What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[The Times]

Atheists should take up an open mind approach and look to interact with Christians through agreed secondary discourses, that will one day lead to modifying primary discourses to reduce conflict.

Are Atheists willing to address secondary discourses and come to agreement?

Notice that most if not all my questions and solutions have logical, legal and scientific observable framework. What I mean by observable is to observe self, others and the material world that we live in.

Are Atheists able to embrace evidence through self and others, other than being fixated on the material world?

If Athiests can do that then we have secondary discourses of agreement. All along I have pleaded with Atheists to look at others because others are missing links in Atheistic evaluation of interpreted and agreed secondary discourses. If we simply lived in a shell all by ourselves and never saw another human being, who I classed as OTHER then sure, the Atheist would have the material world and themselves as points of reference. Others is what Atheists rule out continually from their interpretative judgements and this is the major flaw with their methadology.

 

[Larniavc]

Not directly, but I give ear to my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I love them and they love me.

But how does Athiesm profit an Atheist in context of a fulfilled life, without qualifying it materially?

Atheism is not about profit. It does not profit me. I try not to focus on profit in my daily life: I can't imagine a more empty life than to see everything in terms of profit.

 

[Allandavid]

Not so for the Christian. For a Christian death is the beginning of a new life with Jesus Christ.

Yes, for the Christian too. The bell will toll for him too. And, as stated earlier, the rest is just an unsupported claim...

 

[Skreeper]

Firstly, one must not dismiss the testimony of a witness of fact, because of the hearsay assertions from none witnesses of fact.

Stop calling it a "witness of fact". Maybe stick with the simple "he had an experience".

Secondly, it isn't a case of needing to exercise more skepticism, but rather to discern a noticeable life change in the witness of fact, after their experience and the direction that they lead thereafter.

You can have a noticeable life change even when what you believe in is false. Just because this experience urged you to change your life doesn't mean that your belief is true.

Although the above statement may at first glance provide a possibility, that it may occur, however its effects would only last whilst the person is incapacited and it in no way discredits or is meant to be used to discount a claim made by the witness of fact, a claim that is made even after the incapacitation and one that has the backing of a completely different belief system, leading to a completely different lifestyle.

You have no idea how a brain works or what happens to it when the person is dying, do you? You should talk to a neurologist and maybe then you understand why rational people don't trust the information a dying brain gives.

Generally a person who is incapacitated will exhibit a change only for the duration of the incapacitation. A person incapacitated by alcohol and drugs may only exhibit the same behaviours if they continue to take alcohol and drugs.

So I take drugs and experience a pink elephant in my room. After my drugs wear of I still have the recollection of this experience. Does that mean what I experienced actually happened or was a "witness of fact"?

A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence.

That's basically what you've been doing this entire time. You're the prime example of a gullible person.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello ana hope your weekend was fun and relaxing.

And how do you claim to "know"?

Im glad you asked. This is such an important matter.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. The Spirit is also called the Comforter and the One called alongside to help.

I was in church a while ago and two Spirit filled ladies prayed with me, and 'laid hands' on me. This all happened during the day between 10-11am while seated on a chair. While we were praying together and they were centered around me. I found myself in the Spirit.

I went into a vision and found myself flying in the sky. I could feel the air in my face and at first i was alarmed. Once i got over my surprise and went with it, i noticed a volcano in the distance. I was soaring into it.

Just as i reached the mouth and was about to fall in, i cried out Jesus! (Save me!). I was caught in the air and rose out. After this i continued to fly for a bit when suddenly the scene changed.

I saw 3 human like forms together. Each was overlapping the others yet it was one entity. I noticed the middle was larger. There was fire everywhere and i could hear to crackle and hissing of flame.

This is my experience and not everyone has the same. I was givin the Gift of the Holy Spirit. I had faith in Jesus and was given the evidence of the Spirit.

If you will ask Him. God Himself in person of the Holy Spirit will come down to you and can be your guide, and will live with you as your friend, if you agree and if you first accept Jesus into your heart.

The Bible says that there is a friend which is closer to you than a brother.

'One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.'

When life is hard and you are struggling, God can be your strength and you can have the knowledge that He knows what you are going through. Both the good and the bad.

All you have to do is admit that you cannot go it alone and ask God to help you. This is not weakness to admit that help is needed, it us strength.

I genuinely don't care what you understand about water...I was just using it as an example.

Please excuse me but you do care. If you didnt care you wouldnt have replied to my post.

Well according to the dictionary, it's a belief or opinion....not necessarily a fact.

Facts and truth are not the same thing. Facts can be scientifically verified and truth is where the facts lead us.

Suppose one night you find a dead body. There is a knife sticking out of its back and a pool of blood. Those are facts. One could say the truth is this is a murder.

You look at the facts and you arrive at the truth. Faith is when you know even if you cannot prove it to someone else.


This is the dictionairy meaning of faith.
faith

feɪθ/

noun

1

.

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction,credence, reliance, dependence;More

2

.

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination,persuasion, religious persuasion,religious belief, belief, code of belief,ideology, creed, teaching, dogma,doctrine

"she gave her life for her faith"

Back in the days when that was written...it probably passed for evidence...but it doesn't now, for obvious reasons. We don't convict people on "hopes" and the "unseen" because, you know, that would be really stupid.

Im not too sure what you mean here? Please clarify.

And?

Beware of real axe murderers.

As for a "strong conviction"...you're talking about your emotions, your feelings, and those aren't even a part of a rational/logical argument...they're part of an emotional argument.

Frankly, your feelings don't prove anything other than how you feel (Technically, they don't even prove that)...so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Emotions.

For example a feeling of fear in the presence of an axe murderer is either a rational response to a fear inducing situation or it is a mere emotion which might deceive you.

My post on emotions was a reply to your post about emotions and logic.

If you bury your replies to me in replies to others...don't expect me to read them or receive a response. I give you enough respect to reply to you...I don't think it's expecting a lot in return.

Please excuse me.

You dont have to continue. You can either agree with what i say, disagree with what i say or accept that this is the Christian position and go on with your atheist journey.

You seem to be a materialist who wants to discuss spiritual matters through science. You wont get the proof you require. Im sorry.

Have you considered that you are using the wrong methods and you wont accept the correct ones. Science is about facts, God is about truth. God invented science which you are trying to use to prove He does not exist.

Why would God create science only to be bound by it? This is like a bricklayer building a house and then bricking himself in.

God wants to work with us, like partners, not as slaves. God will not force you to be in the kingdom of Heaven.

Believing leads to faith leads to knowing leads to proof.

Faith is the way to get the proof of God. God will not do it through scientific means. God has decided it was to be this way and He has told us through His teachings - a book written by 40 ppl inspired by God.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Depends on the argument, different arguments contain different fallacies.




I said I'm not sure what would qualify. I'm not aware of a method to reliably test for the supernatural and I'm not aware of a way to prove god. If someone can come up with a method, I'm all ears.


If someone has a personal experience, depending on what it is that may serve as proof for them. However, since I have not had that personal experience, I have no way to verify if their experience is true. Therefore, someone elses personal experience can't definitively prove the existence of god for me.

Hello dave. Hope you had a great weekend and hope the best for you, and your family.

You have suggested that you are not sure what would qualify as proof. You have also suggested that fallacies in relation to the belief in God are numerous depending on the arguement.

You seem to have arrived at a conclusion that for you, God does not exist.

Therefore you must have arrived to that conclusion some how. This is not to suggest you had a particular method, there can be many reasons as to why someone does something.

What is one good reason why you, yourself, does not believe in God?

Your last reply seems to accept that ppl have their own personal experiences with God, which you have not had.

Are you looking for proof or the way to God?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

No my last post was 666.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To be fair, has anyone ever actually proven anything in a debate over the existence of God?

Not really, but at least they can type out their own arguments and try.

Cutting and pasting is just dishonest.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello dave. Hope you had a great weekend and hope the best for you, and your family.

Likewise! Actually took a nice trip this weekend. Hope yours went well too.

You have suggested that you are not sure what would qualify as proof. You have also suggested that fallacies in relation to the belief in God are numerous depending on the arguement.

You seem to have arrived at a conclusion that for you, God does not exist.

Therefore you must have arrived to that conclusion some how. This is not to suggest you had a particular method, there can be many reasons as to why someone does something.

What is one good reason why you, yourself, does not believe in God?

Because nobody is able to prove a god exists.

If someone makes the claim that god exists, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate their claim. If they can't demonstrate the claim, then I can not be justified in accepting it.

It's a tentative conclusion though. If someone comes up with a reliable way to test for god and the test works, then I'll accept it.

Just because I don't know how to test it doesn't really matter, it's not my burden of proof. For example, I also likely would not be able to come up with a way to test the theory of general relativity. Others have though, and it's shown to work despite all attempts to prove it wrong. Therefore, I accept it as true.

Nobody I'm aware of has come up with a way to test for the existence of God though. If someone believes god exists, they must already have some reason to do so. What was used to prove it to them? If it's a good reason, I'll accept it. However, I've never been shown anything that proves their case.

Your last reply seems to accept that ppl have their own personal experiences with God, which you have not had.

Are you looking for proof or the way to God?

What I meant is many people have claimed to have a personal experience with god.

I'm skeptical of the claim, but if a god actually does exist, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he interacts with some people.

If that situation is true, then it's possible that person has an actually justified reason to believe.

However, as I have not had that experience I can't tell if the experience really happened or not. It may have been a hallucination, the person may be mistaken, or they may just be flat out lying.

So until I can verify their experience, I also can't justifiably accept it.

 

[Belk]

I understand what you are pointing at.....but when a good question and a solution is provided to Athiests, that conforms to logic but conflicts with the primary discourses of Athiests, then what constitutes a good question coupled with a solution is rendered mute.

Wow. Two whole posts (discounting the first one that asked questions not based on anything atheistic).
I guess we can add liar to the list of reasons not to listen to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists should take up an open mind approach and look to interact with Christians through agreed secondary discourses, that will one day lead to modifying primary discourses to reduce conflict.

Are Atheists willing to address secondary discourses and come to agreement?

Notice that most if not all my questions and solutions have logical, legal and scientific observable framework. What I mean by observable is to observe self, others and the material world that we live in.

Are Atheists able to embrace evidence through self and others, other than being fixated on the material world?

If Athiests can do that then we have secondary discourses of agreement. All along I have pleaded with Atheists to look at others because others are missing links in Atheistic evaluation of interpreted and agreed secondary discourses. If we simply lived in a shell all by ourselves and never saw another human being, who I classed as OTHER then sure, the Atheist would have the material world and themselves as points of reference. Others is what Atheists rule out continually from their interpretative judgements and this is the major flaw with their methadology.

My mind is wide open. Evidenced by, i was a christian for 40 years before i realized i was wrong, by being open to acknowledging new information.

 

[The Times]

My mind is wide open. Evidenced by, i was a christian for 40 years before i realized i was wrong, by being

So did he think.....

 

[The Times]

Wow. Two whole posts (discounting the first one that asked questions not based on anything atheistic).
I guess we can add liar to the list of reasons not to listen to you.

It is ok you can call me a liar, I forgave you other times and this time. I am a child of God.

 

[The Times]

Atheism is not about profit. It does not profit me. I try not to focus on profit in my daily life: I can't imagine a more empty life than to see everything in terms of profit.

How does Atheism be a fulfillment to one's life when it denies the loving God.

 

[The Times]

Yes, for the Christian too. The bell will toll for him too. And, as stated earlier, the rest is just an unsupported claim...

Supported by a multitude of others who you do not believe exist in your world.

 

[Allandavid]

Supported by a multitude of others who you do not believe exist in your world.

An unsupported claim repeated a hundred times, a thousand times, is still an unsupported claim...

1.2 billion Muslims claim that Mohammed took a midnight flight on his horse........you gonna believe them just because they are a "multitude"...?

 

[Allandavid]

How does Atheism be a fulfillment to one's life when it denies the loving God.

It doesn't. It's not a 'life fulfilment'.....it's the answer to one simple question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would like to firstly point out that you claimed that Professor Howard Storm said that he believed in some futurist 200 year utopia with humans having the ability to communicate through telekinesis and I proved it to be a false claim, pointing to a fictional writer who incorporated it into his fictional story.

Secondly, I will also prove that when the body is in pain, it may render a person unconscious, similar to the effects of anesthesia. The body can produce similar chemicals to simulate an anesthetic effect, but the person doesn't dream, nor can the person consciously realise an out of body experience, whilst looking down upon their body and be able to distinguish between the pain in the subject observed and the painless and heightened senses of the observer.

Simply put the person who sleeps or falls unconscious does not dream and recollect the pain in the subject, whilst being conscious of their painless state and hightened sense of awareness. You cannot have a stimuli and an anesthetic effect simultaneous in effect, any dream and conscious awareness of the pain state will bring in that pain state and this is where patients exhibit in and out of consciousness scenario, with screaming and pain yelling as a response to drifting in and out of consciousness. A Dream is not possible, neither can it be continuous without interruption, unless the observer is completely separated from the subject and their pain state. Since the subject nor the observer goes in and out of consciousness, it is as if the body is sustained in a suspended state of unconsciousness whilst the consciousness has drifted away from the biomechanical interface that is the juman flesh suit. This is what is known as an out of body experience and I have had it and therefore I am a witness of fact in that regard.

How exactly the consciousness of being is separated from the biomechanical human fleshly body is not known.

However throughout history and throughout different religions, it is believed that this consciousness is the living spirit or ID of a person. In scripture God said that he breathed into Adam and Adam becane a living spirit. The language implies a living consciousness. Today science can clone a body but they are unable to merge consciousness with it. Simply put the clone is an empty fleshly shell.

I don't really understand why you're posting this. Even a quick Google search will reveal that, yes...you can definitely dream while unconscious. In fact, the state your brain is in while dreaming and unconscious (from fainting for example) are remarkably similar.

So in spite of everything that you just made up...you're still wrong.

As for "out of body experiences"...there are a few dissociative mental disorders which can make one feel "outside of their body"...but other than that, out of body experiences have been rather thoroughly debunked.

 

[bhsmte]

So did he think.....

Good for him.

 

[bhsmte]

How does Atheism be a fulfillment to one's life when it denies the loving God.

It isnt denying when you dont believe it exists. Would you prefer people lie to themselves and to pretend to believe something they cant reconcile with reality?