what faith you
Posted on: September 6, 2007 - 7:57pm
Offline
what faith you
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Actually, since I've arrived late in this thread, I've never adressed your original statement in the OP. About atheists having faith in atheism.
I don't have faith in atheism per se. I have faith in myself and the people I love. I have faith in ideas that consistantly turn out to be right. I have faith that the laws of physics aren't going to change, though by laws of physics I don't mean as we understand them, I mean as they are. (You know, as in: the Earth was round, even back when we thought it was flat). My atheism is a result of all the many things I DO have faith in: like for example science, and (much more importantly) my own experience of the world.
Now, your above post speaks about loving us, even when you disagree with us, so let me end on this note.
I have faith in YOU. I have faith that, since you know, deep down, that God is just a metaphor, you CAN throw off your veil of deception, and because I care for you as a fellow human being, I hope, that maybe at some point you will.
Now, there is a great difference between hope and expectation, and I'll have to admit, I wouldn't bet money on you coming around to the side of reason, since your current state feeds your selfrightiousness, which we all know is a powerful drug, but I still HOPE that maybe, someday, you'll just let go.
So, I say with love: stop having faith in an ancient book and start having faith in your fellow human beings, for your own sake, not for ours.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
It boils down to this meph , are you GOD or not? I say yes, you say no ....
In other words, What is NOT god?
Atheism Books.
Niko the Dane,
Understood about the spelling and so you're doing good with English. Coffee and Danish then.
I have had these discussions over coffee face to face. I have done carpentry/electrical/drywall for three philosophy chairmen and have talked about some of this with all of them. They all liked our work but didn't accept my doctrine as far as I know. I haven't accepted theirs either.
I understand what you mean about "what is" about physics. I enjoyed physics in college. I had a great math teacher in high school. They didn't do anything for my matrix however. My dad insisted I go to a Christian College and dad didn't insist on many things. I went and there was something there I wanted, (as in real Christianity, even when there is false manifestation). I started reading the Scriptures from the start by myself. My faith was conceived, carried and born. Then there was a wilderness period - 2 wks in the hospital with mumps, then bipolar, go home, get misdiagnosed, get told to get rid of the Bible by first phycdoc/ up, down, electroshock by a phycdoc with only a hammer who thought the world a big nail/ self diagnosis from book "Moodswing"/ lithium/ off lithium and catch moodswing/ very light lithium as per: Dr Kay Redfield Jameson (bp authority). And here I am.
My trial also brought my life together - glad I'm not a math teacher now. 43 years a carpenter/contractor/perfectly fits my personality. Married perfect wife. Have 3 neat daughters/ 1 neat son/ 5 neat grandchildren (one of which is a 3 year old grandaughter). So here I am.
One thing wrong with your analogy is that if it was "my religion" (I was doing things to be saved) it would be perverted from the start don't you see because it would be with a selfish motive (saving myself).
The refreshing difference is that my trust is in Jesus Righteousness and I am bent on glorifying Him.
mephibosheth
I adore Jesus too meph , thing is we are one, and so I don't worship anything, as the christ is in me , and so I AM ATHEIST, an Atheist for JESUS ....
Check this out my brother ! ( I love you )
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
Atheism Books.
pjts,
Much of life is opposite of what is perceived on the surface. I can come up with several examples, but here's one:
It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart.
Totally opposite what you would have thought.
Here's another one and that will be it:
Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much; but the surfeit of the rich will not let him sleep.
You probably don't accept these, but they might illustrate from Scripture what I'm trying to say. All through the Scriptures things like this are brought to light - not as they appear on the surface. There are things that look attractive on the surface but aren't. This applies:
Back to my point about your concept of my matrix - it's not as it appears to you on the surface. That's what I mean about you attacking your own delusions.
mephibosheth
(I meant "in a movie" as in fantasy land as to your reference.)
Ecclesiastes 7:2 KJV it appears. Better version is Douay-Rheims: "It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for in that we are put in mind of the end of all, and the living thinketh what is to come."
Why do you need to concentrate on death so much Meph? Haven't you been reminded enough of it by now at your age?
Clearly planning is required for life even when you don't accept there is more.
Ecclesiastes 5:12 KJV again Douay-Rheims is better "Sleep is sweet to a labouring man, whether he eat little or much: but the fulness of the rich will not suffer him to sleep."
And lets not forget this from the same chapter, "A covetous man shall not be satisfied with money: and he that loveth riches shall reap no fruit from them: so this also is vanity. 10 Where there are great riches, there are also many to eat them. And what doth it profit the owner, but that he seeth the riches with his eyes?"
Interesting you are quoting Jewish ideas that you later seem to reject as a Christian.
So why are Christians so selfish and self-centered? Why don't churches convert their property to be used for all homeless needy people? Especially the Catholic Church has the ability to feed all of those that need it and house them as well on their vast property holdings. But alas, they don't. Isn't Jesus quoted as saying you give all away and follow me? Did you?
Exactly true things are not all pretty beneath the surface. That is the point you miss too. You see all these warm things about religion and God while you ignore the ugliness beneath.
Yahweh, the Father is shown as and admits to be a cruel jealous god in scripture. He kills and eliminates all throughout the OT. If he were a real god and not a human creation there is not need for murder. He supposedly created it all from nothing and to nothing it can go with a thought. Why have Saul kill thousands when they can be just uncreated? Have you ever even considered that? Why the blood letting and cruelty? Think them out of creation.
What I see in religion is evil. It saps people of their self esteem and replaces it with a view of unworthiness. Man is not worthy to be a participant without the help of the god in anything. The Bible is filled with proof of man's unworthiness. He can't look upon or be in the presence of the god as he is sinful and corrupt. How ya'll buy into this attack on self respect and esteem says a lot of where you are as a person.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
pjts,
Why concentrate on death so much?
I don't. I was bringing up an example of how things aren't as they appear on the surface. I introduced it that way. Why did you feel the need to go another direction with it?
Quoting Jewish ideas that I now reject as a Christian/ I don't reject these ideas. I view them from Christ's perspective. They are part of the furniture
By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
What you see may be colored by your own filter, or misrepresented by your movie producer. Then, there is also (as you say) the goats. You are fooled by them?
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, vbut the bad tree bears evil fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your Name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from Me, you evildoers.'
What I see in religion is evil.
You could be fooled by these. That's another reason to see beneath the surface of things. A lot of navigation is needed. Jesus says, 'I am the Way.'
My focus is not on death. My focus is on Jesus and God when I'm on my game. It's easy to get distracted. This focus is on in-destructible Life.
How ya'll buy into this attack on self respect and esteem says a lot of where you are as a person.
When I played cards with the devil I ended up bankrupt. Also, I broke parole (back when my parents thought there was none more perfect). My own religion shriveled like leaf boxers. But then Christ came with His Garment of Righteousness. Things have been great since. I'll let Him have all the Glory on that gladly!
mephibosheth
What pretentious rubbish.
You arsed around in your youth. You wised up. You don't want to admit that you were too thick not to wise up earlier so you ascribe it all to an invisible friend's help.
So what? It says a lot about you and your limitations intellectually, but it says nothing - absolutely nothing - about the evidence you submit as proof of the existence of a divine being, let alone one who saves eejits from themselves (he doesn't seem to be either very thorough or very effective in that role).
But it doesn't take blind belief in invisible mates to reform one's ways. Many do it without such delusional claptrap, and do it better, since they don't end up as pretentiously pontificating smug preachers whose version of a conversation is to repeat their own prejudices ad nauseum regardless of how many times they are refuted.
Rant on, but be aware - if social intercourse can be likened to sexual intercourse, there's a term for those who get off on their own.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I'm still here, you know!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I changed nothing. Your religion is based on unworthiness and death, read the writings you cite by Paul.
Is Jesus standing there now explaining his perspective to you? If not you are interpreting the writings from 2000 years ago to support your own view. Even if Jesus wrote the material which he did not how could you view anything from his perspective. Admit you interpret to promote your view.
Exactly what I just said to you above.
Does he now. Someone wrote that he said I am the way. This claim is even worse than hearsay.
Your focus in this thread has been death for those who reject which you interpret as the way.
So you need to bring another imaginary character into the picture here. If you can't prove God exists, your words, how do you propose to prove you play cards with the devil?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The only true statement in this otherwise pointless rant.
Thank you, but I don't need your validation.
1st iteration of 'our' faith.
Faith is belief (without evidence).
Faith is defective reasoning.
Since I have no belief in a god, it stands to reason I have no faith.
This is a dishonest and childish attempt to conflate your position with ours.
As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, we don't need to prove what we don't believe.
You, having the positive position have the burdon of proof.
This is the positive assertion that requires proof.
The Sun (and other stars) are fusion engines held together by the force of gravity. Enough matter condenses through the process of gravitational accretion, that it ignites in nuclear fire.
Nothing supernatural about it.
The Moon ( our moon at least ) is the remnants of a collision between the early Earth and a planetary body very early in it's existence. The resulting ejecta very quickly (in cosmological terms) accreted into a globular mass we call the moon. The known chemical and geological makeup of the Moon backs this scenerio.
No supernatural phenomina needed.
The adaptation of a bird to its environment is far more readily and rationally explaned as a product of natural evolutionary process than as a supernatural design.
2d iteration of 'our' faith.
3d iteration of 'our' faith.
4th iteration of 'our' faith.
And by the above stated definition, ALL faith is illogical.
The logical leap, the non sequitor if you will here, is the implication that the supernatural being you posit can.
Since you have failed to prove that such a beings exists, and indeed, you have even failed to define it as anything than a 'designer/creator' (an overly vague definition), your implied statement is irrelevant.
Yes, we can, and we did.
The major fallacy here is that you conflate our (incorrectly) presumed ignorance with 'evidence' of your 'creator'
You presented no evidence for a designer, and in this long narcissistic diatribe of yours, you have consistantly failed to present evidence for design, even less for a designer.
I don't believe there is a designer because there is no evidence for design.
5th iteration of 'our' faith.
Since you have failed miserably to offer any evidence, less compelling evidence for the being you describe as the creator, any reasonable person would have to judge that you have lost this debate from its inception.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
I want to clear up what I meant here. I meant "on parole" like Adam and Eve were "on parole" when they were in the garden. I figure I had my chance to not blow it when my parents doted over me too - but of course I did.
mephibosheth
Meph, did you check this site out ? Yes / No ?
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
.... whether a historical Jesus existed or not , makes zero difference, the Philosophy did exist and was varied .....
Atheism Books.
Nordman,
If you compare the heart of man to a town's water system with polluted water when you mention "reforming one's ways" maybe that would compare to changing the faucets in one's home. Reforming society might compare to changing the pipes in the town. Neither does anything for the problem.
What's needed is to change the source, the heart. When we are "born anew of the water and the Spirit" God gives us a new heart. It's not maintenance free, but we can maintain it in Christ as well.
As for my limitations intellectually you may be much smarter than me. Many are. But I think that you mentioning it doesn't add weight to your being smarter. I find that people who are really smart don't tend to parade it.
Like I said in my op, I can't prove my faith to you, but I am proving it every moment to myself.
To quote others on things like this - "why do you keep asking for such proof when I stated this from the start?"
mephibosheth
There are those who curse their fathers and do not bless theirr mothers. There are those who are pure in ther own eyes but are not cleansed of their filth. There are those - how lofty are their eyes, how high their eyelids lift! There are those whose teeth are swords, whose teeth are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, the needy from among men.
IF YOU WERE GOD YOU WOULD KNOW
What is not god ?
Any one who is an idol worshiper is an idiot, and my enemy to heal .....
Atheism Books.
How can you know He's not God ?
I see.
So the really intelligent people should prove their intelligence by shutting up about it ?
I'm guessing you don't expect such restrictions from the really religious and the really faithful.
You really don't need to keep on repeating that. There are many, many people who hold to certain beliefs that they can't prove to anyone but themselves. They went through tough times too. Some may have a backstory that is exactly the same as yours. And yet their faith may send you straight to their version of hell.
So if this religious faith has any real value at all, to you personally or to anyone else, then only one faith can be true.
So here we are again : Is it you who holds the truth, and are all the others simply wrong ? Why are you the one ?
Please remember, that if you are right, then many millions of people, some of whom have lives a lot harder and faiths a lot stronger than yours, are wrong. How did this happen ? How did you become so important, and all these other people so utterly wrong ?
Because you're preaching this faith of yours. You can't prove it, but that doesn't bother you. If every unproven claim was allowed to stand unchallenged, there would be chaos. I'm a little worried by how much certain Christians seem to like that idea.
So I'm afraid you have no choice. You will have to prove it, or you will have to admit it's nothing more or less than your own personal mythology.
Like all your other quotes, this one has no relevance to the discussion or to the post you replied to. Why do you keep doing this ?
Btw, in case you didn't notice, your op has been refuted a couple more times on this page. You chose not to reply to those posts. Does this mean that you now understand why your op makes no sense ?
sorry am,
I was sure I mentioned in the op that I couldn't prove my faith to you - but I see I didn't. I have been honestly mistaken about that. I'm glad I'm not trusting in my air tight arguments in this life or my intellect or my perfection. It was an honest mistake I assure you - sorry I made it.
It is a package deal. I don't see your posts applying to me and you don't see mine applying to you.
But center the focus on Christ. This is the point where we take different routes. You reject Him being Who He claims to be. I accept Him being All in All. That's the difference.
The Scriptures say there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all. I accept that. You reject that.
I don't consider myself that important by the way. I need God and Christ. I consider a lot of people greater than myself. The greatest to me are those who have lived and died for Christ.
You don't need God or Christ. Who is it that thinks they are important? Me or You? What people do you think are the greatest? Do you think the greatest are people who don't respect or accept God? I'm trying to share what is important to me with you, but I can't make you accept it. I'm just offering it honestly. I'm not hiding the truth that I see in my heart.
From my op this to me is a proof (which has been rejected by some philosophy gimmick which has been accepted):
If you take anything in this room I'm in and say it had no designer that wouldn't make sense; the headphones, the wristwatch, the coffee cup, the laptop, and so on. I don't think there's anything in the creation that is as simple in design as the things in this room. Here's one way it is stated in Scripture:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what is known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinkng and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever! Amen.
If you accepted this scripture (I do) you would have to say the existence of God is proved by the things that have been made. If you accept what deluded says, then you're riding his bus. I'm telling you that bus is going where you don't want to be.
mephibosheth
Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what man is, and that he is not able to dispute with One stronger than he. The more words, the more vanity, and what is man the better? For Who knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his vain life, which he passes like a shadow? For Who can tell man what will be after him under the sun?
Why should anyone trust your interpretation, it is but one of thousands.
How do you know Christ is the focus? Others differ. Which version of the derived mythology has basis? Yours? Or any of the others?
Originally I was a Fundie Lutheran and I questioned it all by the time I was 18. I converted to Catholicism because their interpretation seemed a better way. Over time I learned it was just another interpretation of fantasy with no basis.
So apparently do many others who claim various other interpretations of the myths.
See my post in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14062
specifically:
Honestly you come across as a delusional person that accepts mythology as real. You have views that have their support only in derived fantasies from mythology of ancient ignorant people.
Accepting your scriptures based on myths is irrational.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
If your god were God he'd know what each of us needed to believe he existed.
If your god truly loved the word as he claims in the Bible, he'd do what was described above.
Given that he has done nothing close to what was described above - he's either not all knowing and all powerful or he's a jerk.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
GOD is not all-knowing, god is all knowledge. n00b.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
I am God , 10 min, the one from Gisburne2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYx3m-piLA
"I am God. My Godly powers are as real as those of the God worshipped by Christians, Muslims or Jews. Therefore if I am as powerful as God, I must BE God, because only God can do everything that God can do. In this video I demonstrate the power of God (me) in exactly the same way that religious people have been revealing those powers over the centuries - there'll be none of that logical fallacy nonsense here. There's no denying it. I am God." Gisburne2000
________________________________________________
Would Jesus like this vid ? Did you see it ?
"Wisdom of the Buddha" 8 min,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI
Carl Sagan has a message for ya, Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot , 3 mins .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
What If God Was One Of Us? -- The Lion King http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n1jSvgBaNjM
Lyrics.
"What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome" - sang by Joan Osbourne
This was written by Eric Bazilian. Says Bazilian, "For me, the song was more about what happens to you when you look at something that has completely changed your world view, which could be meeting God, it could be meeting an alien, it could be a near-death experience, it could be anything like that. Just how everything you know is wrong, or everything you know is right, and you didn't know it."
Joan is bi-sexual and critical of religion,
Joan Osborne, who has said in a letter to fans that "the church's attitudes toward women and gays make the pope look far more ridiculous than any pop song could."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n12_v123/ai_18420062/pg_2
"I believe, is that longing for spirituality is so strong in our society that it is finding its way even into the very secular world of the pop charts. "One of Us" is not a religious song,[] it is about alienation from God. " [ NATURE ]
ALL IS ONE , I am 100% GOD ..... just as you .....
Atheism Books.
jpts,
You have your gift of life, time and intellect to find what you're looking for - if you're looking for anything.
At one time in my life I was looking but not finding "the treasure". Now I have found it and I'm just letting you know that for me Christ is IT. The Treasure is getting better and brighter every day. This scripture expresses what I'm saying:
The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it.
I am really glad I was born in the Christian era, because I absolutely hate looking for something. I'm glad I live in a time when I can find what I'm looking for - Christ. I'm convinced Christ is what everybody's looking for, but most don't know it.
As you say there are thousands of teachings, gods to sort through. I would hate to have to go in the University Library here in town not knowing and try to find it. This is where taking wholesome advice can be efficient.
Man puts his hand to the flinty rock, and overturns mountains by the roots. He cuts out channels in the rocks, and his eye sees every precious thing. He binds up the streams so that they do not trickle, and the thing that is hid he brings forth to light.
"But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Man does not know the way to it, and it is not found in the land of the living.
The deep says, 'It is not in me,' and the sea says, 'It is not with me' It cannot be gotten for gold, and silver cannot be weighed as its price.
It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir, in precious onyx or sapphire. Gold and glass cannot equal it, nor can it be exchanged for jewels of fine gold. No mention shall be made of coral or of crystalk, the price of wisdom is above pearls. The topaz of Ethiopia cannot compare with it, nor can it be valued in pure gold.
"Whence then comes wisdom? And where is the place of understanding? It is hid from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, 'We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.'
"God understands the way to it, and He knows its place. For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens. When He gave to the wind its weight, and meted out the waters by measure, when He made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder; Then He saw it and declared it; He established it, and searched it out.
And He said to man, 'Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.'"
Your assessment of me as a delusional person is a compliment. It puts me in fellowship with the way Jesus was treated by certain world assessors. I do know what delusion is by the way and though I'm constantly on guard against it, I'm not in it. I see those claiming to be wise though - that are fools who don't even know the way to the city.
mephibosheth (I found it!!!)
You did mention it to me in other replies, so it
really doesn't matter if it was in the op or not.
Anyway, once again, if your faith was really true,
you'd have no trouble whatsoever proving it to me.
You have yet to provide us with airtight arguments.
You have yet to use your intellect (which may be
greater than you think) in this conversation. But you seem to have no
trouble trusting in the perfection of your faith.
Funny how you feel the need to apologise when nothing
actually happened, but when you're busy insulting
people, apologising doesn't even occur to you.
You made some more honest mistakes. Let me point them
out for you :
So I've noticed. You have yet to explain why you
believe this is so.
I have reviewed some of my posts, and in fact, they do
apply to you. Quite specifically, in fact.
I have always explained to you what my objections were
to some of your comments. You never reacted.
As for the comments and quotes I didn't think were
relevant, I think I always asked you for an
explanation. You never gave me one.
Why ?
Actually, sir, this is the point where you take a
different route from just about every one else on the
planet.
As I keep telling you, when someone claims to have
faith in Christ, there is no way to know what this
actually means, so the statement is meaningless.
For me to "reject" Him, I would first have to believe
in Him.
This may sound impressive, but before you prove all
these supernatural claims, it doesn't actually mean
anything.
But there may not even be any real difference, sir. We
may be more alike in the things we do, the way we act
and think than you could ever dream. Isn't what we do
more important than what we believe ?
What you accept is your own interpretation of that
sentence.
I have a good reason for that. Would you like to hear
it again ? I reject it because there isn't a line left
in Scripture that hasn't been used as justification
for just about anything you can think of. I reject it
because there are as many interpretations of Scripture
as there are Christians, multiplied by the different
situations they find themselves in.
I'm afraid you do, sir. Did you forget that you
consider yourself to be above mere human logic ? Did
you forget that facts simply don't apply to you ?
Which means what, exactly ? There's no way for you to
answer that without spouting yet more religious dogma
that could mean anything at all.
How can you know they did ? How can you know their
interpretation of Christ would have agreed with yours
? You see, none of these religious claims make even
the slightest bit of sense.
Since no-one can explain what that sentence even
means, no, I don't.
You, sir.
You are the one with all the supernatural claims. Not
me
Well, I'm quite partial to honest people. Not many of those around.
I also like people who never stop thinking. It always seemed rather cowardly to me for people to stop thinking and leave it all up to something supernatural.
I think it's a waste of time to respect or accept something that doesn't exist.
Once again, before you start expecting respect and acceptance for something, prove it exists first. Surely, this isn't too hard to understand.
And to answer your question : No, I don't.
I know you are, sir.
Believe me, I appreciate any Christian who is willing to talk to me without getting aggresive. But what I would appreciate even more is a Christian who is willing to listen.
Of course you can. You could torture me like they did in the good old days.
Or you could try and come up with some proof. I'm afraid you're really going to have to. Blind faith like yours is doing too much damage in the world. Can you accept the evil being done in the name of your faith, by people who would agree with every single thing you said here ? I can't.
I see.
All those people looking for the truth, and it was in your heart all along ? So if I look in my heart and find something else than your truth, I'm not looking hard enough ?
Let me tell you about some of the things that are in my heart, sir : It is in my heart that raping and killing people in the name of God is wrong and despicable. Your heart disagrees with me on that, so please forgive me for doubting it's honesty.
Which philosophy gimmick might that be ? I seem to remember your "designer" argument got crushed by facts and facts alone.
Shall I re-post those facts for you ?
Huh ? Eh..sir, you can't apply a human concept like "designer" to a natural process. That's cheating. I'm 14 and I figured that out by myself, without Deludedgod or anybody else's help. Why can't you ?
Evolution is a fact. Get over it. Many Christians already have.
And why can't one of those men be you ? Everybody can claim to know the truth, but all we really have are facts. Why ignore facts ?
How do they, or anybody for that matter, know it's really God who shows them these things ?
You see, sir, these quotes don't answer questions. They just create more of them.
Because they didn't understand, couldn't understand, how it really worked yet. They simply didn't have the tools for it, so it stands to reason they might write something like that.
Again, this could just as easily be about you.
So far, nothing in this passage has a problem with evolution.
Remember those Christians who accept evolution ? See, they figure that evolution is just the way God creates stuff, and who are we to expect Him to dumb it down for us ?
Yes, I can see how that line might get ID-fans excited.
Read it again. There's nothing there that even vaguely describes evolution. Evolution is not about "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles", not by any stretch of the imagination. You have a lot of studying to do.
Still nothing about evolution, so I'm forced to conclude this is yet another irrelevant quote. I really wish you would stop doing that.
By the way, "not worshipping the Creator", doesn't necessarily lead to "worshipping the creature", so whoever this passage is targeting, it's certainly not me.
Careful, sir ! What you accept is your interpretation of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I accepted that Scripture, sure, and if my interpretation of it matched yours, sure.
But there is no good reason to do so. If you know of one, I'd love to hear it. Unlike you, I'm always listening (using both my heart and my brain).
You keep talking as if he just makes up all those facts. He doesn't . He's just reporting them. So I'm not "accepting" what he says. There's no need to "accept" anything. There's not a single claim he's made that I couldn't verify. Can't say the same about you, sir.
If anyone's trying to take me for a ride, it's not him.
That bus seems to be going to a good college. Maybe that's where YOU don't want me to be.
Seriously, sir, why ignore facts ? Why ?
Well, that's obviously not true for a start. There's always more undiscovered stuff out there. Every answer leads to more exciting questions. That's life, baby.
Depends on what you mean by the question "what is man ?". If you're asking a philosopher, I don't think I want to hear it.
And I'm sure the biblical answer is open to many, many interpretations.
After all the killing and raping done in His name, I'm sure he'll think twice before disputing anything.
I'm guessing this doesn't count for the Bible itself, right ?
Or any text that supports your personal religious views ?
Are those rethorical questions ? I can't tell.
Listen, sir, I'm not trying to make fun of Scriptures. I just don't understand the relevance here, or the use of quoting Scripture to make a point. Why not just say what you mean ?
Anyway, all the best to you.
(ps: sorry for the long post, people. I'm in bed with the flu, and I 'm bored senseless)
Funny, but I have this image of you and Jesus slapping high fives to each other in Heaven as he starts shoveling atheists into flaming ovens.
Well, since Sir claims to still have trouble understanding evolution, this post bears repeating.
Try to read it all, before you mention evolution again, okay ?
Don't be afraid, it's just facts. They don't bite.
"Christ" is a label. "The Christ in me", does not mean worship of an idol, but the non superstitious knowledge (higher consciousness) that all is god, all is ONE. Simple. Life is not a gift. You are god. I hope you will take your appreciation for the wisdom of story Jesus (and the wisdom of Buddha) to heart. Be Jesus, the Christ in you .... Buddha said "I AM AWAKE". Jesus said "ONE with the (cosmos) father". SIMPLE, simple, simple. Zero dogma, zero superstition .....
Atheism Books.
You know, this may come as a shock to you given the blatant disregard you have for rational debate, I am still reading these posts, I have refuted you at least six times in the last two pages, and I have yet to have you acknowledge me. You seem to pick out only those who you can respond to, wholly ignoring the fact that there are many more who have burned much more effort on this waste of a thread, myself included. So if you think you can get away with just referring to me in 3rd person passing in conversation with someone else, while ignoring this fact, while calling everyone else ignorant, then you have a remarkable capacity to forget things when they become inconvenient and remember them when they are not. The way you talk you sound like you've been spending too much time in Room 101.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
If you take anything in this room I'm in and say it had no designer that wouldn't make sense; the headphones, the wristwatch, the coffee cup, the laptop, and so on. I don't think there's anything in the creation that is as simple in design as the things in this room. Here's one way it is stated in Scripture
In some educated circles this is referred to as Payley's fallacy.
It is tempting to attribute this complex intricacy to design, to a loving creator who assembles and fashions the parts like a watchmaker a la Paley. It is thusly tempting to compare the intricacy of life to the intricacy of systems that we humans assemble, such as watches, or perhaps (in today’s world) complex electronics.
However, not only are these anologies false, but the argument which underlies them phenomenally bad. That we know that such devices as I have listed are designed is for an obvious reason, namely- we designed them, does not allow us to conclude that biological systems must undergo the same criterion, because biological systems by definition have a very special set of attributes which allows them to generate complex intricacies from simple origins. In other words, when examining an object, our question should not depend on the criterion of the complexity of the object in question, perhaps measured by the primitive notion of how many “parts” it has or how they fit together, but rather, can it come about through natural process? With our devices, the answer is no. But for biological engines, the answer is yes. This is where the insurmountable problems solved by the 19th century Victorian naturalists aboard the Beagle in a single stroke, comes into play.
Being that we have the intrinsic oddity of comparing biological engines to our own devices, it logically follows, being that we were the designers of the objects in question to which we are comparing biological engines, that we set up this false dichotomy whereby if the object in question was not designed, than the only alternative by which it may have come about is chance. By chance we simply mean a process of randomness which simply appears to have no governing law, whose system dynamics are simply chaotic and random, and that the complex structures of biology in question could have coalesced through such a process is absurd, hence we are left with the alternative of design. Yet this alternative is, I would say, equally phenomenally bad as an explanation, because of the argumentum ad ignoratium it poses (as Huxley pointed out). There is a third option.
Biological structures began in the simplest of origins and developed into all the fantastic structures of complexity and intricacy we see around us via a process of immensely complex natural law and selection, a process which is governed by not chance, but rather strict and inherent rules which have so many variables yet the underlying principles of which are so simple and so easy to grasp that Darwin and his ilk on the Beagle must surely have been astonished at the stroke of simplicity with which they solved the problem of how life came to be, the process of evolution, which, if you wish to know more about, is here:
As a biologist, I can testify that it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of the problem which Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and Kettlewell solved in a single stroke with evolution. Such was the coherent simplicity and elegance of their theory that jigsaw pieces fell into places immediately, and those that did not were worked out by future generations of molecular geneticists, proteomicists, ecologists and evolutionary developmental biologists.
Were I to utterly summarize evolution in a few words or so, it would be as I describe below:
Evolution comes from the Latin “evolvres”, meaning, to roll out. It is based on three principles, replication, variation, and selection. What makes biological life distinguishable from other complex entities such as those things which we design, is the replicative capacity. The storage of hereditary information in the form of self-replicating molecules necessitates variation in organisms by virtue of the genotype, which determines the phenotype. Evolution in biology conceptually links this variation with the concept of selection, that is to say that not all organisms survive to reproduce, and those with a phenotype which provides reproductive advantages in the form of phenotypic variations in populations allows for specific individuals with advantageous variations to increase reproductive capacity and, as such, the frequency of that allele will increase in a population pool as a function of number of generation, a process called adaptation. As such, alleles which carry phenotypically advantageous codings will propagate. This is the fundamental principle of natural selection Through endless rounds of duplication ,variation and selection, this process has allowed biological life to fill endless niches in the struggle for resources, and the selection of variation allows for the production of biological innovations that produces complex phenotypes.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
am,
I looked for something in your post that I agree with and this is it I think.
Does it seem to you like you are focused and on a straight course to your goal? The reason I ask this is it seems you are riding off in all directions - or is it just any direction away from any suggestion of God and Jesus? It seems like the "big bang" is happening all over again in you - except you don't have your x million years to get it together.
You didn't say a lot about your spirit or even the subject of spirit. You do a lot of thinking, and you're a bored certified thinker at the moment. Do you think you have a spirit and a conscience? Has your conscience ever "smote" you (like David's conscience "smote" him when he cut off the corner of Saul's robe)?
Actually I'm at a loss to try to prove anything to you. I'm moved in spirit and heart by the gospel story of Jesus' dying on the Cross. You see it as one in a million stories. The scripture that Jesus was born of a virgin girl - I believe that. That Jesus was totally perfect in every way, never sinned in heart or action, walked on water, raised the dead, made the blind see, lepers clean - see, I believe all of that without doubt. That He was totally dead, the Lamb of
God, buried and raised the third day - I believe that. And that He lives inside of me - along with God and the Holy Spirit - I believe that too. It's a living spring inside me and you can deny it, but I am drinking from it. I'm sorry I don't have the proof you want nor the proof I would like to come up with believe me to allow you to have this. Honestly I'm sorry.
mephibosheth
Meph, you really got me teary eyed with that, and Jesus wept ..... You are god brother, what else could we be ?
Atheism Books.
deluded,
I read this post and thank you for making it at least surface understandable to a non medical average whatever reader. You are pretty impressed I guess with what happened on that boat long long ago - they solved a real problem for you.
As I have told you I am anchored in faith in God an Christ, and I'm being totally honest in that. (I believe Jesus walked up to a boat on the water and that's a lot more exciting to me than the Darwin crowd's trip). Don't let that make you mad deluded, I'm just trying to respond honestly here.
You describe this process of selection and variations which maintain things. You view that as evidence it came from nothing and developed into something. I view it as unsearchable design by a unfathomable God. You know how Genesis starts out - I know you don't believe God spoke the world into existence, but I do. Your description of Darwin on the boat bores me. Genesis' description of God creating and promising the Savior even at the first of Genesis moves me, excites me. It in fact excites me every day to do everything I can to please this God - keep my heart and mind pure, learn more about Him and His ways which are unsearchable (as you have unknowingly described).
mephibosheth (thanks for that shot from the Hubble, deluded)
meph,
I really wish you'd quit calling creation from nothing (your view) the view of evolution.
I realize that Christianity and Christians are dishonest (it's the only way to sell the religion) but it's really starting to tick me off.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I am only impressed with it because it was verified countless times after the voyage of the Beagle in the 150 years since, by countless people. One of those people is me. If the people on that boat had just made a bunch of fantastical claims without any evidence, then I would be unimpressed with them. Regardless of how remarkable their assertions may be. This is an important distinction. You seem to judge the weight of the assertions made by how much it excites you. You dislike my description because it bores you. Cold, hard fact is not open to this sort of arbitrary form of judgement. It is not the events that happened on the voyage of the Beagle 150 years ago that is relevant, it is the evidence that Darwin, Huxley and Kettlewald accumulated for their propositions in the years before Origin of Species was published, and the evidence that continued (and continues) to come in to the field of biology.
But since you wish for the terminology to be clarified, this is fine. As far as I can see, unless your English vocabulary is very weak, there are only two t technical terms that require deciphering.
Genotype: The genotype of any organism is the complement of its genetic code. The variations in the genotype result from the errors that occur during the replication of the genome of an organism that precedes all cell division events.
Phenotype: The phenotype of an organism is determined by its genotype and its environment. It is the external appearance of the organism, but it is more than that, it is the sum of the physical organism itself. The proteome complement, the transcriptome, cell structure, organs and organelles, these are all part of the phenotype. The phenotype partially determines the hereditary capacity of the organism in the environment. Variations in the phenotype caused by variations in the genotype are responsible for the alterations in gene frequency within populations.
I couldn't care less if I tried. At the moment, we are discussing evolutionary biology.
Again, I couldn't care less if you believed in magic. Right now, we are discussing the discovery made on the voyage of the Beagle and the evidence gathered for it over the last 150 years. Your ability to focus in on the wrong things is amazing.
This is a non sequitur. What I do believe is that proto-biological polymers developed from simpler self-replicative organic molecules that form on crystalline structures and are dispersed during planetary formation, such as purines, amino acids and other organic groupings. The raw materials for these in turn are distributed by the completion of the peak of nucleosynthesis by supernovae which occur when a star is crushed after it spends its helium. There is overwhelming evidence for this sequence of events and as such I am within my epistemic rights to hold it. By contrast, you are not within your epistemic rights to hold to your claims.
I never described the voyage of the Beagle. I described the process of evolution. You must have some sort of reading comprehension problem as well as having a bizarre schizophrenia and a general inability to communicate.
At any rate, I was unaware that we judged the truth of matters by virtue of whether they bored us or not. This is not a rational grounding for making judgements about knowledge claims.
This doesn't seem to be a rational grounding for the knowledge claim in question. In fact, it is completely arbitrary and has no meaningful relationship to the idea that the knowledge claim in question might be true or false.
I couldn't care less. This isn't a response to the argument.
I couldn't care less. This isn't a response to the argument.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
fly,
The way you have been talking lately what ticks you would probably be a good guide in life.
mephibosheth
A man is commended according to his good sense; but one of perverse mind is despised.
So does that mean you'll stop doing it or will you keep trying to look past the beam in your eye to take the speck out of mine?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
deluded,
I know you could care less about (that's no proof by the way) the perspective of faith, but the things I mentioned that I believe (Jesus walking on the water, etc) DO RELATE TO MY FAITH (examples of what I believe that you don't) IN WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, among them the part that covers what you are trying to explain through your observation. Here's the explanation I believe, which excites me just as yours bores me (I'm not giving that as proof, just telling you):
By faith we understand that the world was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.
The things you "couldn't care less about" bore you. The things you observe in your biology class don't prove anything as to their origin and the fact that you think they do does bore me - or, as you say, "I couldn't care less about them".
They are not a response to the perspective of faith in What God and Jesus and the Scriptures say. The perspective of faith is real to me - and reasonable. The God Who said "let there be light" and there was light - is on top of His game as your lab study shows.
You didn't mention that I said these things you "observe" (natural selection, whatever) are just examples of UNSEARCHABLE DESIGN created by an UNFATHOMABLE GOD.
You can't see the atoms for the molecules in this. You're blind when it comes to faith and deaf when it comes to hearing the Word of God (the way this applies is the Word of God says they were spoke into existence BY THE WORD OF GOD, SINCE YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH UNDERSTANDING APPLICATION).
I'll gladly take my problems (what did you diagnose Dr. deluded? -"having a bizarre schizophrenia and a general inability to communicate) instead of yours. (You don't even know you have a spirit - duh). Your ability to focus on the wrong things is amazing. You would polish one corner of the concrete while the whole thing sets up. (the application of this is you don't see the big picture of faith since it seems I have to supply commentary in these things)
mephibosheth
- (I believe too there is great application in the following Scripture to you, deluded; your attitude, your view of yourself, your ignorance and probably many other things of natural selection):
For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus Whom God made our Wisdom, our Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption; therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the LORD."
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
We explain through mechanism that which we observe. We do not explain through observation. At any rate, the assertion that there is some metaphysical being which is wholly responsible for observed effects does not constitute an effective explanation (it makes no testable predictions) and as such, there is no "part" of the Bible which "covers" what we attempt to explain what we observe.
I know you are not amenable to logical argument, but here goes: Once again you are begging the question. You have not demonstrated in any rigorous, effective or rational fashion why this supposed metaphysical being which you postulate as the ultimate explanation is the solution at hand. You are supposing it to be true and then using it to reaffirm the very same idea. Hence you are begging the question.
Is there any evidence for this statement? I mean objective evidence, naturally. The sort of evidence that can be testably demonstrated. "There appears to be great design in this" does not meet this criterion. Additionally, when you make knowledge claims such as that your "God" is unfathomable, then you are left with little more than a mystery of your own devising. Hence you negate your ability to make other knowledge claims about this supposed God being (because if you could, it would not longer be unfathomable). You negate your ability to state "God posseses characteristic X, Y and Z (such as being anthropomporphic, a conscious being, etc.) or that God has "emotional states" X, Y and Z. You cannot make any of the knowledge claims you do. You cannot even say such a thing exists. You are left with little more than a mystery of your own devising. Additionally, you are now claiming that natural selection, the central process by which taxa are produced by evolutionary mechanisms, is underlied by your supposed "God" whilst before in this thread, you were denying that such a process was responsible for the production of biological structures, because it contradicted your preconcieved beliefs. You seem to have the uncanny ability to...well, I think I'll let Orwell describe it:
holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary
You have indeed simply conveniently forgotten the fact that you make massive metaphysical knowledge claims about your God and blindly believe them whilst simultaneously holding that such a being is "unfathomable". To assert the latter requires you to conveniently forget the former and vice-versa.
No, its the other way around. I know that I do not have a spirit. My consciousness, my brain, my sentient mental processes, my memories, etc. are the result of a set of interlinking complex neural processes that generate the mental states. As such, you are not going to have a life after death. There is no way out of this statement. Once your organic tissues that constitute the primary structures by which mental processes run, cease to function, the "you" agent ceases immediately. You will die and that shall be the end of your conscious person. Being that there is overwhelming evidence which ties our understanding of our mental states and conscious being to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of neural circuitry, the cessation of the latter means the cessation of the former, and any philosophical system which does not embrace this will collapse.
This sentence contains an internal contradiction given that blind implies an inability to see something while faith implies an acceptance of something without rational evidence. So whilst it might be meaningful to state "you are blind to the evidence" to mean that your interlocutor refuses to see evidence, it appears to be contradictory to state "you are blind to not having evidence".
Unfortunately I do not judge knowledge claims on virtue of their applicability. If the book which you follow makes a knowledge claim and this claim has no rational grounding then we in turn have no rational epistemic basis to accept it, regardless of said book's applications to daily life. So let me state clearly so that even your corroded lump of tissue the size of grape, er, I mean brain, can grasp: All I care about, all that I care about, in this matter, is how I can evaluate the knowledge claims of some source which I am supposed to accept. If I can't do this, if you cannot rationally do this and can only ramble about "proving it to yourself" then I am uninterested.
I don't have the proper decoder ring for this. Must you always speak in parables? Can't you just arrange your thoughts into a set of logical and coherent and rational points that can be evaluated as sound or unsound knowledge claims?
My ignorance of what? So far, I am the only one who has been able to assemble the full power of a logically structured and rational argument. You wouldn't be able to do what I do daily (and without effort) if you were forced at gunpoint.
Be assured that if there is one thing I am surely not ignorant of, it is natural selection.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thanks DG for all your xlint help to curing superstition. Now I will attempt to preach atheism. ( yeah, I need lot's more practice ..... and more brain power !
)
An Atheist's revelation to the Xains ....
It just seems so obvious to my small mind that Xains do not understand the message or revelation of the simple "atheistic" Jesus/Buddha wisdom that; All is ONE, I AM one with the father/mother cosmos god. I have come from the eternal and will go into the eternal, ..... in this sense we know that we never die, and this is the new enlightened awakening of ancient man. And so yes the "Christ has risen" in the understanding of that message, that this is the "kingdom/heaven" NOW and Eternal and ONE.
Most all Xains are Idol worshipers and separatists, "looking" for god. Jesus/Buddha message was a great simple one, most still do not understood.
In the spirit of that simple "saving" message I would never call myself a Xian. It's more of an insult to the message, and because of what Xainity has become and it's history is so evil.
I AM a jesus/buddha fan and always will be. That is because the spirit of the message has been revealed to me. I AM GOD AS YOU AS ALL IS ONE ...... What a great message, considering such superstitious unscientific ancient times. YES, 'Now we are equal and will protect all life as I see you and me and all as one. WAR nevermore. Love the enemy by understanding and teaching them that we are ONE.
Xian revelation is not revelation at all in the way it is mostly taught, .... and I must say it is more the Devil of wrong thinking.
My Atheist Jesus is better than the Xain Jesus, ..... Comparing them is the "Sword" of debate out of the endless love spring ..... Jesus/Buddha wisdom is so simple and so awesome. Why do people not get it ????? The answer is obvious, to those "Awake", to those who have taken "Christ" truly into their own being. (thinking)
God of Abe followers are blind sheep, and therefore dangerous hypocrites.
Jesus Rocks, The Bible Sucks. Written words are unnecessary for knowing "GOD" and so often a hindrance to revelation, salvation or whatever fancy religious words we devise to describe "Oneness". Take the truth to the Bibles, instead of looking for "truth" and re-write it a zillion new ways.
In the spirit of using words, Xains need serious doses of Buddha understanding. The west needs to embrace the eastern philosophies further, and visa versa. Communication of ourselves.
I AM not a buddhist but a fan. I personally refuse all such labels. I accept no such label, because I AM in fact GOD ( as YOU ). There is nothing higher to worship. All is equal. Seek knowledge of yourself, as all the cosmos is YOU. Everything is moving, evolving, changing, in motion, connected .....
This message was a revelation to you, that I tried to put into words. I AM sure, most no one religious, will understand it ...... afterall, I AM GAWED.
Fix my words said a Buddha .....
Atheism Books.
This has nothing at all to do with a word I said to you.
Did you hide it and defraud the owner of the property as in the parable. Perhaps you need to verify your meds still are working.
You should be glad the Church would have burned you for your heresies in the Middle ages.
Apparently you think the fantasy derived from myths and more fantasy and interpreted by other equally ignorant fantasy writers is the god of all. Such laziness on your part to accept ideas of such corruptness.
You don't seem to notice or understand advice when it hits you square in the face.
This has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
So! This again has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
Again, this has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
Again, this has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
Again, this has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.
As you preach the myths and fantasies that have been rewritten and interpreted over the years and accept such as real against evidence to the contrary delusion is certainly not a compliment. You have no clue as to why the interpreted fantasy you accept is unrealistic and worse yet you deny reason as a way to understand.
Quoting your book of myths derived in multiple iterations from various interpretations and rewritten by more fantasy writers and again interpreted and altered and added to by even more writers will gain nothing. You have not ever shown why your interpretation of the mult-layers of derived beliefs from myths and fantasies of ancient ignorant writers has any basis other than in the land of Never Was in the time space of make believe.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I fail to understand why you still argue with man who justified genocide. Can anybody enlight me ? I don't see a difference between him and Nazis following God-Hitler or Communists following God-Stalin.
Ecrasez l'infame!
Well, if you like honest people too, then why not be one in this discussion ?
You also like people who never stop thinking ? Uh...you might want to think that over for a few seconds.
Funny. That's exactly what the Jehova guys asked me the other day.
Focused ? Yes. Straight course ? Yes.
Why do you ask ?
Where do you get that impression ? From my posts ? Don't be silly. You don't read my posts. You just scan them quickly, looking for a hook to hang your quotes on, and maybe get some inspiration for your next witty post-title.
No.
I don't know what you mean. Do you ?
Because there's nothing I can say about a "spirit" that you would even listen to, unless you told me exactly what to say first.
Not enough.
There's no such thing as a bored thinker. Sorry. Thinking is never boring.
I have a conscience, yeah. You don't, and you seem to be proud of that. Frankly, that's a bit creepy.
Yup.
Once more, with feeling : You can't prove it because it isn't true.
I'm not, and I know plenty of people aren't either.And guess what ? Many of those people are actually wonderful human beings, who could teach you a thing or two about humanity, and life in general. Too bad you won't listen.
Yeah, I kinda figured you would.
Unfortunatly, believing all that does not make you a better person than someone who doesn't believe. Not in any way, shape or form.
Also, because it can mean anything at all, it ends up not meaning anything.
Sorry.
Hey, people can find happiness in the strangest places. Normally, I wouldn't judge and let you drink whatever you fancy.
Unfortunatly, this "living spring" of yours has made it it's business to judge me. So I'm judging back.
That's okay, sir. All this means is that there's not a shred of truth in your faith. I guess you'll have to learn to carry on without it.
Or you can just forget all about truth and carry on regardless.
All the best to you.
I have to go away for a few weeks now. I'll be back here, no worries.
In the meantime, could you do this one little thing for me ?
If God tells you to rape or kill someone ?
DON'T LISTEN !
IF GOD IS UNFATHOMABLE WHY THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE THINK YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT HIM/HER/IT/THEM?!?!?!?!?!? Has anyone else's brain done back-flips reading all this?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
deluded,
You said you only believe what you've personally tested - is this one you've tested or is this your faith?
mephibosheth
I'm not DG but I'd say it's based on things that can be measured.
How do you measure "spirit" besides good feelings?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Not necessarily what I have personally tested, since I cannot possibly test everything in every field of science. Being that there exists a set of mutually interrelated disciplines which report on their testable predictions, I shall take those as reasonable as well. For instance, I accept the implications of the Einstein-Polodsky-Rosen experiment even though I haven't personally done it. The same for sum-over histories, or the transcription rate of NF1, etc. At any rate, since I studied neuroscience, I did personally test some of the things I am to mention, but not all. I speak, therefore, in terms of the overarching unified set of disciplines under the head of neuroscience and the various professionals that work into them
The aforementioned principle that I picked out in the previous post is overwhelmingly demonstrated by our experimental fields of study on our brain. Even if we were to admit that the brain was not the whole story and that there was some other indestructible essence somehow inexorably linked to the conscious process, we would still be forced to come to the conclusion that the necessary antecedant for the "I" being, is the brain. THe memories that form from neural clusters, the emotional responses dictated by glandular response loops, the dynamic neuroplasticisity that results from synaptogenesis, etc. As a dynamic, highly interconnected organ, the brain is the necessary base of the conscious mind. Memories, the necessary precursor to sentience, are formed by the interlinking of neurons to form synaptic networks allowing for associative recall. Dynamic environment interaction, another necessary precursor to sentience, is equally bound up in the world in which the brain inhabits, coordinates, and bases its control on, the external world. This entire system forms the basis of the conscious mind. The you entity is governed by a series of interactions that dictate personality, belief, memory, response, etc. These are genetic and environmental in that they are determined by certain iinate properties of the brain determined by the genetic code and environemtnal in the sense that the neural networks and the associations they make are determined by the experiences the brain has. Since this entire system is wholly consumed and destroyed upon death, it logically follows that so are you.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I was, what we call dead, for an eternity before this now, what we call life, and have not a single complaint, and that is where I AM happy to return, knowing all I AM, is eternal.
Hey, I want to tell you all about a wise character written into ancient storys. It says he could sometimes heal the blind. This story is about people being blind to a most simple truth. They are religious ones who think god is something separate from them selves. Jesus message was simple, that all is connected and ONE with the cosmos, called "father" back then. So there is no need for superstition and praying to a god nor the need for a dogmatic church or worship. Many of the strick religious today, sometimes called fundamentalists, take the bible storys as litteral, but they are not. Trust your common sense. Jesus was able to explain the simple idea of all is "ONE", and that was the "Saving" message, and this indeed cured some people of their "blind" ideas. Buddha taught the same message as called becoming Awake" and or "Enlightened".
Basically, the bible miracle stories are fiction written to convey a simple wisdom. Like the wise fiction of the "Twilight Zone" regarding human nature.
BIBLE: Like feeding 1000's with a few loaves of bread and fish. It's about sharing the the little extra you have or brought, and all are feed.
Walking on water; as the truth is above the wrong thinking so common with the sea of humanity's thinking. Jesus/Buddha was wiser, above wrong thinking.
Healing lepers, as in healing "ugliness" due to fear, guilt, shame, superstition.
The resurrection as the truth cannot be killed.
The virgin birth as all are born in perfection.
We are all to be as Jesus Christ in mind, free of all separation from the cosmos (father) as all is ONE, all is GOD.
My favorite gospel books were not included in the bible collection, that was edited by evil greedy murderous men, who even tried to destroy the best of books, that said no church/gov rulers were needed.
Folklore regarding "simple reincarnation", meaning recycling of all energy/matter, has simular problems.
What isn't "G O D" Meph ??????????????????????????
Atheism Books.
deluded,
Sounds intricately designed - especially with the added distraction of an explosion. I conducted a related control experiment in quiet recently.
My brain (the little i), interconnected and networked neurons through neural clusters guiding a response loop through my dynamic neurons enabling me to associate the location of a splinter in my finger - the innate brain property linked to the consciousness interacting through associative coordinates with the knife determined the successful experiential result.
I think I have found the splinter and I don't have to keep telling myself it's removed, because I am on solid ground on that. It's always in the most painful spot by the way.
mephibosheth