No Time, No Age.

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You have then reduced "truth" to "opinion", which is why that I say that I seek not truth, but accurate descriptions of reality.

Have you ever saught truth philosophically. It has many forms. Religion is not unlike philosophy. What I did was not to reduce anything but to define what I see is subjective truth.

Yes, really. Have you not seen some of the threads in this forum? We even have some flat-earther in here.

I can not be expected to defend the posts of others. I did my best to speak my mind and defend my own take on things. I just wish you had seen it useful enough to comet on.

Scott can chime in any time he likes.

You are talking to me and not he.

I do not know what you mean by "sin". From what I gather, the only "sin" of note is disbelief. Everything else goes, as long as you believe.

There is no sin in disbelief though there are many here who seem to be so insecure in their faith that anyone calling it into question gains a full frontal assault on every fiber of their being. That is not my style and I would appreciate it if you see any indication that I am about to do that to say something, because that usually means that I'm becoming frustrated and I need to step away from my computer for a count of 10.

I see no reason to accept that you see it more accurately through the filters of your religion.

I think you are taking this the wrong way. I was attempting to describe the way Christian's see the world. Accuracy and precision has never been a human trait. That's why we build machines to be that for us.

 

[Davian]

Have you ever saught truth philosophically. It has many forms. Religion is not unlike philosophy. What I did was not to reduce anything but to define what I see is subjective truth.

In the common vernacular, "truth" implies an absolute, unlike facts and theories that are subject to falsification and updating with the introduction of new data. The term "subjective truth" reads as an oxymoron to me.

I can not be expected to defend the posts of others. I did my best to speak my mind and defend my own take on things. I just wish you had seen it useful enough to comet on.

You are talking to me and not he.

There is no sin in disbelief

That is contrary to a hundreds other responses I have seen in these forums.

though there are many here who seem to be so insecure in their faith that anyone calling it into question gains a full frontal assault on every fiber of their being. That is not my style and I would appreciate it if you see any indication that I am about to do that to say something, because that usually means that I'm becoming frustrated and I need to step away from my computer for a count of 10.

Sure.

I think you are taking this the wrong way. I was attempting to describe the way Christian's see the world.

It comes across as "yet another way a Christian sees the world".

Accuracy and precision has never been a human trait. That's why we build machines to be that for us.

...and scientific methodologies etc to minimize that inaccuracy of human bias and errors in perception. I do not disagree with that.

However, what I infer from the OP (and the exchange that you joined in progress) is that he believes that it is *his* perception that is "true" and accurate, and science that cannot "stand its ground", all based on... more claims of his own.

 

[SkyWriting]

I would say that most people's perception of "reality" does not take into account that Time is of the world, and the kingdom of God is not. With the world being "created" and "passing away", I do not consider the world to be anything more than its purpose to God.

It is a time delay space that stands in between our original sin and destruction that is deserved.
We all know how we feel about evil that is not responded to in a timely manner.
Somebody kills another and they are "free". We HATE that idea.

In a just environment, punishment would be instantaneous. This is not Heaven, it's closer to Hell
and we have injustice everywhere. The time we have before death is a grace period for us to repent.
Its a direct gift from God and we can't even conceive it. It makes no sense.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

In the common vernacular, "truth" implies an absolute, unlike facts and theories that are subject to falsification and updating with the introduction of new data. The term "subjective truth" reads as an oxymoron to me.

In my experience subjective truth is the one most people go with up until they find something more accurate, depending on their personal bias.

That is contrary to a hundreds other responses I have seen in these forums.

Have you ever thought that the people who come to places like these websites are somehow needing to do so for lack of something better to do. Places like this place are a bit addictive, but the run of the mill person has a real life and business of their own to keep them busy in their real lives.
I don't think the ratio of responses here reflect the attitudes and ideas of the rest of the world and that's probably why many are active members here.

Sure.

Thank you!

It comes across as "yet another way a Christian sees the world".

As opposed to what. Are you expecting me to be something I'm not. I just feel it's better to understand each other than pound at you with that which isn't convincing you of anything because, most likely the person who is acting like you are less than he for your beliefs. I've never thought that was an effective way of talking to anyone. Jesus didn't either.

...and scientific methodologies etc to minimize that inaccuracy of human bias and errors in perception. I do not disagree with that.

I am one who has faith in scientific methodology, but I am also one to believe in human nature and the capacity for ideology, politics and of course human greed to sneak their ugliness into any fore of pure thing. I hold science and religion as two things that should be by their very nature a thing of purity. I also think the internet should have been something of great importance in the discrimination of information. I would ask you how pure any of these have become when the pettiness of human being are inserted into them?

However, what I infer from the OP (and the exchange that you joined in progress) is that he believes that it is *his* perception that is "true" and accurate, and science that cannot "stand its ground", all based on... more claims of his own.

Well, I can't say anything against that, other than he and I are different people. I think science and religion considerate on different fields. You have a wonderful day and a better tomorrow. take care.

 

[Davian]

In my experience subjective truth is the one most people go with up until they find something more accurate, depending on their personal bias.

The problem there is that many seem to conflate what they believe to be true with truth (that which actually has the state or quality of being true). And they may not realize that they are doing that.

Have you ever thought that the people who come to places like these websites are somehow needing to do so for lack of something better to do. Places like this place are a bit addictive, but the run of the mill person has a real life and business of their own to keep them busy in their real lives.
I don't think the ratio of responses here reflect the attitudes and ideas of the rest of the world and that's probably why many are active members here.

Not my problem. I do hypothesize that may come here to see if their beliefs can 'weather' the criticisms of those that disagree with them.

Thank you!

As opposed to what. Are you expecting me to be something I'm not. I just feel it's better to understand each other than pound at you with that which isn't convincing you of anything because, most likely the person who is acting like you are less than he for your beliefs. I've never thought that was an effective way of talking to anyone. Jesus didn't either.

I am one who has faith in scientific methodology, but I am also one to believe in human nature and the capacity for ideology, politics and of course human greed to sneak their ugliness into any fore of pure thing. I hold science and religion as two things that should be by their very nature a thing of purity. I also think the internet should have been something of great importance in the discrimination of information. I would ask you how pure any of these have become when the pettiness of human being are inserted into them?

I can't argue with results. Religions are all over the place, while science continues to inform us about the would around us, and provide medicine and technologies. Religions seem to have been reduced to an odd hobby, where I live.

Well, I can't say anything against that, other than he and I are different people. I think science and religion considerate on different fields.

Yet in this thread, you (and the OP) both claim to be speaking from the same (Christian) perspective. I don't see you agreeing with each other.

You have a wonderful day and a better tomorrow. take care.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The problem there is that many seem to conflate what they believe to be true with truth (that which actually has the state or quality of being true). And they may not realize that they are doing that.

Isn't any ideology the same as this. How about emotions? How many times have you seen a good looking person next to the ugliest human being on the Earth and ask yourself what she sees in him? Tell me what truth is there? It's surly some kind of a truth to at least one of them.

Not my problem. I do hypothesize that may come here to see if their beliefs can 'weather' the criticisms of those that disagree with them.

I didn't say it was, but you do get irritated with them, do you not? If that is the case why would anyone come to be continually irritated?

I can't argue with results. Religions are all over the place, while science continues to inform us about the would around us, and provide medicine and technologies. Religions seem to have been reduced to an odd hobby, where I live.

Is religion all over the place or those who seem to be beside themselves to prove something to you. There is a difference in the two and that was the reason I brought up that those here may not reflect the inclinations of the rest of Christianity.

Yet in this thread, you (and the OP) both claim to be speaking from the same (Christian) perspective. I don't see you agreeing with each other.

It is one thing to have read the Bible and believe in God, Christ and the holy Spirit. It is quite another to see how that should be presented to the world. My mannerisms is an hand with all fingers extended and joined to be grasped by another equally friendly hand, to be shaken.. As far as others, If they have found something better or more appropriate to them, than that, I can only wish them and those they reach out to the best of my best.

 

[Loudmouth]

I described it.
Millions of others have described it.
The bible describes it.
The world describes it.
No excuse.

Yet another post where you don't describe it.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is an opinion based on your understanding of that which is occurring around you. I applaud you for having it, but there is little I can say that will refute an ingrained assumption.

You could show me where the assumption is wrong, for starters.

Have you ever thought that you migh have held god in a box and weren't looking in the right direction for the answers.

And there is the confirmation of my earlier explanation. If people don't find God, it is because they were doing it wrong. It is just like the snake oil salesman saying that you didn't believe in the snake oil hard enough.

I am sorry that you have walked this path before, but It was not with me. I am a solution orientated person and I am not opposed to thinking outside the box. Would you not grant me the chance to speak to you about this?

I am an atheist because I did think outside the box.

I do not subscribe to the idea that anything an Atheist states is an excuse. To me the person who does this is making an excuse for themselves in order to keep from answering your questions. I don't have all the answers but we can surly speculate on that which is unknown and maybe, just maybe we can find some common ground we are comfortable with.

The common ground is verifiable evidence.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You could show me where the assumption is wrong, for starters.

To you or to me.

And there is the confirmation of my earlier explanation. If people don't find God, it is because they were doing it wrong. It is just like the snake oil salesman saying that you didn't believe in the snake oil hard enough.

Nope, not really. A snake oil salesman vends a product that is not in any way useful to anyone. Christianity, and finding the God that makes the entire thing possible has a long history of being of great benefit to literally millions. from what you've described, you were quite possibly looking for him not to be where you were looking, so the disappointment was Gods and Gods alone.

I am an atheist because I did think outside the box.

Not really. You have an ideological so you think inside of that box. I think a lot of people use this box analogy as a thing of pride that makes them assume that since they don't think one way, they are somehow freer than people who do. Don't get me wrong. Everybody falls into that and many Christian's do as well, only they place God in their box and think he will support them no matter what they do.

The common ground is verifiable evidence.

Evidence is dependent on the level of tech we have to construct the equipment to find it. Science has many theories that have not seen the light of day. Are you equally skeptic of those theories, as you are of God, because we have yet to be able to find evidence of him?

 

[Loudmouth]

To you or to me.

That you think reality is subjective is cause for alarm.

Nope, not really. A snake oil salesman vends a product that is not in any way useful to anyone. Christianity, and finding the God that makes the entire thing possible has a long history of being of great benefit to literally millions.

Finding the true cure-all of snake oil can also be just as beneficial. Believing that medicines will cure their ailments, completely inert chemicals have been supplying the benefit of the placebo effect.

from what you've described, you were quite possibly looking for him not to be where you were looking, so the disappointment was Gods and Gods alone.

Just like the snake oil salesman. I wasn't taking the medicine the right way.

Not really. You have an ideological so you think inside of that box.

Evidence is dependent on the level of tech we have to construct the equipment to find it. Science has many theories that have not seen the light of day. Are you equally skeptic of those theories, as you are of God, because we have yet to be able to find evidence of him?

Which theories are you talking about?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

That you think reality is subjective is cause for alarm.

You didn't say reality. You said assumptions and you ask me to prove yours were incorrect, but you refrained from saying to whom I was supposed to prove or disprove them to.

Finding the true cure-all of snake oil can also be just as beneficial. Believing that medicines will cure their ailments, completely inert chemicals have been supplying the benefit of the placebo effect.

The connotations behind the term, Snake-oil would make the addition of the term cure seem as an oxymoron.

Just because a placebo is given does not mean that the mind did not heal what was wrong and there is no evidence that God did not have a hand in that. Did he not make our brains?

Just like the snake oil salesman. I wasn't taking the medicine the right way.

you seem to be fixated on this idea of snake-oil some much you seem to use it whenever you have nothing else so say.

Which theories are you talking about?

every one that at the time of their conception there was no way to prove them. I'm not cutting down science here, I am simply stating a fact of reality. There are myriads of thoughts and ideas that can't be verified at the time they first came to thought. Why are you so concentrated on God?
It almost sounds like a vendetta.

 

[Davian]

Isn't any ideology the same as this. How about emotions? How many times have you seen a good looking person next to the ugliest human being on the Earth and ask yourself what she sees in him? Tell me what truth is there? It's surly some kind of a truth to at least one of them.

I still don't grasp what you mean by "truth" in this context, if it doesn't refer to what is true.

I didn't say it was, but you do get irritated with them, do you not? If that is the case why would anyone come to be continually irritated?

On the contrary, I am not irritated at all. I am grateful that many of them put up with my questions, rather than just putting me on ignore.

What I find fascinating is how many, like the OP of this thread, get frustrated at the both the believers and unbelievers around here that do not accept what they preach without question. What did they expect?

Is religion all over the place or those who seem to be beside themselves to prove something to you. There is a difference in the two and that was the reason I brought up that those here may not reflect the inclinations of the rest of Christianity.

Maybe not, but again, that is not a concern of mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't say reality. You said assumptions and you ask me to prove yours were incorrect, but you refrained from saying to whom I was supposed to prove or disprove them to.

Reality isn't subjective, so it doesn't matter. Either you can demonstrate that the facts contradict what you claim are assumptions, or you can't. The facts are objective, so present them.

The connotations behind the term, Snake-oil would make the addition of the term cure seem as an oxymoron.

It wasn't an oxymoron when it was first used.

Just because a placebo is given does not mean that the mind did not heal what was wrong and there is no evidence that God did not have a hand in that. Did he not make our brains?

This would be a massive shift in burden, one we see theists use often. You are the one claiming that God is doing things. It is up to you to evidence this claim. Lacking such evidence, the claim is dismissed until such time that you do have evidence.

The absolute worst way to figure out what is true is to assert something is true without any evidence, and then require it to be considered true until someone disproves it. Just imagine the nonsense we could invent which would have to be considered true under your metaphysical rules.

you seem to be fixated on this idea of snake-oil some much you seem to use it whenever you have nothing else so say.

I am using it when I have something to say. I am using that word because you understand its context and history which is what I am trying to convey.

every one that at the time of their conception there was no way to prove them.

That would be a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a model that is supported by evidence.

There are myriads of thoughts and ideas that can't be verified at the time they first came to thought.

They can be verified afterwards.

Why are you so concentrated on God?
It almost sounds like a vendetta.

My only vendetta is against those who try to denigrate atheists and science.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Reality isn't subjective, so it doesn't matter. Either you can demonstrate that the facts contradict what you claim are assumptions, or you can't. The facts are objective, so present them.

Yes reality is subjective because observation is evolved. You have a man run out in front of a long line of people and then disappear. You ask everyone in that line to describe the man, and see how many conflicting responses you get.

It wasn't an oxymoron when it was first used.

When it was used by you it was used stereotypical and prejudicial because of a wives tale.

This would be a massive shift in burden, one we see theists use often. You are the one claiming that God is doing things. It is up to you to evidence this claim. Lacking such evidence, the claim is dismissed until such time that you do have evidence.

That is where you are wrong. I didn't come here to claim anything. I came here to define my own feelings about what is being discussed. I'm not an evangelist, nor am I here to convert you. I'm here to speak from the heart and answer your questions as best I can and show you who I am by the way I treat this information and you in particular.

The absolute worst way to figure out what is true is to assert something is true without any evidence, and then require it to be considered true until someone disproves it. Just imagine the nonsense we could invent which would have to be considered true under your metaphysical rules.

Where did I ever require you to do anything except to answer my questions as I have done yours. The reason I asked about the last one is because I thought I had hit upon a good way of navigating you through my thoughts and hoped for your input, which you still have not given.

I thought if I would come to you without a preaching attitude I could convince you of who I was as an individual who believes in Christianity and is secure enough in his beliefs to speak to you about my feelings and not pressure you to accept them. I guess in that I've failed or your were to far into your defensive posture to notice I wasn't carrying a 50 pound Bible to beat you over your head.with.

Any way. I've reached the limit and have nothing left that I would be willing to expend on this. Hopefully we will be able to speak another time. It was an honor speaking to you and I wish the best for you wherever life takes you. God bless you and keep you.

I am using it when I have something to say. I am using that word because you understand its context and history which is what I am trying to convey.



That would be a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a model that is supported by evidence.



They can be verified afterwards.



My only vendetta is against those who try to denigrate atheists and science.

The rest of this I will leave to your evaluation wither I was sincere with my words above or I was just another Christian crackpot who just dropped out of a debate.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I still don't grasp what you mean by "truth" in this context, if it doesn't refer to what is true.

Maybe I should have used perception in my last description.

On the contrary, I am not irritated at all. I am grateful that many of them put up with my questions, rather than just putting me on ignore.

What I meant by being irritated is when people go into flame mode and start calling you a sinner for not falling down on your knees in worship for them giving up divine wisdom.

What I find fascinating is how many, like the OP of this thread, get frustrated at the both the believers and unbelievers around here that do not accept what they preach without question. What did they expect?

I don't find it fascinating at all. I've came to people the same way, for as long as I can remember and frankly it is people who do such things as you describe that makes making good friends on the other side far harder than it should. Not only do I know have to prove myself as being a genuine article but I have to defend those in the Christian community who are more like me from the impression of people who act as described.

Maybe not, but again, that is not a concern of mine.

Then you have a wonderful day, now. God bless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes reality is subjective because observation is evolved. You have a man run out in front of a long line of people and then disappear. You ask everyone in that line to describe the man, and see how many conflicting responses you get.

I am talking about observations that we can demonstrate is the same for all observers.

That is where you are wrong. I didn't come here to claim anything.

You did end up making claims, which is what I addressed.

Where did I ever require you to do anything except to answer my questions as I have done yours. The reason I asked about the last one is because I thought I had hit upon a good way of navigating you through my thoughts and hoped for your input, which you still have not given.

I have given input in every post.

I thought if I would come to you without a preaching attitude I could convince you of who I was as an individual who believes in Christianity and is secure enough in his beliefs to speak to you about my feelings and not pressure you to accept them. I guess in that I've failed or your were to far into your defensive posture to notice I wasn't carrying a 50 pound Bible to beat you over your head.with.

You don't have to convince me that you are a believer in the Christian faith. What I have responded to is the poor logic that leads to those beliefs as a reason why I am an atheist.

Any way. I've reached the limit and have nothing left that I would be willing to expend on this. Hopefully we will be able to speak another time. It was an honor speaking to you and I wish the best for you wherever life takes you. God bless you and keep you.

It was enjoyable talking to you as well. Have a good one.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I am talking about observations that we can demonstrate is the same for all observers.

Well, seeing that I just gave you a good example of why that would be impossible, I don't know how that could be produced

You did end up making claims, which is what I addressed.

No, I gave you the best interpretation of what I felt about God. which is why I initially responded to this. I'm not here to prove anything to you or to convert you. I'm here to explain my take on things and possibly get you to understand what it is to me to be a Christian.

I have given input in every post.

that's not even worth me responding to.

You don't have to convince me that you are a believer in the Christian faith. What I have responded to is the poor logic that leads to those beliefs as a reason why I am an atheist.

Opinions of opinions lead to opinions of others opinions which leads us to nowhere.

It was enjoyable talking to you as well. Have a good one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, seeing that I just gave you a good example of why that would be impossible, . . .

It isn't impossible. I can cite example after example of scientists making the same observations, within instrumentation error. For example, I have seen many scientists consistently weighing 1 ml of water and getting 1 g as the result. It seems to be a very consistent observation.

No, I gave you the best interpretation of what I felt about God. which is why I initially responded to this. I'm not here to prove anything to you or to convert you. I'm here to explain my take on things and possibly get you to understand what it is to me to be a Christian.

I am trying to explain why that take on things doesn't make any sense to me.