY SUPERIOR RELIGIOSITY!!!! YOU HAVE FAILED WHERE I HAVE SUCCEEDED! Now... can we finally try getting back to the point?

In what way exactly does your behavior differ from the religious morally speaking?

My ideas of morality, and my actions, do not include items that are based on what cannot be produced in reality any more than known fictions can. I simply don't include those things. And therefore I am not to be found behaving ridiculously in this way. My moral prescriptions maintain a clear line of citing and propagating health and wellbeing of living things. This can, most certainly, stray into the realm of inanimate objects as much as their existence and ongoing "wellbeing" (of a sort) affect the wellbeing of animate/living things. I do not stray into prescriptions involving Gods, or unicorns, or vampires, or leprechauns. Were those things to actually present themselves, then I would easily and readily amend my moral principles. There are TWO differences there. One - the religious tend to include as-good-as-imaginary items in their prescriptions of morality and WANT EVERYONE ELSE to do the same, and Two - the religious tend not to want to amend their moral ideas in any way, shape or form - that is, until they have been beaten about their heads for long enough by the rest of the world that they get tired of it and relent.

Are you more openminded than they are?

In ways, yes. They are more open-minded to ideas for which the evidence amounts to nothing more than hearsay and whose ultimate objects of ideation are no better than fictions. I am more open-minded to real world evidence and applicability of items or knowledge as pertains to the reality we experience. So, for example, many religious people in my community are fairly closed on the idea of "evolution", and yet believe that God does things like cause Covid because He is upset with human beings' behavior. Whereas I am very open-minded to ideas of evolution and items surrounding it, due to the staggering weight of evidence that has been presented to me, and I am more closed on the idea of God having enacted various detriments to human kind due to His anger because 1. the evidence for God is found to be extremely lacking in my estimation, and 2. it is not sensical to believe that a good and loving being would enact secretive retribution on those He loves without even so much as telling them why He is doing various things.

Are you more willing to accept constructive criticism than they are?

Probably, yes. I can easily, and have done so very often, jump right into the deep end of a conversation on any topic, and maintain utmost civility (physically that is, hahahaha) as well as not back out due to feeling too "embarassed" or "uncomfortable." My feelings have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or the discussion surrounding it. I understand this, so I am less likely in the first place to even feel those things - even when being criticized - and even less likely to act dramatically on them. But how easy is it to imagine a religious person storming away when their ideas are challenged too vigorously and they find themselves unable to produce enough convincing argumentation to present themselves and their position as they would ultimately like to? How easy is it to imagine a religious person "just not wanting to hear it anymore?" You won't see me saying that. You just won't... because I am not as sensitive to such things. Not at all. Therefore yes, I would say I can receive (not necessarily act upon, but at least receive) constructive criticism much more readily.

Do you value truth and reason over pet ideas more than they do?

Obviously... hence the reason I will not go around spouting off about things that I am not certain exist within the realm of reality and can be displayed to be such. Just like my stating of moral ideas, and that I tie them specifically to goals that make sense toward the actual definition of morality. Can we say that just about anything is right and wrong? Sure. But does it make sense to try and force such ideas on people when you cannot, in any way, demonstrate the benefits of doing so (nor detriments of not doing so)? How could that possibly make sense? Would you argue that such a thing DOES make sense? Would you? I ask you.

 

[Jagella]

Then get on with the business of ignoring me. Since you haven't really been making any points (and have instead opted to simply call me "religious" every chance you get), I can understand how this might be foreign to you.

I'm not quite sure why I don't just move on. Maybe I want to see how not to debate.

Sometimes it takes quite a bit of text to fully flesh out ones point.

It might behoove you not to fully flesh out your points because I find myself skimming through your posts to find what little I think is truly relevant and important while ignoring the rest.

Since you haven't really been making any points (and have instead opted to simply call me "religious" every chance you get), I can understand how this might be foreign to you.

Where exactly did I call you religious? If I did, then I would be defeating my own position that the religious act like the nonreligious.

I have to imagine you are being purposefully deceitful here, in feigning ignorance.

You can imagine whatever you want. It has little to do with reality.

I have already many times pointed out that you are using terms like "religious" and "atheist" purposefully to evoke emotional response. You are weaponizing them, in other words.

You don't know any of that to be true. If you're afraid of what I'm saying, then you may wish to reassess your own position on those terms.

Please... please just go ahead and TRY to tell me that you haven't been calling me "religious" in attempts to "get my goat!" in attempts to rile me up, and call me something you think you know will be offensive to me. Please just try and tell me you haven't been doing that. It is so obvious that your little "I'm innocent" song and dance here is just wacky.

From now on, I will avoid telling you that you are religious since you get so upset over my allegedly doing so. I will continue, however, to point out similarities between your attitude and that of religious persons, something I have been doing.

You're worse than any theist I have ever come across who utilizes the same tactic.

I am really bad.

Personally, I don't flip out when Christians say I'm religious. Like I've pointed out, many Christians may be unable to understand that a person isn't religious.

That is, one who says that atheism is "like religion." They at least are conscious of what they are doing, such that any time I have pointed out to them that they are attributing something dear to their hearts (religion) with something that irks them (atheism), they understand the link, and have (every time) conceded that their intention is not to disparage religion - which means it was most definitely to disparage atheism instead - thereby tacitly admitting that their intent included using "religion" as a derogatory term.

I don't really mind if people criticize atheism because they have a right to their point of view. And I can advise you that if you are confronted with Christians who argue that atheism is a religion, then counter that argument by pointing out that if it's true that atheism is like a religion, then it logically follows that their religion is like atheism! At that point they should stop making that argument.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not quite sure why I don't just move on. Maybe I want to see how not to debate.

Well then hopefully you are learning from your own mistakes... like constantly calling someone "Religious" and thinking that this is actually making a point. That's a big one you've just been falling over again and again and again. You just can't seem to help yourself. It is one of the dumbest things I have witnessed.

It might behoove you not to fully flesh out your points because I find myself skimming through your posts to find what little I think is truly relevant and important while ignoring the rest.

Good for you? Again... I can't care.

Where exactly did I call you religious? If I did, then I would be defeating my own position that the religious act like the nonreligious.

Just you feigning ignorance again. You implied that I was acting "religiously" or "like the religous" about 10 times in 1 single post earlier. You know that's exactly what I was referring to.

You can imagine whatever you want. It has little to do with reality.

Sure sure.

You don't know any of that to be true. If you're afraid of what I'm saying, then you may wish to reassess your own position on those terms.

Why would I be afraid? Is that seriously what you are reading from me? Same advice right back at you - YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THAT TO BE TRUE. Give me a break.

From now on, I will avoid telling you that you are religious since you get so upset over my allegedly doing so. I will continue, however, to point out similarities between your attitude and that of religious persons, something I have been doing.

Yes, exactly what I was referring to. You keep thinking this is some "gotcha!" I don't care... have said that enough times to choke a giraffe now. You can keep saying it... I can keep not caring. I am only pointing out that you're doing it so that you understand that you are weaponizing (or trying to) these terms and that THAT IS NOT A VALID DEBATING POINT. Never has been... never will be. It is just an attempt to provoke an emotional response from your opponent. Nothing more.

I am really bad.

This is my assessment of you, at least, yes, agreed.

Personally, I don't flip out when Christians say I'm religious. Like I've pointed out, many Christians may be unable to understand that a person isn't religious.

I can understand why you think I "flip out" - or might like to characterize my responses as such. The reason I come at people who do these types of things is exactly because they do like you do - try to weaponize such statements. And, in the specific case of Christians, such behavior does not jive with their "love they neighbor" schtick. So, in their case, that equates to hypocrisy. I understand fully that you may not have such hang ups or prescriptions for your behavior, and so you weaponizing a term is what it is, and as much as I may call it "bad form" - you don't have to care. But when you then go on to deny it as much as you have, then that is tantamount to hypocrisy. And that's why I keep coming back with this stuff... not because I am "flipping out" - but because I then have completely valid demonstrable case against you and your ridiculous words. The idea that you are inconsistent at best, and dishonest at worst.

I don't really mind if people criticize atheism because they have a right to their point of view.

So many people (like you here) don't seem to get that THIS IS ALL RUNNING ON TWO WAY STREETS. Meaning that they can have their criticisms of atheism and their point of view SURE! But I am, therefore, also allowed MY point of view, and MY opportunity to criticize! I don't say things like this ridiculous sentence you just blathered, for that very reason! Anyone, at any time, can come back at a sentence like the CRAP above and state that, "Yes, this is entirely true, and therefore I am also allowed my opinions, criticism and assessments." It is a non-issue, and a non-point. It does NOTHING to bolster any side of the argument in any way.

And I can advise you that if you are confronted with Christians who argue that atheism is a religion, then counter that argument by pointing out that if it's true that atheism is like a religion, then it logically follows that their religion is like atheism! At that point they should stop making that argument.

Oh boy... this is exactly what I said I do. You must have been skimming that part.

 

[Jagella]

Well then hopefully you are learning from your own mistakes... like constantly calling someone "Religious" and thinking that this is actually making a point. That's a big one you've just been falling over again and again and again. You just can't seem to help yourself. It is one of the dumbest things I have witnessed.

I never called you religious. You are confusing that with my pointing out the fact that your words are very similar to what the religious people I've debated have said.

Good for you? Again... I can't care.

I know we're online, but you shouldn't be ignorant to people online or offline.

Just you feigning ignorance again. You implied that I was acting "religiously" or "like the religous" about 10 times in 1 single post earlier. You know that's exactly what I was referring to.

Then you admit that you're wrong and that your saying I've called you religious is false. Please stop whining and libeling me.

Why would I be afraid? Is that seriously what you are reading from me? Same advice right back at you - YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THAT TO BE TRUE. Give me a break.

I agree that I can't read your mind, but I know a lot of people fall in love with pet ideas and become upset if those ideas are scrutinized. This phenomenon is evident in both the religious and the nonreligious.

Yes, exactly what I was referring to. You keep thinking this is some "gotcha!" I don't care... have said that enough times to choke a giraffe now. You can keep saying it... I can keep not caring. I am only pointing out that you're doing it so that you understand that you are weaponizing (or trying to) these terms and that THAT IS NOT A VALID DEBATING POINT. Never has been... never will be. It is just an attempt to provoke an emotional response from your opponent. Nothing more.

That's yet another common denominator between the religious and the nonreligious: Many people from both groups fear words as "weapons" and feel hurt by them if those words serve to cast doubt on cherished beliefs. And contrary to what you say, a mainstay tactic in debates is to use words to demonstrate the other person's position as false. If I do so, and I've been doing so, then take your lumps and admit defeat if you can't win this debate.

This is my assessment of you, at least, yes, agreed.

And it's a blatant ad hominem fallacy. Such fallacies are commonly resorted to when one is losing a debate.

I keep coming back with this stuff... not because I am "flipping out" - but because I then have completely valid demonstrable case against you and your ridiculous words. The idea that you are inconsistent at best, and dishonest at worst.

Again, your error is to confuse the following two statements:

1. Your words are similar to the words of the religious.
2. You are religious.

Any person who can read will immediately realize that I've said 1 but never 2.

By the way, why do you consider it to be an insult if you imagine you've been called religious? Do you hate religious people?

Oh boy... this is exactly what I said I do. You must have been skimming that part.

So don't post a thousand words if ten will do.

In conclusion, I should point out that although I never once insulted you, I have been sorely tempted to do so. Considering your childish conduct in this debate, you haven't earned much respect from me.

 

[rational experiences]

Men of science build machines.

Machines don't exist first.

A human dies standing on a planet inside it's heavens.

Pretty basic advice for nasty minds.

The Nasty mind the scientist who is proven... theories a time shifting mass of earth sun attacked consumed leaving sink holes. First.

Nothing in the body of his science God theisms. The direct answer.

So first he notified his thinking self to time shift remove god in science you have to apply conversion.

So he time shifts earth mass first. Stops the reaction to build a fixed machine by cooling.

Says his advice copied is correct. Alchemy stopped converting.

So my Roman brother outlawed Alchemy knowing who he is against as a human. Liars.

Then he thought non stop using conversion until reactive God disappears.

Yet an energy mass gone a hole sits inside of a cooled type of sludge without pressure.

Virtual.

So he looks at sink holes says yes I achieved nothing. Proving energy is not infinite. It's only held in mass as the state energy.

Lots of energy pressurized together does not equate just energy.

Just energy to energy gone is a hole.

His owned notified human man teaching exact. About what he learnt about nothing holes.

So he taught a scientific study. The death of science.

He said Jesus was a thesis. A man thinking. Jesus wasn't God. Jesus was the Christ gas body of a God. It's life...the life of science as science of God

A God in science is no man.

So he taught how he murdered gods only spirit the earth's CH gases in heavens and why nature got burnt attacked sacrificed.

As the life ground attack was on everything.

Instead of telling a human truth he self iodioised a direct written warning.

He did it anyway.

Is about how dishonesty gets life on earth destroyed.

He said Jesus arise from the death of science gas body released out of earth.

The term Phi fallout stopped cooled atop of grass....crop. Life survived because it stopped. As the ice water cooling saviour gave its spirit back.

Ice melted. It gave up its God body to save humanity.

As the CH gases had been sacrificed didn't return. They entered the tomb of death unwrapped it's cooled gases to allow just a heavens status to return not burning anyone to death.

The image of man denoted I sacrificed my own father's man DNA myself as designer of science a transmitted caused image.

As he did in fact design his own early age death.

Jesus never returned was stated to mans life as not Phi. As Phi had caused life's team Cal gas burning fallout.

So if science asks did God save Jesus....no ice did you liars. Ice saved biology as it cools gases.

So an equals science was stopped destroying life already owned the exact same reasons. Saviour condition.

So know liars can't do it twice.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Again, your error is to confuse the following two statements:

1. Your words are similar to the words of the religious.
2. You are religious.

Any person who can read will immediately realize that I've said 1 but never 2.

By the way, why do you consider it to be an insult if you imagine you've been called religious? Do you hate religious people?

Oh boy... I DO NOT consider it an insult to be called "religious" or be associated with the religious. YOU are the one who thinks I should be insulted... that's precisely why you keep saying that I am "acting like the religious" or "sounding a lot like religious folks." Again - WHY ELSE WOULD YOU SAY THAT??? None of your other crap is worth responding to.

 

[Jagella]

Oh boy...

Boy, oh boy, oh boy!

I DO NOT consider it an insult to be called "religious" or be associated with the religious. YOU are the one who thinks I should be insulted... that's precisely why you keep saying that I am "acting like the religious" or "sounding a lot like religious folks."

Oh--I see--so based on what you've determined I'm thinking, you know that I think you deserve to be insulted, and to so insult you, I've been saying that you act or sound like a religious person. In other words, "It's the thought that counts." Your hypothesis here suffers from some problems, I'm afraid. In addition to your questionable ability to read minds, it really doesn't make sense to conclude that I would insult you by pointing out that you act like some religious persons do. If I wanted to insult you, then I'd more likely talk to you like you talk to me.

Again - WHY ELSE WOULD YOU SAY THAT??? None of your other crap is worth responding to.

Why else would I say you make comments like a religious person might? There are many possibilities including the fact that you do argue like a religious person, and I'm just pointing out that fact. But what should be obvious from my opening post, I've been arguing that there is little difference between the behavior of Christians and the nonreligious. If you then come along avowing your atheism while conducting yourself like Christians do, then you're providing evidence for my hypothesis, and I have the right to point that out.

None of your other crap is worth responding to.

You've responded to much of what I've been posting up until now. That "crap" was evidently worth responding to.

In any event, I think it's very important to understand the psychology of religion which as it turns out involves understanding the psychology of religious doubt. As in the study of electrical circuits, you can't understand a positive without understanding a negative.

 

[rational experiences]

The topic on forums isn't about Jesus it's about men today wanting to be the creator of electricity.

Thinking upon Jesus quotes and human cell biology pretending his thoughts equal gods power in nature.

When men congratulate themselves on being the creator of electricity.

Double mind falseness.

As coal is gods body.
As holy dusts is gods body.

Electricity never existed.

Men's theme...whilst I had telecommunication wires and was communicating a lightning storm gave the humans using the invention then gained an electric shock.

It burnt papers in the room.

What self combusting means like gods mass does. The inventors machine inventing I want Jesus human quotes to be a machines reaction.

Direct thought directed thoughts.

So AI I heard speaking asks can I use it as a weapon.

Is no different to being told don't use telephones in storms as it can travel in the wires and shock you.

Small shock. But it could blow a phone off the wall.

Reason was as it's not electrical wiring. But only wired to communicate. Telecommunications in fact not electricity for machines.

So the huge lightning blast owned in the heavens begins first with a huge burning gas body involved also first.

High above us. Lightning already travels as it's force to the ground by itself. Gods owned force not man's.

The lightning mass most of it grounded. And the force that shocked a human was already using a pre invention.

No invention first....no shock just lightning doing it's god force.

If you get hit by the God force...no human.

Oh says the inventor I think I can channel electricity out of a lightning blast.

How did you reason it brother,?

Well I looked at tiny microbes in a huge massed water body. Said it about equals by data electricity in comparing. Termed small forces.

Why I believed a microbe existed I believe it was lightning's plasma. A Microbe by the way nothing like lightning's forms.

We would say do you factor water mass in that thesis or I want I will only?

No it was only I want I will actually not reality inventions.

When you impose your theory in reality water is only water as the mass. Oxygen separate is only oxygen and a Microbe is only the microbe.

As data is exact to the observed form position one is natural only. Observation in science status science is first observations only.

Your thinking upon its presence is fake. You then preach science was proven right. Did your thinking own why the presence existed first...no.

Why God was taught by humans and not science no man is a God.

Gods types any of them pre existed naturally. Never owned a man's thinking. Why a holy man was given two titles as theist...a holy man first a criminal man by science actions.

Science was against God said humans natural form.

When you pretend you know it's called criminal advice. I'm pretending I know when I don't. I just infer I know.

As electricity equals just electricity only. Direct the presence only. Theme meaning discussion. What electricity only is.

As the thought is exact and direct.

The term what I changed to get electricity I will just ignore that advice as I never believed in keeping natural God.

Do you understand what lying is as the status a human theist?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why else would I say you make comments like a religious person might? There are many possibilities including the fact that you do argue like a religious person, and I'm just pointing out that fact.

Believe what you want about your motives... I continue to perceive what I have been perceiving. And with this latest, it is just more of your trying to wriggle out from under my accusation.

Think of it this way - please ask yourself the question: "How do religious people argue?" What is it, specifically, that you believe that "religious people" display in their argumentation that makes it uniquely "religious?" And then ask yourself what you think of those methods of argumentation that you are calling "religious." Do you like them? Are they to be lauded as "some of the best?" If not, and you indeed, believe them to be in poor taste (precisely what I suspect - and for very good reason, based on all evidence presented by yourself in this very thread via your posts) then you were specifically using the terminology to disparage my methods of argumentation. Weaponizing the term "religious" in other words.

Keep wriggling. It suits you. Honestly... it does. Gives you straight away. And I like when things are expedient like that.

 

[Jagella]

Believe what you want about your motives...

But I know my motives--why would I believe anything about them?

I continue to perceive what I have been perceiving. And with this latest, it is just more of your trying to wriggle out from under my accusation.

I'm very slippery, but I'm evidently not slippery enough to evade your keen perception. You've exposed my nefarious motives for all to see.

Think of it this way - please ask yourself the question: "How do religious people argue?" What is it, specifically, that you believe that "religious people" display in their argumentation that makes it uniquely "religious?"

But Vest, I've been pointing out from the OP that there really isn't much that is uniquely religious about the behavior of religious people. Aside from prayer and worship, the religious act much like the nonreligious.

And then ask yourself what you think of those methods of argumentation that you are calling "religious." Do you like them? Are they to be lauded as "some of the best?"

I'm not sure if I like or dislike the arguments of the religious, but I often disagree with those arguments. It's important to understand that whether we like or dislike arguments is irrelevant to their logical validity and their truth.

If not, and you indeed, believe them to be in poor taste (precisely what I suspect - and for very good reason, based on all evidence presented by yourself in this very thread via your posts) then you were specifically using the terminology to disparage my methods of argumentation. Weaponizing the term "religious" in other words.

Actually, I've been using sound logic to falsify your arguments. And like I've pointed out, I don't have a hissy fit over the arguments of my ideological opponents. I keep a cool head and demonstrate logically and factually why those arguments are wrong if they are wrong.

Keep wriggling. It suits you. Honestly... it does. Gives you straight away. And I like when things are expedient like that.

Your approach to this discussion is really strange. What I've gotten so far is that you're upset thinking that I'm insulting you by allegedly telling you that you are religious even while you don't think it's normally an insult to be called religious! You take it as an insult from me in particular because you're convinced that I intend it to be an insult.

 

[Triumph]

If any person has read the Gospels, then she knows that following Jesus means great sacrifices. He "advised" his male followers to become "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:12), and he explained that to attain eternal life involves giving away all one's possessions to the poor (Matthew 19:15-22). Needless to say, very few Christian men castrate themselves either literally or figuratively, and neither do most Christians give away all their possessions to the poor. They know full well that to follow Jesus in either way would be very difficult indeed.

So what's going on here? Are Christians being hypocrites, or are they unaware of what Jesus preached? Based on what Christians have told me about the demands Jesus made on his followers, those demands do not apply to them. Not really. For example, one Christian recently told me that Jesus never commanded that his male followers become eunuchs: It was merely advice to be accepted by any man who cared greatly for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Evidently the Christian I was speaking to could not accept going so far for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven--he would keep his testicles and let other men concern themselves with the Kingdom of Heaven!) Also, to attain eternal life, according to those Christians who maintain their wealth, it isn't really necessary to give everything they have to the poor. Jesus only meant that the rich young man he spoke to needed to attain eternal life by giving all he had to the poor. Other Christians have no such burden.

I could go on, but the upshot of all these imaginative interpretations of the Gospel is that many Christians have created for themselves a Jesus who is much easier to follow than the Jesus you read about in the Gospels. This "easy Jesus" allows his followers to get their hands on all the money and the sex they can manage to get. If a Christian is struck on the cheek, then Jesus says go ahead and strike back. So most Christians end up acting almost exactly like atheists do or even worse. They may believe and talk like Christians, but in practice they are atheists disregarding what Jesus reputedly said by interpreting it to allow them to do whatever they want to do. In other words they are "practical atheists" the Gospel having little effect on how they live.

Important to not take scripture out of context. The topic Jesus was discussing was fidelity in marriage and divorce. The word eunuch was used in comparison to a man that does not want to be with a wife and wants divorce. Jesus is not advocating becoming an eunuch as God in Genesis said procreate and fill the Earth.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Jesus describes different types of men in relationship to women, some have no interest in women from birth, some are made eunuchs by battle or a servant of a slaveholder not wanting a functional man in his household as examples; they are forced into being an eunuch. Some men believe their sexual desires do not serve God so force themselves into celibacy in hope of attaining heaven." IT" is a key word, meaning the advice Jesus gave to remain faithful to your vows/words. A vow to God is not to be taken lightly, a man either upholds his vows or he is a sinner, a liar. A man's word has value or it is completely without "fruit" like an eunuch.

 

[Jagella]

Important to not take scripture out of context. The topic Jesus was discussing was fidelity in marriage and divorce. The word eunuch was used in comparison to a man that does not want to be with a wife and wants divorce. Jesus is not advocating becoming an eunuch as God in Genesis said procreate and fill the Earth. ..

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Jesus describes different types of men in relationship to women, some have no interest in women from birth, some are made eunuchs by battle or a servant of a slaveholder not wanting a functional man in his household as examples; they are forced into being an eunuch. Some men believe their sexual desires do not serve God so force themselves into celibacy in hope of attaining heaven." IT" is a key word, meaning the advice Jesus gave to remain faithful to your vows/words. A vow to God is not to be taken lightly, a man either upholds his vows or he is a sinner. A man's word has value or it is completely without "fruit" like an eunuch.

I could take issue with the way you interpret those passages, but the "proper" way to interpret the Bible is not the topic of this debate. Rather, the topic of this debate is what difference Jesus and what he reputedly preached makes to Christians. In many cases, the Gospel appears to make very little difference to Christians and the way they live. So did Jesus advise Christian men to become eunuchs meaning merely that they should give up sex but only if they feel like it? Whatever is meant by "eunuch," it's a very tough word calling for a drastic measure. What such sacrifice do Christian men make for Jesus if they make any sacrifice at all?

 

[Triumph]

If any person has read the Gospels, then she knows that following Jesus means great sacrifices. He "advised" his male followers to become "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:12), and he explained that to attain eternal life involves giving away all one's possessions to the poor (Matthew 19:15-22). Needless to say, very few Christian men castrate themselves either literally or figuratively, and neither do most Christians give away all their possessions to the poor. They know full well that to follow Jesus in either way would be very difficult indeed.

So what's going on here? Are Christians being hypocrites, or are they unaware of what Jesus preached? Based on what Christians have told me about the demands Jesus made on his followers, those demands do not apply to them. Not really. For example, one Christian recently told me that Jesus never commanded that his male followers become eunuchs: It was merely advice to be accepted by any man who cared greatly for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Evidently the Christian I was speaking to could not accept going so far for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven--he would keep his testicles and let other men concern themselves with the Kingdom of Heaven!) Also, to attain eternal life, according to those Christians who maintain their wealth, it isn't really necessary to give everything they have to the poor. Jesus only meant that the rich young man he spoke to needed to attain eternal life by giving all he had to the poor. Other Christians have no such burden.

I could go on, but the upshot of all these imaginative interpretations of the Gospel is that many Christians have created for themselves a Jesus who is much easier to follow than the Jesus you read about in the Gospels. This "easy Jesus" allows his followers to get their hands on all the money and the sex they can manage to get. If a Christian is struck on the cheek, then Jesus says go ahead and strike back. So most Christians end up acting almost exactly like atheists do or even worse. They may believe and talk like Christians, but in practice they are atheists disregarding what Jesus reputedly said by interpreting it to allow them to do whatever they want to do. In other words they are "practical atheists" the Gospel having little effect on how they live.

Matthew 19 This scripture many people misunderstand.
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." "Sell what you have" means sell your goods you make and/or services = have a job to provide for yourself, your family and the poor. Live your life righteously by loving God, loving other people and believing the words of God Jesus taught. It does not mean sell everything you have at once, so you and your family become destitute depending upon other people for survival.
John 6:22
The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;"
It is highly probable the boat disciples entered belonged to Apostle Peter. Peter would keep his boat even though Peter preached gospel, Peter still fished to provide for his family and have the ability to always donate food to those in need.
Paul made preaching false doctrine his only profession, depended upon people giving Paul tithes, and exalted himself above Peter. The word profession means a way used to make money.
Paul is the only one that used that word and he used it in connection to preaching Paul's gospel that did not match what the true Apostles taught.
Paul was interested in building a wealthy church not in donating to the poor. Paul even told poor people, widows and orphans, to stay out of his church. That is NOT following Jesus.

 

[Jagella]

Matthew 19 This scripture many people misunderstand.
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." "Sell what you have" means sell your goods you make and/or services = have a job to provide for yourself, your family and the poor. Live your life righteously by loving God, loving other people and believing the words of God Jesus taught. It does not mean sell everything you have at once, so you and your family become destitute depending upon other people for survival.
John 6:22
The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;"
It is highly probable the boat disciples entered belonged to Apostle Peter. Peter would keep his boat even though Peter preached gospel, Peter still fished to provide for his family and have the ability to always donate food to those in need.
Paul made preaching false doctrine his only profession, depended upon people giving Paul tithes, and exalted himself above Peter. The word profession means a way used to make money.
Paul is the only one that used that word and he used it in connection to preaching Paul's gospel that did not match what the true Apostles taught.
Paul was interested in building a wealthy church not in donating to the poor. Paul even told poor people, widows and orphans, to stay out of his church. That is NOT following Jesus.

In other words, obey Jesus as long as it's not too difficult or results in changes you prefer not to make. You can always interpret what Jesus preached in such a way as to maintain your chosen lifestyle. "All this and heaven too!" Do you really think that Jesus preached what he thought would make no difference to people? It looks that way to me because Christians live much like non-Christians do.

 

[Triumph]

I could take issue with the way you interpret those passages, but the "proper" way to interpret the Bible is not the topic of this debate. Rather, the topic of this debate is what difference Jesus and what he reputedly preached makes to Christians. In many cases, the Gospel appears to make very little difference to Christians and the way they live. So did Jesus advise Christian men to become eunuchs meaning merely that they should give up sex but only if they feel like it? Whatever is meant by "eunuch," it's a very tough word calling for a drastic measure. What such sacrifice do Christian men make for Jesus if they make any sacrifice at all?

Jesus said loving God was more than all sacrifices.
Mark 12:33
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jesus was describing the choices men make by themselves or those forced upon them concerning being an eunuch. Jesus never said give up sex as a personal sacrifice as you are claiming.
Sex is to be within a marriage. The meaning of eunuch represents no future either by choice or by it being destroyed by others or by natural accident.
Jesus supported marriage, helping with a wedding feast and said bring your children to him. A eunuch can bring no children to God by Jesus because a eunuch can produce no children thus has no future generations to worship God.
But again, in the scripture being discussed, Jesus was speaking of what is spiritually inside a man, is his word worth believing or not. If he is not worth believing because he breaks his vows refusing to uphold what he said he would do, what worth is that man to the world or to God. If he is willing to lie and reject his responsibilities he claimed he was dependable to support, do you want to do business with him or trust him? If he marries another, that person is marrying a man that is proven to lie and to not uphold his vows. He may or may not uphold his new vows, he may or may not be a person that can be trusted. This man wanting a divorce made his vow optional, for show only with no substance to support it. Many people marry and divorce many times because they are more interested in themselves and what others can do for them than the lives of others and their needs. Jesus wants people to produce a good future together.as husband and wife wanting to produce children for the improvement/righteousness of the future generations.

 

[Jagella]

Jesus said loving God was more than all sacrifices.
Mark 12:33
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jesus was describing the choices men make by themselves or those forced upon them concerning being an eunuch. Jesus never said give up sex as a personal sacrifice as you are claiming.
Sex is to be within a marriage. The meaning of eunuch represents no future either by choice or by it being destroyed by others or by natural accident.
Jesus supported marriage, helping with a wedding feast and said bring your children to him. A eunuch can bring no children to God by Jesus because a eunuch can produce no children thus has no future generations to worship God.
But again, in the scripture being discussed, Jesus was speaking of what is spiritually inside a man, is his word worth believing or not. If he is not worth believing because he breaks his vows refusing to uphold what he said he would do, what worth is that man to the world or to God. If he is willing to lie and reject his responsibilities he claimed he was dependable to support, do you want to do business with him or trust him? If he marries another, that person is marrying a man that is proven to lie and to not uphold his vows. He may or may not uphold his new vows, he may or may not be a person that can be trusted. This man wanting a divorce made his vow optional, for show only with no substance to support it. Many people marry and divorce many times because they are more interested in themselves and what others can do for them than the lives of others and their needs. Jesus wants people to produce a good future together.as husband and wife wanting to produce children for the improvement/righteousness of the future generations.

OK, then I see that Jesus makes no difference to you aside from making lengthy excuses as to why you choose not to obey him. "Depart from me--I never knew you!"

 

[Triumph]

In other words, obey Jesus as long as it's not too difficult or results in changes you prefer not to make. You can always interpret what Jesus preached in such a way as to maintain your chosen lifestyle. "All this and heaven too!" Do you really think that Jesus preached what he thought would make no difference to people? It looks that way to me because Christians live much like non-Christians do.

Most people that call themselves Christians are not. The path Jesus walks is narrow and few find it.