A beastly notion

[RabbiKnife]

You said this:

"just that significant portions of the bible are composed of fiction and that God is a complete fiction."

This statement demonstrates:
a.  You are wrong
b.  You are a fool
c.  You propose as a truth proposition the statement that "God is a complete fiction" which is a statement of ultimate knowledge and truth that you also claim cannot be true... a mobius loop of incomprehensible gibberish.

How do you know that God is a complete fiction?  Are you God? Are you the knower of all truth.  Oh that's right, only a Deity could be all knowing, ergo, you must be God.  Except that God is a complete fiction.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

As Athanasius explained, you live in the fantasy world of believing that your presuppositions are greater than anyone else's simply because they are yours.

[Athanasius]

Then you would be wrong

I don't suppose you are going to elaborate on that idea are you?

He's calling into question your presuppositional bias vis-a-vis the blind elevation of one metaphysic over another. Appropriately considered, your notion of a "fantasy world" becomes so distributed as to be moot. The theist is no more in a 'fantasy world' than the a-theist (or a-gnostic) is. The addition of a negation doesn't suddenly entail a more sober view of the world.

As stated, the suggestion is little more than "I disagree, therefore, you would be living in a fantasy world if X Y Z". That in itself is fantastical thinking.

I quite literally never said the theist was living in a fantasy world, I specifically disagreed with the assertion that my position must be that i believe Christians are deluded fools living in a fantasy world...So you want to talk about what I actually did say or just continue making stuff up?

Oscar, my reply highlights a contention with your notion of 'a fantasy world'. This is a separate claim from suggesting you think Christians are 'deluded fools living in a fantasy world'. I have not suggested you've made that claim, though you yourself imply that you might (and here we get to the notion):

I'm only bothering to make the distinction [between being Christian and living in a fantasy world] because I actually believe there is often a difference between living in a fantasy world and being a Christian...That is to say most Christians in my expirience don't behave as if they can actually move a mountain through intercessory prayer, they use Caterpillers or Komatsus to displace mountainous volumes of earth like a person that doesn't believe they have tangible influence or access to supernatural geokinetic manipulation

You suggest that most Christians aren't living in a fantasy world because they themselves don't live as if they believe their own claims. They don't pray to move mountains; they hire Caterpillers. However, you also suggest that some Christians are "living in a fantasy world". We can assume those are the Christians that don't hire Caterpillers or Komatsus. For they believe even the fictitious parts of the Bible and in God, who is a "complete fiction", you say. You wouldn't be bothered to make the distinction in their case.

This ignores the silly idea that there is a dichotomy between prayer and heavy machinery, alongside the suggestion that choosing one or the other is a sign of authentic faith, but I don't know that it needs pointing out.

You can wax poetic about how you think Christians don't live in a fantasy world (and Jesus does), but it seems this is no different than your own example: you say you believe one thing but do and say another. You don't think most Christians are living in a fantasy world, but you do because the distinction you draw upon, the very one which "bothers you" to make it in the first place, is false. And it's the only reason you're bothering to make the distinction. Hence, your notion starts to distribute itself.

See? Now I'm making that claim, though, without the whole 'deluded fools' bit, which we seem a bit early for but is probably not too far off.

Oh, and ProDeo didn't get as far as asserting some necessary position on your behalf. But I don't know that that's worth pointing out, either.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You said this:

"just that significant portions of the bible are composed of fiction and that God is a complete fiction."

Hmm, that seems like a different arrangement of characters, words and meaning than  "I disagree, therefore, you would be living in a fantasy world if X Y Z"...but ultimately I cannot say whether  it is true or not that they are actually exactly the same because I ain't no diety or nothin'.

This statement demonstrates:
a.  You are wrong
b.  You are a fool
c.  You propose as a truth proposition the statement that "God is a complete fiction" which is a statement of ultimate knowledge and truth that you also claim cannot be true... a mobius loop of incomprehensible gibberish.

How do you know that God is a complete fiction?  Are you God? Are you the knower of all truth.  Oh that's right, only a Deity could be all knowing, ergo, you must be God.  Except that God is a complete fiction.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

Oh, are them the rules? Well, you got me there, I guess I'm now sentenced to curl into a ball and eternally flush myself down the sophistry toilet for ever and ever and ever. Is the sun up, who can ultimately say? Am I typing this? what is I? What is this? What is is? Am I God? How do you know i'm not?

Or, you know, I don't believe God exists in the same way that I don't believe the Sun is yet to rise, and I don't believe I'm sleeping in a circular ruin dreaming up the next Lizzo album. I frequently put caveats and tangents and digressions in my posts just so that people won't pull this kind of goofiness on me, but suffice it to say that everything that I ever think or say or believe is pretty much thought, said or believed with the understanding ultimate knowledge ( if that is an actual thing that can exist) may not be accessible to me.

As Athanasius explained, you live in the fantasy world of believing that your presuppositions are greater than anyone else's simply because they are yours.

And, there goes your insecurity again, who hurt you? I'm always looking down my nose at you in your imagination. My presuppositions, suppositions and post suppositions are mine because I find them compelling and yours are not mine because I do not find them compelling.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Oscar, my reply highlights a contention with your notion of 'a fantasy world'. This is a separate claim from suggesting you think Christians are 'deluded fools living in a fantasy world'. I have not suggested you've made that claim, though you yourself imply that you might (and here we get to the notion):

Fair enough I suppose.

You suggest that most Christians aren't living in a fantasy world because they themselves don't live as if they believe their own claims. They don't pray to move mountains; they hire Caterpillers. However, you also suggest that some Christians are "living in a fantasy world". We can assume those are the Christians that don't hire Caterpillers or Komatsus. For they believe even the fictitious parts of the Bible and in God, who is a "complete fiction", you say. You wouldn't be bothered to make the distinction in their case.

This ignores the silly idea that there is a dichotomy between prayer and heavy machinery, alongside the suggestion that choosing one or the other is a sign of authentic faith, but I don't know that it needs pointing out.

You can wax poetic about how you think Christians don't live in a fantasy world (and Jesus does), but it seems this is no different than your own example: you say you believe one thing but do and say another. You don't think most Christians are living in a fantasy world, but you do because the distinction you draw upon, the very one which "bothers you" to make it in the first place, is false. And it's the only reason you're bothering to make the distinction. Hence, your notion starts to distribute itself.

I bothered to make the distinction because as I said "because I actually believe there is often a difference between living in a fantasy world and being a Christian", The reason is because I believe there is a difference. I think you've read something ungenerous into what I wrote, but I'll give you that I did give a specific example so you were not entirely unprompted.

I have talked to Christians who do not take the mountain moving statement literally, to my understanding they would contend that it is more or less metaphorical, that is that God can provide them with the strength to achieve a feat that seems otherwise difficult or impossible. A Christian that is literally trying to pray a mountain to another location and one the prays for the Bank loan required to rent the earth moving equipment to move the mountain can both believe the mountain statement and are both acting in accordance with those beliefs. Personally I find a lot of those sorts of instances Where individuals can believe the same claim in the bible and both act accordingly, Where one interpretation imo puts the person in fantasy land and the other does not. All that to say, I do think it is Fantasy to try and pray a mountain into physically creeping across the landscape on some immediately useful timescale. I do think that "believing" that is a possibility but not actually acting on it put one functionally outside of Fantasy land. I do not believe that this hypocrisy is the only way for a Christian to both believe their bible stuffs and not be a deluded fool. I do believe that there are some deluded fools and some of them are Christians and some of them are deluded because of something they took to heart from the bible. I hope that clears that up.

What thing are you referring to when you say I said that I believe one way and act another? It sounds like me, I just want to know what you are referring to.

See? Now I'm making that claim, though, without the whole 'deluded fools' bit, which we seem a bit early for but is probably not too far off.

I appreciate it, it certainly muddied your point to me to the degree that I thought that you were actually accusing my of that statement.
You can tell me why you believe i'm just on the cusp of making the claim though, I'm interested.

Oh, and ProDeo didn't get as far as asserting some necessary position on your behalf. But I don't know that that's worth pointing out, either.

I disagree about ProDeo, they said "If God is a complete fiction, then we are deluded fools, pinning our hopes on inane, fabricated nonsense.", I took that if/then to be an assertion that if I believe that God is a complete fiction then it necessarily follows that I believe the subsequent stuff. I'm willing to consider that my hackles are up due to recent instances numerous attempts to forcefully wrangle me into various stances and positions, but it looks like an honest read to me.

[ProDeo]

Sure, you can reason everything to the opposite (and so can I), but you are too smart to be a 100% atheist, or?

haha, I have found that I'm not too smart for anything really, it's one of the reasons I don't put intelligence on a pedestal..Intelligence is useful for lots of things, but there are other traits that lead to much happier, more successful and all around more functional people. Anyway, i'm not sure what you could mean when it comes to being an arbitrary percentage atheist, could you explain what  it would mean to be say 87% atheist?

An 100% atheist is 100% sure there is no Creator. An 87% atheist leaves the door open for the possibility Someone with infinite powers let a dense and hot bubble smaller then a grain of corn explode which created the Universe with billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars. Apparently that dense and hot bubble also contained the code for life.

It's what science teaches and you have chosen to believe that and based on the data became an xx% atheist. And the odds don't match. Complexity is a big problem for science to explain everything is accidental and without purpose.

If you believe an exploding dense and hot bubble smaller then a grain of corn can create the immense Universe without a Creator then IMO, your faith is bigger than mine.

In the atheist opinion at some moment the unaware Universe of itself and completely random created beings that were aware of themselves and also were equipped with a new feature no living species on this earth has, the conscience. And these creatures created a moral code because of a conscience. No other millions living species on Earth have a moral code, no animal feels guilt, only humans. None of everything that lives on earth knows the difference between good and evil, only us. And this moral code we developed is in direct conflict with the teachings of evolution, in evolution the selfish gene rules, survival of the strongest, eat or be eaten, no place for mercy, justice, everything goes.
 
I believe the science of the BB also but not without a Creator, Someone who has put everything in motion by the BB for a purpose.

I am a big fan of science, but have given it a different definition, science is the study how God created.

I'm not sure that I'm reasoning the opposite, you asserted that Jesus was the only  person to ever make the wild claim that his name, likeness,image and intellectual property would be world renowned and I think plenty of folks have probably made such claims and I bet some of them are pretty famous today. Either way, Jesus didn't actually provide any  insight into any of the fundamental forces much less electromagnetism...that would have been special and impressive.

Many people in history have made grotesque claims but they did not came true.

About 2000 years ago Jesus made a grotesque claim, that all nations would know His name. And it became true.

My question was, if you can name a similar case, a grotesque claim that became reality.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Sure, you can reason everything to the opposite (and so can I), but you are too smart to be a 100% atheist, or?

haha, I have found that I'm not too smart for anything really, it's one of the reasons I don't put intelligence on a pedestal..Intelligence is useful for lots of things, but there are other traits that lead to much happier, more successful and all around more functional people. Anyway, i'm not sure what you could mean when it comes to being an arbitrary percentage atheist, could you explain what  it would mean to be say 87% atheist?

An 100% atheist is 100% sure there is no Creator. An 87% atheist leaves the door open for the possibility Someone with infinite powers let a dense and hot bubble smaller then a grain of corn explode which created the Universe with billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars. Apparently that dense and hot bubble also contained the code for life.

It's what science teaches and you have chosen to believe that and based on the data became an xx% atheist. And the odds don't match. Complexity is a big problem for science to explain everything is accidental and without purpose.

If you believe an exploding dense and hot bubble smaller then a grain of corn can create the immense Universe without a Creator then IMO, your faith is bigger than mine.

In the atheist opinion at some moment the unaware Universe of itself and completely random created beings that were aware of themselves and also were equipped with a new feature no living species on this earth has, the conscience. And these creatures created a moral code because of a conscience. No other millions living species on Earth have a moral code, no animal feels guilt, only humans. None of everything that lives on earth knows the difference between good and evil, only us. And this moral code we developed is in direct conflict with the teachings of evolution, in evolution the selfish gene rules, survival of the strongest, eat or be eaten, no place for mercy, justice, everything goes.
 
I believe the science of the BB also but not without a Creator, Someone who has put everything in motion by the BB for a purpose.

I am a big fan of science, but have given it a different definition, science is the study how God created.

Ok, good to know. Well, I don't believe that there is a Christian God as much as I don't believe that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky with his magical chariot. Is there some chance that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky? I guess so in that general sense that I can be wrong about anything, but I don't think the Christian God holds some special station in the realm of stuff I definitely don't believe but none the less could be true. To put it another way we may as well say that I leave the door cracked for the plot of Dr. strange and the multiverse of madness to be true and factual and it is possible that Shuma Gorath might attack Silver Spring Maryland only to be thwarted by the supreme sorcerer all in my front yard. In a sense it is true that the door is cracked and literally anything could seep in, but I don't think that makes me less a non believer in God than It does a non believer in Shuma Gorath or Apollo.

I am an Atheist, I don't go around putting percentages on it, mostly because Christians like to play these gotcha games, like gotcha! you said you believe a thing now you are forced to admit that there is absolute truth or objective this or that, or in this case that there is a crack where the crepuscular rays of Jesus can shine through. I actually like to think about how sure I am of things and place arbitrary percentages on things, but you all suck the fun right out of that frivolous exercise. I actually really like science too, and I really like to talk about randomness and what it is and isn't , its implications...infinity and all manner of things, I'd bet you would get bored before I do. It's all very interesting, but there aren't much in the way of ultimate answers if you actually take the time to understand what the science does and does not say. I do not think you've defined an atheist but a particular kind of person, some might call him a straw man, but I'll give you that there are folks that fit the description well enough, but it's not what an atheist is or believes by necessity. An atheist doesn't believe in God or gods, I don't, there is plenty to think about when it comes to where any of this came from and I have some beliefs, some intuitions, some fun things that I like to think about, but if I'm honest I'm not overwhelmed with answers, I just happen to find God to be an unsatisfactory one along with many many others.

I'm not sure that I'm reasoning the opposite, you asserted that Jesus was the only  person to ever make the wild claim that his name, likeness,image and intellectual property would be world renowned and I think plenty of folks have probably made such claims and I bet some of them are pretty famous today. Either way, Jesus didn't actually provide any  insight into any of the fundamental forces much less electromagnetism...that would have been special and impressive.

Many people in history have made grotesque claims but they did not came true.

About 2000 years ago Jesus made a grotesque claim, that all nations would know His name. And it became true.

My question was, if you can name a similar case, a grotesque claim that became reality.

Hmm, nothing off the top of my head, let me get back to you....I just have an intuition that history has at least a few other weirdos that said something  generically grandiose and they just happened to be right. but hey maybe it was just Jesus what said it.

[ProDeo]

You know Oscar, I am always amazed that intelligent and knowledgeable people like yourself deny the Creator option, the evidence is overwhelming. The random chance we are here right now talking to each other by text that as soon I hit the 'post' button goes floating through the air at a distance of 2000Km (or so) and is available to you in a split of a second, that random chance triggered by an exploding bubble is practically nonexistent without a Creator. But as such works my brain.

Having said that the question is, why did the Creator created the Universe, what is the reason. And can we know that. And why this way. And without theology we can not answer this question.

Do you see the big difference between the Creator option and religion, all religions? Those are 2 total different subjects.

Religions can be wrong, people can do terrible things in the name of their religion and people who have called themselves Christians aren't the exception. It doesn't mean the Creator stopped to exist.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You know Oscar, I am always amazed that intelligent and knowledgeable people like yourself deny the Creator option, the evidence is overwhelming. The random chance we are here right now talking to each other by text that as soon I hit the 'post' button goes floating through the air at a distance of 2000Km (or so) and is available to you in a split of a second, that random chance triggered by an exploding bubble is practically nonexistent without a Creator. But as such works my brain.

Having said that the question is, why did the Creator created the Universe, what is the reason. And can we know that. And why this way. And without theology we can not answer this question.

Do you see the big difference between the Creator option and religion, all religions? Those are 2 total different subjects.

Religions can be wrong, people can do terrible things in the name of their religion and people who have called themselves Christians aren't the exception. It doesn't mean the Creator stopped to exist.

Thats funny, There is a person here that I am absolutely gobsmacked that they are a Christian, I suppose it goes to show you never can tell. IOW I don't think intelligence or education or knowledge is THE defining factor, it is some other thing. The evidence, I personally have not been overwhelmed and I have been at it for quite a long time, and in your words not mine I have one of the sharpest minds in all of creation (i'm pretty sure that is a direct quote from you, lets neither double check).

I really do get a lot of pleasure from learning about how things work, and communication technology is indeed amazing . The history of how technology developed is a favorite topic of mine, I've found lots of things in my historical exporings, but I have never found the hand of God. I think the difference between amazing and miraculous is that you can consistently repeat amazing, like the post button, the post button is an amazing wonder but it is not a miracle.

I don't know that its random chance that we are talking, I sought out this site, I created an account with every intention of having conversations like this, heck I started the conversation I think, I don't remember but I usually start these things. I think you probably came here on purpose too, unless you are going to tell me the heavens parted and an Ipad came down on a lightning bolt or something. I don't even think i'd even call it a coincidence just old timey social media, Though it might be, I have trouble with that word, I don't think I actually know what it means.

What is so wrong with an exploding bubble leading to anything in particular? For god's sake its a frikken exploding bubble, it is a truly wild thing to think about what an exploding bubble might do...it might do anything you don't know. I didn't want to get all worked up about this, but you keep minimizing the exploding bubble as if you can say with certainty what exploding bubble will or will not do...have you ever studied soap bubbles? You'd be shocked at how weird they can get, and yet you think you know the limits of a cosmic bubble...nobody knows that. I'm only sort of joking, why exactly is it unlikely that a cosmic bubble did...this?

I wonder why a person might ask the question of why the creator created any of this if they don't already think a creator created all this. I think a better question to start with is "what is this?" or maybe "is this?" or really any number of questions that don't assume so much. I'm not a strong believer in a grand or ultimate purpose, though I do like to think about it. I like to point out what I perceive as flaws in your community, sometimes for sport, sometimes because it legitimately gets my hackles up, sometimes because i wish you would stop doing that...but its not really why I don't believe, like yeah you suck sometimes, and yeah that doesn't make a great case for at least some versions of God ...weirdly its a pretty great case for other versions of God ..anyway I do not believe because I am not overwhelmed by the evidence, and I suspect because the clouds never parted and an Ipad pro (hey God can deffo afford the pro) didn't shoot down into my hands on a moonbeam or whatever.

[RabbiKnife]

You do not believe because you are blind

[Oscar_Kipling]

You do not believe because you are blind

That's why I like you Rabbi, always quick with a kind word and a hearty smile to brighten my day.

[RabbiKnife]

I’m not concerned about brightening your day

I am concerned about your ultimate eternal destination because of your self worship

[Oscar_Kipling]

I’m not concerned about brightening your day

I am concerned about your ultimate eternal destination because of your self worship

You are? okay, as you say, you are. but like, would it hurt to brighten my day a little, like just once, just for fun? I bet you give great hugs.

[RabbiKnife]

I do give great hugs

But I don’t give hugs to those who choose to remain in darkness.  That would not be kind.  Telling the emperor that his clothes are beautiful is not being kind

I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to blow smoke up your kilt; I’m not one of them

[Oscar_Kipling]

I do give great hugs

But I don’t give hugs to those who choose to remain in darkness.  That would not be kind.  Telling the emperor that his clothes are beautiful is not being kind

I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to blow smoke up your kilt; I’m not one of them

Okay, all business then. Fine. Tell me about how i'm worshiping myself, what could you possibly mean by that?

[RabbiKnife]

As Athanasius already explained, you denigrate as fantasy any idea that doesn’t support the self-fulfillling prophesy of your own presuppositions

You believe yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of truth

You promulgate your own rules for how God must behave

I pity you