1. the fact that you seem to look for excuses to attack the Divine, while at the same time you acknowledge that you do believe that there is one, is contradictory. But devil's advocate, say there is a Divine as you acknowledge that there is one, if he is autocratic and "abusive of his power", there is frankly nothing you can do. So denying him just because you find him autocratic is delusional in itself.
But, more concretely, the God delusion is not so much a delusion since no tangible evidence can be given one way or the other. as I stated throughout the thread, human senses of perception are ridiculously infantile. Since the critics were not around at the time of the "signs" denying they ever took place is delusional in itself. After all, no tangible modern proof can be cited to prove that those signs at those times did not occur. And if we cannot prove they did not, discounting a text that says they did, in spite of the fact that the text has in it - as I stated the very slap-you-in-the-face plain pharaoh example - is another example of desire-driven procrastination that has a deeper motivation of self-indulgence and no-guilt-baggage at ist core, as opposed to pure logic. It is a rationalisation of the victory of indulgence over control - nothing more.

as regards scriptures being the answer key, why - because most of the statements you echo here, including your accusation of divine inaction are clearly answered therein - if the text is confusing ask someone who can help you understand (hope it would not be too difficult for you, given that it would necessitate a little humility and patience).

2. When bad things according to you affect good people - maybe you would like to consider your definition of "good". Calling something good even when it eats that which is forbidden, drinks to intoxication, rejects the final message of the divine, fornicates like an ass in estrice, curses and extracts vengeance on his neighbour because the neighbour misspoke.... don't tell me the "good" people you speak of are angelic. And lastly, we live in a system whose injustice we abet each time we see a lobbyist get his way over the interest of the common man, and do nothing. In the first 2 points all that has been done is use God as a scapegoat for your man's own misdeeds. As regards abuse, you have in no way cited examples of abuse, inaction ok, but not abuse. As regards inaction, I mentioned to you the concept of Avichi - the earth is the proving ground- would not make much sense for the tester to violate the conditions of his test; as a science fan you would agree.
Also, citing the fact that I mentioned - from Atheist philosophers themselves - the Divine's inaction that you condemn as such, is in fact the main contributor to human development, realization, and understanding. Life is the test for a few years; compared to eternity that is like a grain of sand on the pacific coast. If for you, the world is the be all and end all, then certainly your thoughts would hold sway. But as an ephemeral waystation, a little difficulty is a part of life, and an important factor in testing a person's loyalty to the Divine or to your assumption of his "role as your personal butler".

3. you mention probability, ok. Probability, Permutations, Combinations and the like are randomized mathematical calculations that something could happen if it is chanced upon. as I said, and if you've done probability in school the standard problem is about a pack of cards. A calculation of chance. Like at a race-course. In case of serendipity it may well be "chance", like transmutation. But why does something chance to happen at a particular time for you; i.e why are you there at that time to benefit from that chance. Happens on its own ok. But why did things play out in your life in order to have you there at that time. A very typical question - would Donald Trump be donald Trump if he were born in Bangladesh and did not have daddy's contacts to take advantage of in getting the loans for building in NY? So yes, maybe there is just blind simple luck, but the fact that you are there says something too.
If we stand by permutations and combinations in one light as per Carl Sagan the universe will be teeming with earth like planets.
But for the earth like planets to actually have life, in addition to simple number crunching, it will have to be at exactly the same distance from its sun to have a correct temperature to sustain life. If the planet were as close to its sun as earth is to the Sun, but its sun were hotter or cooler, there would stlll not be much life - a good example is that last earth like planet that was discovered that had an orbit around its sun of 15 days.
Probability as you put it, is another example of rudimentary human understanding of universal phenomenon that is broken down and understood only in piecemeal by simple animal minds.

4. As regards your prayers, you mentioned a loved one or bullied at school, it is still asking for something. As I said the Divine does not ask for prayers for you to ask for something - this is agian something very pagan that was adopted into Christianity as it incirporated European pagan customs.
To worship the divine is to worship him. To ask for help is another thing. Plus when he has sent his message, to worship his messiah as his Son is blasphemy in itself. blaspheming and then complaining is contradictory. But let's say that you did worship and he did not come forward to help, do you merely worship him for help? does not say much about your faith. Also - and please don't take this the wrong way - the death of a loved one, if there is a divine, would entail his/her passing on to a better realm, to pray for it to stay around with you is more for you than for them. So, if he does not come forward in that case, to change the grand universal scheme for your all-important desires, then excuse him

5. As regards Abraham, it has been clearly mentioned that the divine prevented the knife from cutting as Abraham ran it on his only son's throat. The divine never intended to see that son sacrificed, since the Divine had already promised Abraham to raise a race of people from his progeny. to assume what if, is an extract completely out of the entire meaning of the text. If, in the case of the Divine higher being is not sensible. In this example itself it is illustrated that the Divine knows the future and is in complete control. But, even if Abraham had sacrificed his son, the Son was ultimately the creation of the Divine, a gift from the Divine, and if the son were taken away, Abraham knew that his son would still go on to a higher level of existence.
Death is a part of life. If not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then a few years frmo now, if not a few years from now, then a few decades from now. But it is in our mortality that defines us, it is a part of the truth of our existence. Complaining about it as cruelty is unrealistic.

6. As regards Cosmology, again what have we truly discovered about the universe? As regards my God - ok - but you do accept that there is a higher Being, from which branch of Cosmology do you get that?

7. If the books were not from that being, then who would they be from? If it is from a man, then replicate one like unto it. Again, a good example is the Quran in this argument. People from Luxembourg to Rushdie have criticised its style and test. Some like Puin have gone further to propound outlandish theories. But in spite all their theses, and all their Syrio-Aramaic analogies not one of them has actually been able to produce a verse like unto it.
The book in itself mentions the very big bang theory propounded in the 60s.
Mentions bees as primarily female.
Would an illiterate man from a nomadic tribe actually be capable of that.
Hinduism has its own signs. as did Christianity and Judaism. As did the Egyptian texts and Sumerian texts.
What is the origin of this? Certainly it is nice to belive that the Higher being is unconcerned. But, as I said, if you were a little more patient and a little less eager to jump the gun in accusation, you will find that reading with understanding would open you up to a larger world.

8. I am certianly not going to splodge all world religions together as being equal. There is a divine word, and there is a Pauline word. there is a divine word and there is a compiled hodgepodge of a Testament from 700BC to 200BC. there is a divine word and there is a fusion of rationalized idolatry. There is a divine word and there is a morph into fire worship.
But for you to actually understand that which is described, in addition to scientific method you will need to understand the text for what it says, not what you think it says. The depth of meaning in a text takes patience and understanding, certainly coupled with your scientific method. But if you say scientific method is applied when you accuse a text of murder and rape, without understanding the context.

9. So in effect, your scientific assumption and reverse conclusion, are based on flawed presumptions and misunderstood statements, that are a direct result of unrealistic expectations clubbed with a shallow insight into the true meaning and depth of texts, accompanied with a side of unwillingness to actually see the simple signs that lie in the texts for all to see (reference read my previous post and this for examples cited).

So when are you going to publish this book?

I think your time would be best served to take on one topic at a time.

1. The entire gist of your first paragraph has already been debunked throughout the length of this thread, so no need to repeat yourself without any facts or examples. Your repetition of the same old rhetoric that was already answered at the outset, is amusingly redundant. It betrays your lack of tangible facts to demonstrate and so you regress to a claim that agnosticism and atheism are not as blind as theism; yet over the entire course of the thread you could not make any headway either way.

2. Your second and third paragraphs seem to be a rant against the Bible. But you still have no knowledge of any other scriptures. It appears, like the rest of your argument, you stick to known waters as a dismal source from which to draw preconceptions against the larger ocean of knowledge that lies out there.
This in itself is contrary to the scientific method, and is exactly what I was referring to in the previous post.

3. As regards Abraham, your regression to your safe waters of the already answered accusation of bloodshed and imagination are interesting. Your analogy of Abel is again demonstrative of an incomplete understanding of the text, regressing to what you feel comfortable understanding.
But, outside of your comfort zone of Christianity and accusations that go in circles even after having been answered, Abel's sacrifice was accepted because his was form the best of his flock, while Cane was performed for the sake of it.
It's interesting that you mentioned this, because it was exactly the dichotomy I referred to when I was talking about worshiping or honouring God for the love of him, and praying to him for a crumbcake.
If you now claim that you do not believe in a God, you may want to review your previous posts. You seem to be flip-lopping quicker than a politician.
As regards Death, you seem to be confused. If you accuse the Divine of being eager for death, you cannot exclude from that critique that life after death exists, hence my statement that then there is nothing to complain about when clubbed with basic existentialist philosophy.
But, if you stand to exclude the Divine, then there is no life after death, and certainly no inspiration to Abraham other than madness. So your blame that is being laid against the Divine as cruel to the death, is frankly circular at best.
As regards your critique of death, I take it you are then anti-euthenasia, and of course anti-abortion.

Again, as regards the Gaussian theorem and Central limit theorem (in case you missed it ), there is a more complex view to probability, but in the end it is still the same principle. If you state the equations as absolute, then you should certainly be able - taking into account population size and other factors - be able to determine where the next case of serendipity would befall you, and certainly place yourself there to achieve success.
Seems you are the one throwing around theories trying to profess a higher understanding of something, but inadvertently end up demonstrating the very thing I was talking about.

At the end of your very "emotional" rant, it seems you have an axe to grind with the Divine, as opposed  to a real critique. It appears you devoted a certain number of years - by your own confession - reading what by your own confession was Paul's words, and then for some reason instead of realising what you just confessed - that you were trying to worship some incorrect Pauline concept - got pissed with the Divine and started to cry about it.
Your statements as limited to Christianity as they are, show that you - again in typical west-centric fashion - looked to what the West has a religion, tasted it, didn't like it, and then went on to choose another western philosophy - which by the way is another cheap imitation of Mediterranean culture, and like everything in Western Society is not Western in origin - without actually having read any text in order to make an educated decision.

As regards atheism, and scientific method - for the readers who came in late - we have already demonstrated the logical loopholes in those philosophies when dealing with the complexities of human ethical code and the reasons behind values (read from the start).
In conclusion, your disdain for religion is just as blind and ill-informed as you accuse the theists of being. The only difference is the theist is flawed by your words for such blind leanings. It would be hypocritical for one who practices scientific method to, at the grass root level of this entire thread, be guilty of exactly the same logical loopholes and contradictions of which he accuses religion.

Given our last 2 posts, it appears unfortunately that you are going in circles, and repeating the very points that have been answered over the course of the entire thread.
In as such, you seem unfortunately to have run out of ideas, and I would not want to cause you more mental anguish than you have plainly already been through.
Posted on: November 21, 2007, 03:28:17 am

---

Indeed the only unfortunate truth that has been put on display in this thread is the fact that in spite of how cock-sure a person thinks he is in regards to a particular subject, there is always an equally strong flip-side to the same logic.
With a little introspection and understanding of the broader picture of things, one may begin to respect the insignificance of the human mind in grasping the intricacies of the vast universe, the secret of which we have not even begun to perceive let alone understand, and perhaps not be so eager to cast stones on another regardless of whether you agree with their beliefs or not.

ok. if you say so     ... 

I REALLY don't have time to read the entire thread, sorry...
Just wanted to say LOL -> "Without religion, we'd all be equals." Yeah, right. That should've been taken out, right there. Without any BS about human nature et cetera, you are dropping to the same argument the religions have for why theirs is a message of peace: If everyone converted to our viewpoint, there'd be no more wars . Which is bullcrap, whoever says it.

well if you say that religion is made by humans and that is a reality.

Prove it. If real prove it.

As regards quoting anthropology, it may interest you to know that there is no archaeological evidence to prove that religion is man-made or otherwise. Anthropology as a study is geared from the outside looking in, with a presumption that God is a non-real concept.
This premise itself is not provable one way or the other. People only cling to one side over the other based on a pre-instilled point of rationale similar to why an evangelical would only vote Republican.
From the comically self-defeating apatheists, to our more rationale based scientists, all conclusions are from the perspective of human empiricity.
Sadly enough empiricity for us is limited, as I always say, by our senses and perceptions. Ironically the very empiricity we tout today was the same that gratified the rationale used to claim the World was Flat, and call Galileo a nut-job.
I will agree with your argument of rationale and scientific fact, once we have seen through the confines of our universe, and science is indeed all pervasive.
As regards our understanding of history and archaeology, archaeologists themselves acknowledge that our understanding of human origins is limited, particularly the understanding of the development of civilization. Evolution itself has been proven for all animals except - ironically - man. It is a well respected theory and to quote otherwise is considered delusional nonsense, but in spite of all the rhetoric it still remains a theory with respect to our missing link. In effect quoting triceratops and neanderthals without showing the evolutionary tree conclusively, is nothing more than the grasping of straws that we accuse religion's account of.
Certainly I will not subscribe to the Biblical account of Earth in 6 days and considering the Flintstones to be a documentary, but no one ever acknowledged the Bible as being anything outside the words of Paul and dark ages Europe.

But if we look at theosophy, eastern religions, judaism, islam, hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, we do see an immutable essence that dates through Incan and Aztec beliefs. A simple dismissal of religion or science is an echo of the old inquisitional strife in Europe.
Before declaring that religion is factually a man-made concept, we should analyze the facts of which you speak. Are these the same facts that declared King Tut murdered for over 80 years. Are these the same facts that consider all Pharaohs to have deified themselves in their lives as part of the pantheon (look up Amenhotep III). Are these the same facts that declare the universe infinite, and then come back later to declare it finite and shaped like a soccer ball.
Fact is we keep changing facts based on new discoveries. Discoveries that are the result of our using technology to transcend our own limitations of perception. As we broaden our horizons, we change our perspective, and rethink many "facts" that we clung to a few years ago.
So at the end of the day, what is fact and what is preclusion? Time will indeed tell.
To throw around the word "fact" simply because it is a fad of our age, without actually having all the facts is amusingly puerile.

Posted on: November 23, 2007, 04:09:16 am

---

As regards 8 of 11, the problem he speaks of is also answered in his statement. People cause the problem. No religion forces conversion - maybe zealots use verses one way over the other.
Even Islam, though most people say otherwise citing caliphs and mughal rulers, has a clear verse - You worship not what I worship, I worship not what you worship. Come to common terms as between us and you, there is NO compulsion in religion.
What people do is one thing, and what is said is another.
Simply throwing generalizations around is ridiculous. There is no "Christianity is a Christianity does" because there is no blanket behavioral pattern.
So in the end if people actually did what their religion espoused, i.e loving their fellow man the problem you mention would be non-existent.

Let's not forget that the greatest wars and violence of history were all lead by people motivated by Atheistic self-driven goals. Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, even the American genocide of the Natives was driven by worldly goals of territorial expansion and increasing one's wealth and holdings - all relatively basic motivations from an atheistic standpoint. Ideology was thrown around to garner support and justify their acts - regardless if it was religion, nationalism, atheism, communism or anything that had resonance.
Religion at least has verses that one can draw upon in order to shut extremist interpretations down. But as was the case of Stalin and Uzbekistan's present leader, an atheist does as an atheist feels. His rationale can be skewed to suit his self-driven needs simply with a selective acceptance and rejection of fact.
And as was seen by the public reaction in Nazi Germany, an eloquent speaker would be all that is needed to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing ( a concept derived from a travesty of scientific gene studies).
Given that each ideology and rationale can be skewed by the individual, and in the end it is the person who is finally the one that commits the acts, can you actually condemn one over the other.

Forming opinions based on superficial understanding of things would not be worthy of you 8.

Negative.

The term is 'Manifest Destiny', and in fact it relied upon the 'virtue of the American people and their institutions' , 'the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.' and most importantly the destiny under God to accomplish this work. This was not an atheist motivation as you claim.

Actually, most of your points are correct, but in fact it was the Christian hierarchy that deemed a great deal of scientific knowledge to be heretic. And although those times are long passed, I'm interested in your opinion on Education, creationism or science?