But what it's really like, to someone like me who has known schizophrenics, is schizophrenia. It's like those crackpot schizophrenics who believe they have a personal relationship with a celebrity, and wind up in jail for stalking them (or killing them). There's no relationship at all.
This makes me wonder if Christians who believe they have a "personal" relationship with someone they've never met are the same ones who accuse atheists of having a personal grudge against this same non-entity. Projection is rampant in Christian attacks on atheists, though it's often masked as a tu quoque argument ("atheism is a religion too"). FYI, to any Christian lurking, no I'm not angry with your god. I do get angry with your god's believers at times, but you can't be angry with someone that doesn't exist. Nor do I have a personal relationship wtih Darwin. That would be silly.
Anywho, this ruling made me think (again) about insanity and religion. Someone would be considered delusional if he believes he is Jesus Christ, but not if he believes he has a "relationship" with him. Kind of wacky in my opinion. Not to mention, if a Biblical character did the exact same thing on the basis of what God said in his head, he'd be a hero. Actually, some Biblical characters did act on delusions and hallucinations. That's what happens when you have a "personal" relationship with a deity -- you get permission and/or instructions to do practically anything.Dusty says it as only Dusty can:
And Nonstampcollector covered it too:
40 comments:
As a Christian, I need to reiterate that because others might think I'm atheist, you can't find or read in the bible that you need a personal relationship in Christ. That's bullshit.
There's no such thing as personal relationship requirement in the bible. That's not the commandment for Christians.
I commend you for the following: "I, to any Christian lurking, no I'm not angry with your god. I do get angry with your god's believers at times, but you can't be angry with someone that doesn't exist."
Same here. We're not against the flesh. We're against the rulers and powers rule darkness. We're against false doctrines and teachings. If you find a so-called Christian who's fight is with the flesh, he's a liar and stupid for he doesn't know what he's believing in.
It's been way too long since NonStampCollector made a video.
scum, the "personal relationship" trope is extremely common. I'm not the one who should consult the Bible about it -- the Christians who promote and believe the idea are.
Mike: I completely agree, but perhaps he's said what he needs to say. His videos have covered a lot of ground and are really insightful.
Lady Atheist, I never said it's not common. I know it's common. And I never said in this post that you should consult the bible. When I wrote " you can't find or read in the bible that you need a personal relationship in Christ", I wasn't referring to you yourself.
Just because someone claims he's a Christian, you will believe him that he's a Christian? Won't you test him first? If some dude comes to you and says he's an expert in computers, you will automatically believe him?
Those promoting that idea "personal relationship bullshit" haven't read the bible correctly. Even if they try to read it verbatim, they won't find such phrase.
Lady Atheist, I never said it's not common. I know it's common. And I never said in this post that you should consult the bible. When I wrote " you can't find or read in the bible that you need a personal relationship in Christ", I wasn't referring to you yourself.
Just because someone claims he's a Christian, you will believe him that he's a Christian? Won't you test him first? If some dude comes to you and says he's an expert in computers, you will automatically believe him?
Those promoting that idea "personal relationship bullshit" haven't read the bible correctly. Even if they try to read it verbatim, they won't find such phrase.
You're a Christian if you say you're a Christian. Every denomination has an opinion on whether the members of other denominations or sects are "true" Christians. It's not up to atheists to sort it out.
Lady Atheist, nah. You're mistaken. You have to sort it out because what you're doing is generalizing people. I supposed you hate discrimination, right? To accept that everyone is a Christian without testing them first is dangerous. If Osama Bin Laden claims he's a Christian because it came from his mouth, you would believe it? We all know he's a Muslim.
Ask Muslims. They are divided. Most of whom I've talked do not accept Osama as a Muslim. He's a disgrace to their religion. And I know he is. But if we follow your logic then we can say Osama is a representative of all Muslims. Therefore all Muslims are killers and suicidal!
You have to sort it out because you're campaigning against Christians and false Christians alike. If you're overall goal is to awaken sleeping and delusional people, you'll have to sort it out. Because from what I see here, you're barking at the wrong tree.
And again to clarify, I agree in you that you do not need to have a personal relationship with Christ, although our reasons are different, where mine is primarily biblical.
And again, the "personal relationship" crap is very prevalent where i live. If you believe I'm generalizing then I'm generalizing for the American fundamentalist movement.
The very fact that there are so many disparate branches of "christanity" and that they all believe they got it "right" while everyone else misinterprets the bible is in itself reason enough to believe that Christianity as a whole is bunk.
"If you believe I'm generalizing then I'm generalizing for the American fundamentalist movement." - Lady Atheist
Thanks for clarifying. Well, I agree with you in that. In that case you aren't really generalizing Christians because you're now referring to a specific group. Though I still consider this as a generalization because I don't know every single American fundamentalist group out there. But I'm with you in this case.
"The very fact that there are so many disparate branches of "christanity" and that they all believe they got it "right" while everyone else misinterprets the bible is in itself reason enough to believe that Christianity as a whole is bunk." - Lady Atheist
That's the reason why I believe more of Christianity. Remember this has been predicted. Many wannabes want to be a Christian but most have failed. But just because there are lots of wannabes it doesn't mean the group is fake. It will just take you more effort to sift out what's real. Nothing is easy my friend.
Well, I didn't come from a family of psychos like you, LA, but, I don't see how that qualifies you as a judge on whether or not people have a legitimate relationship with God... Whom, unlike any substantiated and unbiased evidence for most of your evolutionary theories, actually exists and forms a plausible explanation for our being and origins.
Scum... maybe if you'd actually READ the Bible, you'd have noticed that the entire theme of the document naturally infers a mandatory, personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ. You know, you sound just like these infidels that require everything happen before their eyes, (a literal 'God and pony show') when and where they want it and that it be displayed word-for-word in scripture, (nothing inferred) or it can't be considered canon. Maybe you're just a closet infidel, yourself?
Good thing that for a Christian to have a legitimate and personal relationship with God, he/she DOESN'T need the approval of some infidel fool or pseudo-Christian!
Gideon, please cite the Book, chapter, and verse(s) that validate the concept of a "personal relationship" with Christ. Many Christians disagree with this concept and they consider you a "pseudo-Christian"
Uh... maybe your cats were meowing too loud, or you were busily engrossed with your knitting, LA. I think (let me check, here... yup! I did!) I've already explained that the ENTIRE Bible, itself, INFERS a "personal relationship" with God/Christ. That would be it's purpose for existence, my dear. What, you think it's there simply to mark the ignorance and stupidity of anti-theists? Hell... you have evolutionary 'science' for that!
Not that you'd believe anything that God's Word had to tell you, anyway, right? You being an informed intaleckshull n'all! (I spell that right?)
Oh... I know! You've got your hair bun screwed too tight! Maybe back that sucker off a couple of turns.
Anyway, you're not going to find any verse in scripture where it says, verbatim: "For the information of any future Darwinian dupes, let it be known that it takes a personal relationship with Me, the Lord God, in order to be saved."
I guess any three year-old could figure out that a "relationship" (a foreign concept to the reclusive and spinsterish) naturally develops between two people whom spend a lot of time, together. Naturally, an anti-theist wouldn't be reading God's Word or be concerned about knowing or pleasing Him, so that relationship would never develop. That said, providing ANY verse to an infidel is futile, as they don't believe God or His Word is legitimate or viable. See where I'm going with this?
Maybe some corrective eye surgery would help you out in seeing what someone's actually writing to you, as well as lessening your dependence upon eyeglasses fitted with a long chain... an accessory not conducive to success in one's endeavors at hooking and landing a man in their twilight years!
;-)
I know many theists who have read the Bible and don't believe there's anything in it that implies (the correct word) that the believer has a "personal" relationship.
How do you know that you spend time in the company of God? What evidence do you have, other than a warm fuzzy feeling when you think about how much your imaginary friend loves you?
As I've IMPLIED by my previous comment, LA, the Bible IMPLIES nothing more or less than the necessity of a relationship with God.
Only an argumentative anti-theist UNINTERESTED in gaining knowledge would say there is no evidence the Bible IMPLIES that a one-on-one relationship is what brings us to a saving relationship with God. Anyone familiar with the Lord's Prayer and it's qualifier "Our Father..." preceding the prayer, which quite adequately illustrates the intimate and personal RELATIONSHIP between God and the believer, would have no issue with this. As I've IMPLIED, a three year-old would not have any problem INFERRING this concept in their interpretation of scripture.
Only an embittered and determined foe of Christianity... an anti-theist... (the CORRECT term describing your ilk) would have a problem deciphering this and pretty much anything else that didn't conform to their myopic and bigoted view of reality... dysfunctional history and home-life, notwithstanding.
And those "theists" you mentioned, not finding any corroborating evidence for a personal relationship, definitely don't know their asses from holes in the ground.
Certainly, they could never call themselves Bible-believing Christians!
You're such an excellent representative of your faith. I'm sure many people will find Christ through your posts.
Actually, a few have. Even my detractors say that I'm consistent.
But, hey... even Jesus couldn't reach every infidel. I have no illusions I will, either.
Gideon, would you mind actually showing some evidence that evolution is false? Furthermore, if only dupes believe in evolution, then I guess you consider yourself a greater authority on science than the countless men and women who've dedicated their entire lives to studying it. What credentials in biology do you have?
Would you mind showing some evidence that evolution is true and your credentials? Also, if your evolution is false, those credentials wouldn't be worth shit, would they?
And, I'm not the only one that's saying evolution is false. Most believers think it's false, many of those, former academics whom devoted substantial pieces of their lives to studying it, also.
So... do you consider YOURSELF a greater authority than they?
How long does it take to accrue sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision? Does the time required for one to learn necessarily pertain to EVERY individual? Does a degree or tenure ensure one of not being wrong?
For me, having spent many decades reading, writing, inadvertently learning through these processes, I believe I have gained enough knowledge to satisfy myself that the weight of evidence FOR intelligent design is greater than that supporting evolution.
I suspect my time on this Earth far exceeds that which you've put in. Maybe... just maybe it hasn't dawned upon you, yet, how impossible your premise for man's origin is. If you're not one for pause and reflection, consumed by the business of the world, I can tell you with a great deal of authority that your chances of ever thinking outside the box are pretty slim.
At the very, very, very least of all of this, I can tell you for certain that without a personal relationship with Christ, based upon faith and trials overcome, you won't understand one iota of the gospel, as it is spiritually discerned, nor will it empower you to overcome temptation.
I could cite your case, for example, as what can happen when one allows specious and ungodly theories to crowd out what seed the Holy Spirit has planted. I don't know what happened to you to turn you against God like you have, but, I've seen the results many times before. It's that experience, in and of itself, that gives me even greater assurance I'm on the right track.
The very existence of those that so vehemently oppose something they try and claim as inconsequential, is my greatest argument aside from the wonder of creation, itself.
How long does it take to accrue sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision? Does the time required for one to learn necessarily pertain to EVERY individual? Does a degree or tenure ensure one of not being wrong?
Are we to infer from this that you have never attempted these things?
It's easy to become an expert in a fairy tale: you just have to read a page or two in a book. And then because of your black-or-white thinking you presume it takes a Ph.D. to understand anything scientific. Your parents should demand a refund from whatever school didn't educate you.
Gideon wrote "And, I'm not the only one that's saying evolution is false."
That's true Gideon. There are many millions of science deniers just like you.
I don't want to pollute Ms. LadyAtheist's blog with the words which would accurately describe uneducated morons like you. Instead I will just point you to some of the massive evidence for the basic scientific fact that cowards like you are so afraid of. Of course you won't be able to understand it. Science deniers are science deniers because they're just plain stupid.
evidence for evolution (52 posts)
"Would you mind showing some evidence that evolution is true and your credentials?"
Well, there's the micro evolution we see occurring every day in rodents, insects, and bacterial strains. Also, I'm a student who was raised in a Christian household; oddly, I know very little about TOE in comparison to other atheists, but my rudimentary knowledge is still greater than most Christians'.
"Also, if your evolution is false, those credentials wouldn't be worth shit, would they?"
I'm planning to get a degree in biology, and until you can actually show us any evidence for Creationism, those degrees will be infinitely superior to a degree from a seminary(make-believe school).
"Most believers think it's false, many of those, former academics whom devoted substantial pieces of their lives to studying it, also."
Many believers also deny the existence of germs and mental illness. They believe all ailments are caused by invisible demons, so when they get sick, they either die or get better--like in the Middle Ages. Some also buy the fake miracles of revival tent meetings. The point being, just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesn't make it true. And I doubt most of these people have any scientific credentials at all. And the ones who do use crappy arguments, like Ken Ham.
"So... do you consider YOURSELF a greater authority than they?"
Considering the fact that many are fakes, and none of them use real science in their arguments, yes. When you bring up facts discovered by science that contradict their views, they just deny them. I'm still waiting for Creationists to prove how carbon dating is unreliable, and so far they haven't even tried.
"For me, having spent many decades reading, writing, inadvertently learning through these processes, I believe I have gained enough knowledge to satisfy myself that the weight of evidence FOR intelligent design is greater than that supporting evolution."
In other words, you have no credentials and probably don't know that much about biology. Reading the bible and Christian propaganda doesn't constitute actual research. How many books have you read about evolution that were written by real biologists? How many evolutionist websites have you visited? And you do realize that ID acknowledges the existence of evolution as a mechanism for survival? The only difference between ID and TOE is that ID replaces natural selection with "God did it".
"I suspect my time on this Earth far exceeds that which you've put in. Maybe... just maybe it hasn't dawned upon you, yet, how impossible your premise for man's origin is."
Age has nothing to with... anything. Just because you *may* be older than me doesn't mean shit. Every single time you talk about evolution, whether here or on your blog. you never cite any evidence whatsoever against TOE. You just call it false, and ungodly theory for dupes, etc., which is not an intelligent argument against it in any way. Furthermore, I'm not the one who believes that the first human s were magically poofed into existence from dust by an all-powerful Sky Man, who then copulated with each other(Adam and Eve, that is) and started the human race. Despite the fact that genetics clearly shows this to be impossible.
"If you're not one for pause and reflection, consumed by the business of the world, I can tell you with a great deal of authority that your chances of ever thinking outside the box are pretty slim."
Thankfully, ever since recanting my faith in the Jewish Sky Zombie cult, I've spent loads of time thinking and reflecting, which is why I'm not a Christan anymore.
LA, you know for someone that supposedly makes their living reading books, etc, you're not interpreting what I write, very well.
I think you know what I'm IMPLYING, here.
And, for the benefit of those not-too-bright late-comers, it's EVOLUTIONARY science I'm opposed to, not science in general. I think even you morons understand the difference. I realize, too, this is just another inane attempt to draw me into a fight, so typical of those already predisposed to autophobic mannerisms, having been conditioned to believe they are merely animals descended from even lower subspecies.
It's a self-loathing evident from their choice of pseudonyms.
Well, BR, I've never put anyone down for their education, even if it's ultimately a fruitless endeavor. Those willing to spend the time and money pursuing their interests deserve some credit.
No, I'm not a biologist. I do know people in the profession, though, and I've been a writer for nigh on forty years, a blogger for nine of those, debating many of diverse creeds. I think that one can, in that time and with those affiliations, develop an adequate and reasonable world view.
Enough of an understanding to know an embittered soul when I encounter one, anyway.
I'll come back to this, later, the world is calling. You've raised some interesting points that need addressing.
:)
Okay...
"... until you can actually show us any evidence for Creationism, those degrees will be infinitely superior to a degree from a seminary(make-believe school)."
Notwithstanding all of the mistakes and outright hoaxes that have prevailed in Darwinism, eh? Remember, those of the cap and gown preached those errors until they were exposed and/or refuted. A degree isn't any guarantee of wisdom in your school or "make-believe" school.
"Many believers also deny the existence of germs and mental illness. They believe all ailments are caused by invisible demons, so when they get sick, they either die or get better--like in the Middle Ages."
LOL! Really? That's a new one on me. Where are these brethren located... Borneo? C'mon... aren't you stretching things JUST a little? As for possession, well, let's just say I have firsthand experience along these lines. It would take too much space, here, to relate to you what I have seen and experienced. Suffice to say, for now, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'll just say that if you ever do come across a genuine case of possession, it will floor you. You have no concept of the forces extant in this world.
As for fakes and con artists using religion as a means to profit... why should it be any different than any other field? By the way, the Lord has given adequate warning about those. If people don't want to read their Bible and learn how to recognize a scam, that's really their problem. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the truth. Christians aren't guaranteed 100 percent protection from the world, they have to take some responsibility for their safety.
"When you bring up facts discovered by science that contradict their views, they just deny them. I'm still waiting for Creationists to prove how carbon dating is unreliable, and so far they haven't even tried."
You'd be surprised how all of these 'facts' came along after years of head-scratching by infidels over grillings by theists. Like with their evolutionary scenario, given enough time, they can dream up some kind of response that appears to 'refute' ID. Usually it's the result of obscure and hard-to-verify lab experiments the common person has absolutely no way of accessing or observing. Because the results are then written up in some science journal or college paper, we're supposed to take them as truth.
Continued...
Carbon dating? I could cite you examples of what Christian scientists (ex-atheists) have to say about this highly inaccurate process... suffice for now an impartial analysis of it. There's been a lot of upheaval on this old Earth, the last few thousand years. I doubt you could trust your life to radiocarbon dating... I wouldn't.
Also, ID does not recognize evolution as a mechanism for survival, it assumes that mutations and adaptation make it possible for organisms to overcome the harsher aspects of their environment. Evolution is defined as the process involved in producing NEW life forms, of which there is no evidence of that occurring in modern times. Mutations can and do occur, usually with negative results not conducive to an organism's overall long-term survival.
You know, for someone purporting to have a scientific mind, you harbor a lot of narrow-mindedness and skepticism regarding events and things you haven't seen or experienced. You assume that God has to perform or appear for you on demand, in accordance with your agenda, thinking that's the best course to take. Given the theory that a divine being naturally would have great understanding and thought, have you ever considered that maybe... just MAYBE He has a better understanding of just when and how He needs to do ANYTHING than you do?
Anti-theists have this notion that God should be running a 'God-and-pony-show' doing tricks and sitting up on command to prove His legitimacy. Sound a little arrogant and presumptuous to you? If you were a god, would you jump through hoops for your inferiors' entertainment and amusement?
I've cited plenty of evidence, over the years, on my blogs and others, to prove my points. For the most part, it's ignored and mocked, as it has been, here. You've asked me what research I've done with infidel publications... what research have YOU done, reading Christian publications and blogs? The Internet makes it pretty easy, nowadays, to satisfy one's queries and curiosity.
Again, if one harbors some kind of prejudice, all of the evidence in the world won't make a lick of difference.
How can calibration to account for minor fluctuations in Carbon-14 change a date by hundreds of millions of years?
Evolution is defined as the process involved in producing NEW life forms
The correct word is "species." It happened over thousands of years and it's still happening today.
Mutations can and do occur, usually with negative results not conducive to an organism's overall long-term survival.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral and have no outcome on the outcome of the individual. Mutations are only beneficial or negative depending on the context. A mutatidon that makes the individual better able to reproduce in a cold climate will be positive during a glacial period and negative during a period of warming.
"The correct word is "species." It happened over thousands of years and it's still happening today."
Like I said... there's no evidence of that. And, "species" is a term applied to animals. Man isn't an animal.
Your "neutral" mutations are also evidence of an organism breaking down... a natural occurrence, mind you, in a universe governed by the second law of thermodynamics.
Wait, before you were talking about mutations as in the individual organism's DNA right?
But now you're talking about individual cells over the period of one organism's lifetime?
And then you cite something completely unrelated as if it's "proof?"
You're either
A Poe
A troll
So impossibly stupid that you can't be doing your own typing and are dictating your idiocy to someone
From now on you can't expect a response from me. I won't delete your posts but I won't waste time with you, either.
"Enough of an understanding to know an embittered soul when I encounter one, anyway."
Being surrounded by stupid people embitters me. It's an unfortunate side effect of not siding with the sheep as they rush head-long into oblivion.
"Notwithstanding all of the mistakes and outright hoaxes that have prevailed in Darwinism, eh?"
Science makes mistakes, and unlike Christianity, admits it's mistakes, corrects them, and moves on. Christians, meanwhile, are still dogmatically clinging to all sorts of delusions. For example,. the Christian preference of stereotypes over reality. I still have Christians tell me all the time how I hate god and I'm only an atheist because my church mistreated me or some crap. And to this day, when arguing with people from other religions, they use propaganda to slur them. Ever hear of the "Blood Libel"? Christians have used this lie for centuries to demonize their religious competition, and to this day, there are groups still using it.
"LOL! Really? That's a new one on me. Where are these brethren located... Borneo? C'mon... aren't you stretching things JUST a little?"
No. They're all over America, and they're called the Christian Science League.
"I'll just say that if you ever do come across a genuine case of possession, it will floor you. You have no concept of the forces extant in this world."
Uh huh. Til then, I think I'll stick with reality, thanks.
As for the last paragraph, again, science is trial and error, which is why it is superior to your religion. During the Dark Ages, Christians thought bathing was evil, because the pagans did it. Which probably accounts for the obscenely high rates of death and disease in those days--thanks to your forbears, the general life expectancy was about 40 years, give or take. As for evolution, it was decades after it was set forth that the first fossils were found by archaeologists that confirmed Darwin's theories of adaptation. It took a long time to collect the necessary evidence.
"Carbon dating? I could cite you examples of what Christian scientists (ex-atheists) have to say about this highly inaccurate process..."
In other words, liars like Kent Hovind who *may* have been legitimate scientists until they realized that becoming Creationists would allow them to fleece millions of stupid, conservative Christians.
Also, your link to Wikipedia? Very unimpressive. Anyone can edit that site whenever they wish. It's as reliable as a 14th century map of Africa. So a worthless link and testimonies from professional liars; not looking too good.
You need to look up "evolution"; it has nothing to do with new species, and everything to do with life forms mutating over time to adapt to their climate. This is a basic science fun fact.
"You know, for someone purporting to have a scientific mind, you harbor a lot of narrow-mindedness and skepticism regarding events and things you haven't seen or experienced."
What, the ancient myths in the bible? There's no evidence for them, Gideon; I did not see the assassination of Julius Caesar, but the piles of historical corroboration prove it really did happen. Besides, you're just as skeptical as I am when it comes to other religions. Did you see Muhammad ride to heaven on a flying horse? If you weren't alive, how can you prove it didn't happen? See my point?
"I've cited plenty of evidence, over the years, on my blogs and others, to prove my points. For the most part, it's ignored and mocked, as it has been, here. You've asked me what research I've done with infidel publications... what research have YOU done, reading Christian publications and blogs? The Internet makes it pretty easy, nowadays, to satisfy one's queries and curiosity."
If you've ever cited evidence on your blog, it must be invisible. And I've visited hundreds of Christian blogs, websites and pages, and read dozens of Christian books, magazines, and articles.
"Again, if one harbors some kind of prejudice, all of the evidence in the world won't make a lick of difference."
Creationism in a nutshell.
Also, here's a refutation of some other stuff you said.
The claim that only Christians can understand the bible is one of the stupidest, moronic, and mentally retarded arguments in the history of mankind. This is nothing more than a cop-out for when they're backed against the wall. People from every cult imaginable, Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology make this claim.
"I could cite your case, for example, as what can happen when one allows specious and ungodly theories to crowd out what seed the Holy Spirit has planted."
Just logic, intelligence, and a desire to find the truth, not the dogma that Christians would enslave me to.
"The very existence of those that so vehemently oppose something they try and claim as inconsequential, is my greatest argument aside from the wonder of creation, itself."
There's no polite way to say this, but you're an idiot. I don't vehemently deny god, I argue against his mindless cultists who want to impose theocracy on this nation, people who cite the bible as an excuse to murder and strip away human rights. This argument of yours indicates crippling ignorance of just how harmful your religion can be. I agree with L.A's last reply to you, and hereby consign you to the cesspool of ignorance.
Have fun playing with yourself on a dead thread.
"Have fun playing with yourself on a dead thread."
(Ignoring all of the previous tripe)
I love how imperious little worms like you just move in and take over someone else's blog, BR. You must be quite the legend in your own mind!
Don't worry, sonny... my dealings with YOU are finished! It's clear your psychosis won't allow anyone to have a reasonable debate with you!
Have a nice 'life'... bozo.
How many posts has BR made? How many has Gideon made? Evidence suggests that Gideon is the "imperious little worm". Can we run a double-blind study on this?
Hey miss L.A. Gideon isn't contributing anything of discernible merit. I mean, not even in a comedic capacity. He's pooping up your site, girlfriend.
Post a Comment