God- version a.123abc

     Atheists and believers have a habit of equating religion with god, and that is not accurate. If you are going to consider god then you need to be specific in defining the term. People often tell me I hate god. I can't hate what isn't there. What I hate is the idea of god created by religion.  When people say you can't know god they are correct. No one can know god because we have no evidence god even exists. What religion does is present an artist's rendering of god.
   It would be like me asking you to draw me a picture of the 3rd planet from the star I was pointing at in the night sky. You would know only the very basics. It is a planet,so it is probably round. What else would you know? Nothing. You wouldn't even know for sure if there is a third planet orbiting that star. So it would be impossible to go any further and know you were correct. 
  You could go into detail and claim it has one large ocean. It also has creatures that can live both on land and breath underwater. The trees grow to the height of skyscrapers. you could say the days last a month and the sun is the color green in the sky. You could claim anything you want, the most important things to remember are all the attributes you give this planet would come from what you know about living on earth and they are all made up, you couldn't even call them educated guesses.
  The bible stories are the science fiction stories of that time. These days we have Star Wars. Back then they had angels, beasts with multiple heads, turning water into wine and knocking women up with out having intercourse. The authors of the bible were The Steven Speilburgs and George Lucas' of their time.When they imagined the end of times they thought of famine, disease, hordes of locus covering the land, and earthquakes. Those were the things that were scary to them. Those were the things that they had night mares about. If you were to write about what was going to happen during the rapture would you say a horde of locus is going to swarm across America and eat us? Probably not. It would be more like the earth is going to have climate change and turn into an uninhabitable sphere of floating ice, if you were the scientific type. The younger generation might say the internet will become sentient and enslave humanity.  The bible is science fiction before science had had a chance to catch up. Now science has passed up religion and is well on its way to destroying it all together accept for the sentimental few who just can't give up the old ways. (see people who still use record players, or commodore 64 enthusiasts)
   I think Atheists have been going about it the wrong way for the most part (from what I've seen) We shouldn't be debating if a god (or gods) exist, we should be discussing it. There is no way for us to know one way or the other. If people want to believe in god they should realize they must believe in something created from no actual knowledge except that it is the he/she/it/them that created the universe. That's all, you can not give any other characteristics because they are unknown.
This is where religion comes in and this is where we need to concentrate our efforts. We need to make sure believers know we do not consider god and religion as the same thing, they are not interchangeable. They define god according to their bible,book or imagination . We don't define god the same way. I think many if not most Atheists do not consider this when speaking to or debating believers. I'm sure most know what I'm talking about though, they just dont use the argument against believers. It would give people a far different impression if Atheists were to say "You know I'm not sure, there could be a god." which any reasonable person would have to admit simply because we don't know everything. You can claim to know there is no possibility of a god no matter what. If you do believe this then please stay away from me because I can't stand stupid people who think they know everything and feel the need to show it off, they annoy the hell out of me. you can't even explain to them why you think they suck cause there is no way for the concept to break through the stupid.
 
     A believer will be more open to discussion if you find some common ground. Tell the you can not completely dismiss the possibility of some type of creator.Then you can make them own their god who in most cases is a bi-polar dick. The reason he is a dick is because mankind as a whole is a bi-polar dick too. Maybe you should refrain from calling their god bi-polar or a dick (use your judgment) but most religious people who are intelligent will admit there are aspects of their religions god they are not quite sure of. Bring up the way their god allows so many people to starve to death. Do those people deserve that terrible suffering? Why would a god as described in their bible do that? To say god's it's god's plan doesn't make any sense couldn't god have found another more humane way to kill people if he must kill them? The bible itself is a contradiction why would god allow it to be so vague? If we go after the man made version of god and cause people to question it using common sense it may work better than simply walking up and saying "I'm an Atheist, there is no god" that tends to shut down any further constructive discussion. This isn't a show of uncertainty or a weakening of position, it is a way of smarter interaction with believers. Not everyone is going to be able to pull it off and it isn't a silver bullet but it may work better than what we are doing now.
 The last piece of advice- Never get into a debate with anyone as to whether god exists or not. You can't win because, like I said it is unknowable at this point. Make sure you know what god you are debating about. Once you lock the person on the religious side into a certain man made version of god you can easily come out on top using common sense.

  I'd like to thank Frank Apisa for the inspiration and assistance in forming these thoughts without laying any of the blame for them upon him

The 99%

Listen to this-
"Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself," ~Herman Cain candidate for president.

Now this-
“The fact is these people are anarchists. They have no idea what they’re doing out there,” ~Long Island Republican Congressman Peter King 

And this-
"I regard the Wall Street protests as a natural outcome of a bad education system teaching them really dumb ideas." ~ Former Speaker of the House and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich

Republicans, just when I thought they couldn't get any more stupid. Besides their dismissive belittlement of the Occupy Wall-Street protesters they also seem to be blind too. Among the groups who are a part of these protests you can find labor unions, airline pilots, librarians, students, the handicapped, the elderly, and just your typical everyday citizens. The Republicans can't see anything but bored kids with purple hair. I keep hearing the Wall- Street protesters compared to hippies from the 60's. I wasn't around in the 60's and a lot of the protesters weren't either. They haven't just been protesting the wars, they have more than that on their minds.I can't tell you every issue that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are upset about but I can speak to my frustrations. I spent $75.00 at the grocery store last night. Among the few bags I left the store with were several products that had been quietly downsized. The trend lately is to lower the amount of product you bring home as if by magic. One of the magic tricks is changing the container shape a little cone shape at the bottom of the jar or bottle can saves lots of money. You are hardly going to notice that bottle of katsup only gave you 17 servings instead of 20, right? The katsup makers are counting on that. take a good look at all the items you purchase next time you go shopping and you will see what I mean. From Oreos that lack the filling they had in the past to laundry soap that comes with a 'easy pour' spout which also includes a bottle that holds just a few ounces less detergent.
 Making products using the cheapest materials, changing the unit of measurement so that even though the package reads the same, you are  getting less and paying more. Another trick is to make things look like they are being made easier for you because the company cares about your quality of life. Those little Coke bottles that are 'serving size'? Yea, that 'convenience' is costing you.
  Do you have medical coverage from your employer? Do you have to pay for part of it? Most of us do now. In fact the 'medical coverage' offered by most companies should be called 'medical coupon' since some aren't getting much more than a slight discount from what they would pay if they got coverage on their own.
   The Feds put some rules down on banks, pretty mild rules IMO. One of these rules regulated the amount a bank could charge you for using your card at a store. It really bothered me I would drive around to save $.02 per gallon on gas only to come out even cause of those charges.  The banks considered the amount of revenue they would lose because of the new regulations and figured they needed that money. Now you can pay the bank a lump sum of $5.00 per  month to use your bank card on top of the lowered fee they charge you at the time of your purchase.
 Gas prices go up hand in hand with oil prices. Even though the oil has been purchased ahead of the price hike you can expect the price to instantly rise if oil prices go up. Now if you think about that then you could expect that gas prices would go down along with the current oil prices, right? Hell no. IF gas prices go down it is at an incredibly slow pace. As a result of this practice and the raising of prices "just because" every so often the oil companies have been making record profits. When anyone complained about it the oil companies would reply "supply and demand" expecting that to shield them from any further negative image caused from their price gouging. Well yea there is a demand because people have to use their cars to get  to work to pay their bills, like gas for the car. Public transit is not even close to being an alternative for most people so they have no choice but to drive. The demand is forced and that is a bit unfair. I can understand if the oil companies were looking at some hardship that was going to hurt them if prices didn't go up but that's not the case because they are making record profits. Making record profits at a time when so many people are struggling to get a job and keep their homes seems a bit cold. I'm not saying they stop making money, make a profit, but RECORD PROFITS? The raise in gas prices also costs us more in increased price for goods and services because companies pass the rise in overhead down to the consumer.
  At this time about half the country has heard about the Occupy protests. Of those people 19% disagree with the protesters on their basic core issues, one of  which is corporate greed.
 19%....that is a very small percentage. In this country how many issues can you think of that only 19% of the population disagree with it? That figure alone should strike fear in the hearts of every politician in office and especially those who are sitting on their stupid fat asses talking shit (republicans)
   That idiot Newt has some nerve saying the 99% are a result of a 'bad education' cause obviously his math skills are shit.   

God debate, who really won? The audience.

     I watched/listened to a debate last night. It was Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists up against Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press. The debate proposition was "God Does Not Exist" with Blair Scott arguing for the proposition and Kyle Butt arguing against it.
       I've heard Blair Scott speak a few times but I'd never heard of Mr Butt.
  The debate starts and Mr Butt steps up to the podium. One of the first things he mentions is that he has been trolling a certain "social site" and he came upon a comment on Blair's page. Someone had made a joke about Mr Butt on Blair's wall it seemed. Mr Butt was visibly not happy about being the butt of the joke and his comment about it was presented as if it had come from Blair or somehow been encouraged by him. Blair didn't make the comment, it was put on his facebook wall by a contact. We all know how that goes, none of us ever knows what the hell people on our friends list are going to say. If you post a perfectly innocent status next thing you know someone is telling stories about their bowel moments or some other random thing. Besides if you have the last Butt what do you think is going to happen? Do you expect people who don't know you, are never going to meet you, and probably think you are never going to read any posted comment, to pass up the painfully easy opportunity to joke about your name? Yea okay...
    After watching the displeasure flash across Mr Butt's face I thought for a moment He is using a facebook comment to put down the person he is debating about god? It seemed a bit childish to me and as he continued to speak it became clear I was right.
    Mr. Butt told his audience that Blair was sure to lose because you can not prove a negative. I almost expected him to reach out and point at Blair, cackle loudly and scream "We got you my pretty!" in a voice very much like the wicked witch. He didn't but he did ramble on for several minutes presenting arguments which have all been found to be incorrect or had still been considered 'debatable' This would have been business as usual but there was a hint of personal attack in Mr Butt's animus towards Blair. It continued through the entire debate, flaring up a couple of times.
   Mr Butt told a joke his opening came to an end. Blair Scott then started his opening. I was curious how he would address the fact that he could not win a debate where he had to prove the absolute non-existence of god.
    Then something very interesting happened. Blair admitted to losing the debate as it had been presented. He would not be trying to prove god didn't exist, he would be presenting some of the conclusions Atheists had come to and some of the counter arguments to Mr Butt's absolute claims. These would all be presented so that they could be considered by the audience. The audience would have to come to it's own conclusions. There was not going to be an Atheist standing on stage insisting everything he said was factual beyond a doubt.
   This approach was perfect for a couple reasons.
 1) If Blair had started by telling the crowd he was going to change their minds about god you would have been able to hear the minds snapping shut. He had only asked them to listen.
 2) No matter what was said from that point on, no matter how many times Mr Butt took petty shots and behaved like an egotistical prick who had all the answers. Blair was standing in front of a crowd giving them things to think about which would probably never been presented to them otherwise. Things that would help them make informed choices about their beliefs.
    I'm not going to go into the issues tossed back and forth between Blair and Mr Butt except one. Mr Butt said at one point the there were absolutes when it came to what was right and wrong. Besides showing that Mr Butt is unable to even consider another person point of view,it also showed how ignorant he is to the diversity of the world.
    Some people are going to say that Blair did not do well during this debate. While I can understand how they could come to that conclusion I found his presentation to be accurate and done with class, not by taking cheap shots at Mr Butt. Blair could have also admitted defeat and proceeded to describe exactly what kind of god the other side had shown to exist by using the bible. It would have been easy to paint the picture of a needy hypocritical being who seemed very bored and not very intelligent. That would have resulted in most of the crowd dismissing Blair as hateful or angry, the poor Atheist who just needed to find the love of jesus.
     Mr Butt gave me the impression of someone who talks to to everyone but his reflection in a condescending tone. I don't think he even one time admitted that he could be wrong. There is a saying that goes something like this "The wisest man is the one who realizes how little he knows" If Mr Butt possesses any humility at all he must be hiding it where the sun doesn't shine.

Atheist......Christian

    I have been having what a lot of you would consider a typical discussion with a christian.  Since there must be at least a few readers who have not had this type of interaction I thought maybe posting the conversation thread would be an interesting read. So, here it is. As the conversation continues, the blog will grow. When it becomes redundant, abusive, or boring, it will end. 

 The christian posts will be orange. My replies will be in blue and narrative in black.

It's been appointed for a man, once to die and then the judgement. Heb 9:27. Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Mat 6:27 and more and more if I were to go into the psalms and proverbs. It's tragic in the sense that death always seems to take most by surprise. But it never takes God by surprise, because it was appointed, it's always appointed. There are no accidents or coincidences where God is concerned. If they were Christians, they are rejoicing in Heaven. Paul tells us in the scriptures that "to live is Christ, to die is gain". This is not supposed to be your best life now...if it was, what would there be to hope for?

The first thing I'd like to know is why you can't just answer me like a human being.
Now ...did I say anything about the quality of their life? No I did not.
The second thing is in the blog, but your un-answer covered it.
The issue I have is with the WAY they died. It is amazing you don't even seem to be able to realize the horror those people went through before they fell 317 feet.And what about the people who had to sit and watch? Are you telling me that god couldn't find another way? And it doesn't bother you that the being you want to spend eternity with causes unneeded suffering?
This event is wrong on so many levels for you to just shrug your shoulders and not at least apply some type of common logic is disturbing.
If you choose to answer me back please try to follow the conversation and not muddle it up with explanations to things that were never in question. I find it both annoying and unproductive. The subject is complicated enough already.
Allow me to ask you a direct question. What if they were Atheists? Where do you think they would be now,or is that one of those things only god knows?

Reap,

You ask me a direct question, I'll provide you a direct answer. God has established his moral law for his people to obey. Since he is God, he alone is right in deciding their fate, which for some will be heaven, and for some will be hell. SO - in rejecting God's law, we reject God himself. So - my answer is that anyone who rejects God and his moral laws will be punished. But the real question is, why would anyone who rejected God, want to spend eternity with him anyway?

   Yes, that is the real question. My answer would be- I don't. I am good with my morals. My mindset makes the world more tolerant of people. I accept people for who they are, as long as what they do does not cause harm to others or themselves. My definition of harm is not provided by a text written 2000 years ago when life was NOTHING like it is today. Haven't you ever wondered why god wouldn't come to us today in a way people could not dismiss? 

  Obviously more and more people are coming to the conclusion that the god of the bible does not exist. Now would be a great time for god to provide some guidance, yet he does not. Why is that? He has done it before? And if everything is already destined to happen because god planned it out what is the point in living at all? If that is true our lives are meaningless and if everyone truley believed that then the world would be a much more 'evil' place. 

   You are a intelligent person (most of the time) It troubles me that you do not continue to learn about all aspects of the world not just the bible but science and other cultures/beliefs. To say god will only accept Christians is just stupid. Think mabout how many people lived before Christianity even existed. Wouldn't god have AT LEAST told human he existed right from the beginning? The Adam and Eve thing does not fly. That would mean humanity was born of incest.
   Your beliefs are not fair to others. Your beliefs hurt other people and effect their quality of life negatively. People have lived and died in sorrow not because "this life was not meant to be good" it is because people like you caused it to be bad all because of your egotistical attitude. You judge people. Your statement saying "if they were Christians they are in heaven" is passing judgment on everyone. You are not that good, sorry.       

  Your excitement at spending all of eternity with the god you describe reminds me of the kids in school who would hang out with the gang members because it was the safest thing. They didn't get beat up and they did whatever they wanted to the other kids. They made fun of fat kids or any others who were different, stole from lockers and anyone who wasn't part of the gang was less of a person. I never became part of that crowd. I helped the kid who just got beat up by them get up.
   If you think hurting other people while they are on this earth because they don't follow your interpretation of what you think 'god's morals' are is right and just, then that speaks to the kind of person you are. If you are comfortable with that, fine. I could never be that kind of person I don't like to see others suffer.
    Read the blog again Joshua I related my feelings best I could.
Your god will have me burn forever as punishment. Keep that in mind while you are enjoying heaven will you please?

You say you have morals. Logically describe where they came from. Logically describe who decides that they are correct, or universally more advanced than anyone else's. Then consider your use of the word 'fair'. You say my views aren't fair. Logically, what is fair? Who decides fair? Was it fair your child has a disability? Was if fair that you do not have a disability? All the things you describe are rooted in moral relatavism and humanistic argument with no absolute standard of justice or fairness. that's not a value judgement, just an observation using logic. If you can't prove that your morals are absolute, or that they have an absolute, universal standard, it cannot be said that they are moral. To be moral, by definition is to not be relative...Reap...I've not even started talking about the Bible. These are just logic errors that we all have before we become aware of who God really is...I had them, just like you do. I've said alot of the same words as you. Your thoughts?

What about gay people? What about thinking that only christians are going to heaven? Joshua do you understand that when you say things like 'only christians are going to be saved' you have indicated that christians are somehow above everyone else.Even if you don't treat non-christians any different the possibility that others who think like you will is very high. Non-christians are lesser and the lesser class historically does not fair well.
My morals come from my parents (who were not religious) and from the little voice in my head. I am pretty good at putting myself into another person's shoes so I can better understand how and why they feel a certain way.
My son's disability is not 'fair' it seems he should have had the chance to live a full life and I should have been able to better share our lives. That is how life works. I can do nothing about the circumstances. I can however do my best to make sure others treat him fairly and do not take advantage of his condition or use it to treat him with less respect than they would other people. There is a huge difference between what fair is and how we can have an effect on it.
No I can not prove my morals are right. All I can do is observe the results of treating people in a way I consider morally correct. The vast majority of the time my interactions with others are positive. If I were to play out the same scenario instead using the morals of some (not you necessarily) religious believers, the results would be different and one party would not leave the exchange happy. I have watched a thousand times as a person's religious beliefs cause discrimination against another group. I would agree to say whether anyone's morals are absolute in any way is impossible. If you pay attention then you can tell if one way causes people to be treated in a more 'fair' way than another.

      Reap, this is exactly the point. Try to listen carefully to what you just said. "I cannot prove my morals are right, true or correct. I use a subjective measure 'the voice in my head' and training 'my parents' to prove that my choices are correct. Furthermore, I feel enabled to judge others based on those perceptions when they infract my relative moral law IE: religious people discriminating against non-religious people". I'm not putting anything into that, or putting a value judgement on that. I'm just briefing back to you, using non-emotional logic, what YOU just said. SO - the point would be, why is your subjective means of moral adherence superior to an objective one? Is that possible? 

   You think in terms of right and wrong, fair and unfair...I tell you plainly, you cannot objectively determine either! I'm not saying you're wrong in all cases, I'm simply saying that by manner of reason and logic you cannot presume superiority or accuracy in your judgements because you have nothing but your 'feelings' to base them on. Frankly...I feel different...we can't both be right....can we? How would one come to the end of that dispute on a matter as important as life and death?

    Joshua, this is where YOU need to listen closely. You base your life and the way you treat others on the belief in a being that behaves in a manner which even you would describe as insane if it were a person. And yes I behave in a way that I feel is correct because I can directly observe what effect my actions have on others and the world. I think the results are positive because people are not being told what comes natural to them is wrong and/or evil and they are treated with the same consideration no matter how different from me they are.

    We come back to how your beliefs effect others. If you are happy with the results and think people react positively to the manner in which you treat them, then there you go.

Now before we go any further would you please tell me your opinion on gay people? Are they going to hell and should they be entitled to the same treatment as anyone else?

     RE: Gay people. I don't see any reason to discriminate against any person for any reason. Of course, this assumes that all characteristics of people are proven to be innate and not behavior choices. For example, I think I have every right and will vehemently discriminate against theives and robbers from entering my home and nor do I think myself less of a person for doing so. I suspect you would agree. Yet If science can PROVE that a sexual persuasion is genetic, then when will it be proven that sex with boys and little girls, or animals, or dead people is also, genetic and not a choice? 

   This of course will seem preposterous to you, since you judge those behaviors as choices, but homo and heterosexuality as not choices, and sex with little kids as definitely choices. Regarding how I "treat" people. I help anyone in need. I will give money, lend my time and offer my ear to anyone. I will love my brother as myself. And I will love my enemies and pray for them. To do anything different is to not be a Christian. You've seen many forms of false christianity. Many of your claims are against those people...and not me.. This is of course my opinion. Does that help?

I'm curious - why do you care if gay people or any other person is going to hell? I thought you didn't believe in God or hell, or absolutes?

  Ok, last question 1st.

     I do not believe in hell, my curiosity is about your opinion,not for my own doubts. You still have not answered whether you think gays will go to hell and I have asked you a couple times now.

I find your view on gays strange. Doesn't the bible say that homosexuality is a sin? Slavery is also ok if I remember correctly,right?

   As to behavior and the brain. I'm not sure most extreme behavior can be attributed to choices. Can a man who gets pleasure from killing people be considered evil? Not if his condition is a result of chemical imbalances or brain injury. As a society we must of course hold him accountable for his actions but we know that some behaviors are a result of differences from 'normal' brain functions.

    This is exactly what I am talking about why would a god seem to use us as playthings? This brings to mind another question. Why would god give us, say around 80 years (if your lucky) to learn about him, accept him, and follow his rules when there is no way anyone can know for sure what belief is correct? I mean when the rules are not fair, the playing field not level then sometimes those who have done their best will still lose.

I guess we have come to the point where this conversation is no longer useful.

I was about to ask you why you do not apply the same logic you do to your everyday life to your religious beliefs. I expect you will answer that god is above that type of consideration. To that logic I can not argue because it is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person.

I know you are very secure in your faith. Take a look around at the tremendous suffering put on people everyday. Think about the children with cancer who are going to die only after they go though horrible treatments and pain. Babies who are born only to die, the only memory they take from this world is one of suffering and sadness. Not to mention the sorrow felt at the loss by the living. If god were real and would allow that to go on it is a sick sadistic thing. I think the fact that it goes on and on day after day is because that is the way it is.

If you are a christian then you must follow the bible. If you do not follow the bible you are not christian. No where in the bible does it say "Read this and change whatever parts you like to mean the opposite"?