Also carl, IMHO isn't a magical spell that somehow makes your posts more credible,
Quite the opposite, it demonstrates you've got no facts to back up your claim and are just making things up in accordance with your preconceptions.

Carl I posted a whole list of charities that actually give bugger all to the people they are meant to help. So why do you keep on hammering about charities when they are just not worth it outside of just a handful which are basically humanitarian.

Actually, one of those key issues I never see supernaturalists address in a substantive manner, has been covered above, but just to make the matter explicit, I'd like to see carl try and answer this, without resorting either to presuppositions that his favourite choice of mythology constitutes The TruthTM, or apologetic fabrications.

Supernaturalists across the planet are unable to agree with each other, on a global scale, which of the numerous extant mythologies humans have fabricated, is purportedly the "right" mythology. Worse still, adherents of a particular mythology are incapable of agreeing with each other, what that mythology is purportedly telling us. As a corollary, if supernaturalists cannot agree with each other on these matters, why should the rest of us pay any attention to their assertions, or regard those assertions as anything other than speculation and fantasy?

Worse still, supernaturalists routinely assert that [1] their choice of mythological magic man possesses fantastic powers, and [2] also possesses an overwhelming desire to see that the correct message is dispensed to us humans. Except that these assertions are wildly inconsistent with the morass of confusion and discord that characterises the global supernaturalist picture. One would have thought that any genuine god type entity fulfilling these assertions of fantastic magic gifts, and overwhelming desire to provide error-free information to us humans, would do a better job than is manifestly the case currently. First, one would have thought that such a fantastically gifted and motivated entity, would exert rather more diligence with respect to ensuring consilience than has manifestly been the case, and would exert diligent effort to ensure that all sources of error were eliminated. Furthermore, one would have thought that such an entity, would have ended the debate once and for all, right at the start, before any of the confusion and bickering began, by providing unambiguous evidence of its existence, and would have communicated its message directly to all of us, without using any flawed and corrupting intermediaries. But this manifestly hasn't happened. Instead, this entity, contrary to the assertions erected about it, if it exists, has continued to allow anti-consilience and discord to reign supreme within the supernaturalist enterprise, whilst simultaneously allowing scientists to agree upon a unified, consilient, evidentially supported framework within which god-type entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Hardly a glowing endorsement of supernaturalist assertions, is it?

I'd like to see this addressed without the usual descent into wibble we see so often from supernaturalists. Care to try this challenge, Carl?

Indeed - and it's worth stressing the point that it's not simply a matter of a god having to try and impose its Divine Will on naughty humans who don't want to listen.

Numerous doctrinal disputes and splitting of churches has frequently happened as a result of clearly entirely sincere people honestly believing they have some connection to a deity praying and thinking and coming up with different answers to the ones which other similar people have got.

The only logical conclusions that would seem to point to is
a) They are in touch with the same supernatural entity, whether the One True Deity or not, and it's telling them different things for its own amusement
b) They are in touch with different supernatural entities, meaning that if there is One True Deity, people seem to lack the ability to know when they're talking to a fake one.
c) Some or all of the people, notwithstanding their sincere beliefs, are not talking to a supernatural entity at all, but to themselves, and yet they are unable to realise even that.

I'm voting for "c".

carl wrote:

ADParker wrote:

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:It only seems to be religionists with an axe to grind who think there need to be any.

So when Christian charities feed starving children, its because Christians have an "axe to grind" but when atheists put up expensive billboards promoting atheist ideology, with the purpose of proselytizing for atheism, what is that called?

A tiny offer of a differing view from the thousands upon thousands of Christian billboards (primarily unwittingly paid for by tithers etc.)?

IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

You see, not we see. I suspect that you only see what you want to see.

I think that when I look at the methods that religious people deploy to assert that they have a truth, I notice the nature of these methods do not produce a better understanding of anything by zeroing in onto a "truth", but instead results in an increase of claims from different dogmas, basically an increase in noise. For instance, the use of personal experience does not hone in onto a truth, but instead produces more noise as everyone's personal experience leads them to different conclusions. "Evidence" such as an empty tomb proving a resurrection doesn't increase knowledge, because the same method could be used to indicate that lunar fault lines prove that Mohammad split the moon during. How can I take any such claims seriously when the nature of the methods used to support the claim simply don't hold up.

Carl,

Would you agree that the biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices of many nominal Christian denominations are wrong?

Nebogipfel wrote:

carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Scot Dutchy wrote:

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

If their core beliefs are the same why cant they walk through the same door together?

We do. Who says we don't?

tolman wrote:Indeed - and it's worth stressing the point that it's not simply a matter of a god having to try and impose its Divine Will on naughty humans who don't want to listen.

Numerous doctrinal disputes and splitting of churches has frequently happened as a result of clearly entirely sincere people honestly believing they have some connection to a deity praying and thinking and coming up with different answers to the ones which other similar people have got.

It is not surprising that humans disagree, wouldn't you agree? Disagreement amongst humans carries no weight whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of God.

laklak wrote:I'm voting for "c".

lol!

I'm voting 'none of the above'.

THWOTH wrote:Carl,

Would you agree that the biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices of many nominal Christian denominations are wrong?

Not really. Name which belief or practice you have in mind and I will try to address.

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities

Bollocks carl.
Many of these secular charities have been co-founded and supported by atheists.
And again, since atheism isn't a worldview or philosophy, why does it matter in the first place.
Again, what you're arguing is the equivalent of complaining there are no non-stamp-collecting charities.

carl wrote:to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Most of these being partially if not completely founded by atheists carl.

carl wrote:Yes, they do have their priorities....

Yes, you do continue to mindlessly empty your bowels of whatever shit you can think of in a desperate attempt to discerdit atheism.

carl wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

If their core beliefs are the same why cant they walk through the same door together?

We do.

False.

carl wrote: Who says we don't?

Reality.
Again, need I remind you of the various Schisms, the name Reformation ring a bell?
Ever seen the way Irish Catholics and Protestants get along?

carl wrote:

tolman wrote:Indeed - and it's worth stressing the point that it's not simply a matter of a god having to try and impose its Divine Will on naughty humans who don't want to listen.

Numerous doctrinal disputes and splitting of churches has frequently happened as a result of clearly entirely sincere people honestly believing they have some connection to a deity praying and thinking and coming up with different answers to the ones which other similar people have got.

It is not surprising that humans disagree, wouldn't you agree?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or what?
The point is that your god is an utter failure at preventing these, often violent, disagreements by providing a clear and convincing message.

carl wrote:Disagreement amongst humans carries no weight whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of God.

No, not on it's own. But coupled with the claim that this supposed God is omnipotent and benevolent, it does.

carl wrote:

tolman wrote:Indeed - and it's worth stressing the point that it's not simply a matter of a god having to try and impose its Divine Will on naughty humans who don't want to listen.

Numerous doctrinal disputes and splitting of churches has frequently happened as a result of clearly entirely sincere people honestly believing they have some connection to a deity praying and thinking and coming up with different answers to the ones which other similar people have got.

It is not surprising that humans disagree, wouldn't you agree? Disagreement amongst humans carries no weight whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of God.

Way to [deliberately] miss the fucking point.

It's clear that many people who sincerely think they are being guided by a deity are simply wrong, unless there are multiple deities, or there is a single one who enjoys misguiding devoted followers for shits and giggles. And to cause no small amount of killing and torture.
Given that, it seems more than possible that all people believing to be guided by deities are wrong, seduced by the same human psychological reasons, rather than some fraction of them being right despite being no obviously different to anyone else.

You can try and ignore that, but the only person you might hope to successfully fool seems to be yourself.

And to be honest, I wouldn't exactly see that as a colossal achievement.

carl wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Carl,

Would you agree that the biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices of many nominal Christian denominations are wrong?

Not really. Name which belief or practice you have in mind and I will try to address.

There are too many Christian denominations to name, but your answer would imply that (just to take some examples) you think Baptists, Presbyterians, The Amish, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Jehovahs Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Mormons and Anglicans are all essentially correct in the matter of their biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices which distinguish each of them from the others?

Is that your position carl?

There was a church up in the North Carolina mountains named "The First Church of the Blood of the Holy Lamb". Not sure of their theology, but I'm betting it would make your average Episcopalian's eyes water and probably involved venomous reptiles. The most interesting part was "First", as that implies a "Second".

carl wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

If their core beliefs are the same why cant they walk through the same door together?

We do. Who says we don't?

You dont. Why are there so many schisms? Why were so many killed? There are over 41,000 different sects and belief systems in the so called xtian world.

Live in the real world Carl. There are still certain protestant villages here where parts of the village dont talk to others because of schisms.