The Gospel of Thomas

PostmodernProphet said:
never have......thanks for asking......
Click to expand...

Just saying something doesn't make it true. You should know that. You lie like most people breathe. Your lies don't become truth just because you say so.

That's the problem with being a ravening wolf and a false prophet. Your lies catch up to you sooner or later.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is astonishing how many of the people who sit at the right hand of the Father are atheists.
Click to expand...

There is no sky daddy


It’s a system interacting


Jesus still had beautiful ideas about how humans should interact with each other and our planet


You tout the sky daddy part and completely ignore all the philosophy


It’s what the most empty of “Christian” claimers do
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Just saying something doesn't make it true. You should know that. You lie like most people breathe. Your lies don't become truth just because you say so.

That's the problem with being a ravening wolf and a false prophet. Your lies catch up to you sooner or later.
Click to expand...

have you noticed that you didn't respond to a single issue I raised today?.......all you did was say I lied and was going to hell.......what does that tell you about what you believe?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
have you noticed that you didn't respond to a single issue I raised today?.......all you did was say I lied and was going to hell.......what does that tell you about what you believe?......
Click to expand...

Why on earth would I bother with the points of a known LIAR?????

I don't really have time for your continual war on God and your fake Christianity so OF COURSE I'm not going to address your "points".
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Did he really????

Wow. That's pretty vile.
Click to expand...

It claims to be a female


It has supported many an evil over the time it has posted here

I came here pretty much the first day the site existed


Damocles is the poster who started this site about 15 years ago


We were both were originally from a site called politics.com


I spent a couple of years elsewhere at the times trying to look for sane people on the right to discuss with


My adventures proved to me there was no longer a sane right in this nation


They all hate democracy and government


They all seek its distruction


It’s a cult
 
evince said:
For years This poster has trampled over all the good Jesus tried to impart to mankind

I’m an atheist


We go by facts


That means we don’t claim to know the unknowable


Most Don’t claim to know there is no god for a hard certainty

I say that those who believe in sky daddy are merely misinterpreting what “GOD” is


There is very likely something after death


We just don’t know how to understand the science of this post human form


Some need to feel there is a person controlling it


But it’s a real special person and we must grovel like we are worth crumbs to that being


But science clearly shows us EVERYTHING we have figured out is layers of a systematic inter working of all that exists


Back when the ideas of an all powerful god was stumbled upon people knew next to nothing about how the system worked


We mostly just observed the events the system produced

Weather

Oceans

Plant growth

Birth and gestation


Observation over time


No idea how it came to place

Just labeling all the power to a sky daddy made sense to the average person


Science has helped us better define this “god” that runs the system


A simple sky daddy is not a Sufficient way to discribe what runs the system


The system runs because the way the parts of the system interact


I have just as much right to call all that science “god” as anyones ideas get to be labeled “god”
Click to expand...

I tend to be agnostic, but the only thing I disagree with is that atheists only and uniquely go only by facts.

I maintain there are plenty of things to believe in that do not require empirical facts or experimental results.

I believe in fairness, equality, freedom, aesthetic beauty but there isn't any natural physical laws, equations, or universal constants supporting my beliefs
 
Cypress said:
I tend to be agnostic, but the only thing I disagree with is that atheists only and uniquely go only by facts.

I maintain there are plenty of things to believe in that do not require empirical facts or experimental results.

I believe in fairness, equality, freedom, aesthetic beauty but there isn't any natural physical laws, equations, or universal constants supporting my beliefs
Click to expand...
Agnosticism is the most logical position. The more one strays from "I don't know" the further one gets into belief...or "disbelief" as the atheist weenies squeal about.

Richard Dawkins, rich atheist who made a fortune being an atheist, had a good scale: the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Even he waffles on the "Strong Atheist" end by claiming to be a 6 to 7 since he knows "Strong Atheist" is like saying "Strong Idiot". The opposite end can be equally idiotic but gets into a different area with truly pious people like the Amish or Buddhist monks.


http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins scale
In religion, Dawkins scale is a semi-popular tool used by people (and particularly scientists), among themselves, to quantify belief in the existence of god, in a numerical way (1-10). One's Dawkins number (1-12) is thus a numerical way to represent a person's religious outlook.
Click to expand...

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html
1.00: Strong theist. 100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

Dawkins comments in his The God Delusion book, as to his own position on the Existence of God scale, that he is in the 6 to 7 range:-

“I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7. I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Click to expand...
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agnosticism is the most logical position. The more one strays from "I don't know" the further one gets into belief...or "disbelief" as the atheist weenies squeal about.

Richard Dawkins, rich atheist who made a fortune being an atheist, had a good scale: the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Even he waffles on the "Strong Atheist" end by claiming to be a 6 to 7 since he knows "Strong Atheist" is like saying "Strong Idiot". The opposite end can be equally idiotic but gets into a different area with truly pious people like the Amish or Buddhist monks.


http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins scale


https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the debate is actually happening just at the margins.

Probably only five percent of people believe all of nature and all of reality just popped into existence at random for no discernable reason.

I think 95 percent of people believe there is a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos, something beyond physics, beyond chemistry, beyond biology.

Sure we can debate or ridicule the ritual of religion, the historical accuracy of the sacred texts.

But I think the vast majority of humans accept the mystery of the infinite, as a first principle

. And to a large degree, the west has accepted as morally binding the ethics of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in the East they accepted the binding moral framework of Confucianism/Buddhism, -- even when we choose to strip it of it's religious context and language.
 
Cypress said:
I think a lot of the debate is actually happening just at the margins.

Probably only five percent of people believe all of nature and all of reality just popped into existence at random for no discernable reason.

I think 95 percent of people believe there is a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos, something beyond physics, beyond chemistry, beyond biology.

Sure we can debate or ridicule the ritual of religion, the historical accuracy of the sacred texts.

But I think the vast majority of humans accept the mystery of the infinite, as a first principle

. And to a large degree, the west has accepted as morally binding the ethics of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in the East they accepted the binding moral framework of Confucianism/Buddhism, -- even when we choose to strip it of it's religious context and language.
Click to expand...

Ancient texts were ancient people's interpretations of the same things we wonder about today. IMO, no special significance should be placed on their observations that are contrary to fact.

Agreed on the "mystery of the infinite". It seems human beings have three parts: physical, mental and spiritual. The people who disregard any of the three are shorting themselves.

It seems the base ideas of all the world's religions are melding into a consensus.
 
Cypress said:
I tend to be agnostic, but the only thing I disagree with is that atheists only and uniquely go only by facts.

I maintain there are plenty of things to believe in that do not require empirical facts or experimental results.

I believe in fairness, equality, freedom, aesthetic beauty but there isn't any natural physical laws, equations, or universal constants supporting my beliefs
Click to expand...

The science of the human brain are involved in things like what we find beautiful


There are things like history which demonstrate the reasons why things like fairness, equality and freedom create good outcomes for humans

It is part of human nature to lean towards helping others which helped preserve mankind


In fact other animals display compassion for others which can display ideas like fairness

Sharing resources


Helping a fellow creature in need



Science of brain structure can pinpoint areas of the brain where such processes take place


Some mental aberrations in behavior can in fact be connected to undeveloped areas of the physical human brain


Psychopathy is one

Scientific facts are involved



Beauty has perimeters that can be measured in the human mind


Symmetry for instance


Everything is tied to knowable facts


Some of those facts we just don’t know yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top