Superiority Complex.

[JohnCR]

Keep throwing hypotheses out there. But the fact remains that the origin of reality starts at the beginning. The assumption that man arrived here through a series of stochastic events is your belief. The need to now rationalize a Christian, the children of humanity, to that belief, is you. The "need to believe" is a conclusion based on your perspective of what has come to pass. That conclusion which you hold, is a belief. And "in truth you have nothing, nothing but the need to believe".

You may hold that we are the weak and you are the strong. This is not universal. To many, atheism is the weakness. Faith, trust, like love, like patience, like self control is aquired, is learnt, is built upon, is not a default and goes against the grain of the finite mind. Your submission is as much of demonstration of strength as is sinking to the bottom of the ocean with a 50 pound weight tied to your leg. These "fruits", abstract reality, are what are real, and the accumulation and understanding of such equivalent to the indications of prosperity the finite mind uses to cast judgment on the well being of an entity in this sphere.

To most, your subscription to materialistic chance origin is actually the crutch. From the time you consider that consciousness did not originate in this plane, that the human system cannot build itself, the scenario is similar to sitting in darkness. Like a child afraid of the dark, you cannot see what is around you. Your eyes are rendered useless, you, at the mercy of the unseen. So you are told that the darkness you witness is the light, all to be seen, a comforter, presented in the form of Darwinism. But we are blind, who you choose to lead you through the vastness of reality, is where your faith lies.

We are all blind in the sense that we know very little in relation to the vast universe around us. However, I don't have to see in this dark room to know that you can't see either. I believe the origins of the universe are more complex than the will of a powerful creator. I really don't see how that makes me weak or demonstrates that I have a finite mind.

While your metaphors about atheists are indeed colorful, they don't have much substance to back them up.

Be careful when you generalize about atheists; we aren't all prescribing to the same book or doctrine. I figure you were directing this mostly at riski, so I will take what you said about atheists with a grain of salt.

 

[ephraimanesti]

We are all blind in the sense that we know very little in relation to the vast universe around us. However, I don't have to see in this dark room to know that you can't see either. I believe the origins of the universe are more complex than the will of a powerful creator. I really don't see how that makes me weak or demonstrates that I have a finite mind.
.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

This statement honestly (no drama intended) confuses me. How can the "origins of the universe" be "more complex that the will of a powerful creator" and yet be explained by atheists as being the product of random accidents without plan or purpose?

If the mind-boggling intricacy of the universe and its contents would be too much to ascribe to the creative talents of an omnipotent Creator God, why is there no difficulty or intellectual scruples by atheists about ascribing it to an infinite series of random chances and accidental events?

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Eudaimonist]

So why does an atheist use a palindrome for a screen name?

Do geese see god?

(Work it out. )

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JohnCR]

MY DEAR BROTHER,

This statement honestly (no drama intended) confuses me. How can the "origins of the universe" be "more complex that the will of a powerful creator" and yet be explained by atheists as being the product of random accidents without plan or purpose?

If the mind-boggling intricacy of the universe and its contents would be too much to ascribe to the creative talents of an omnipotent Creator God, why is there no difficulty or intellectual scruples by atheists about ascribing it to an infinite series of random chances and accidental events?

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Something random can still be intricate. If natural forces are at work (i.e.- gravity, chemical reactions), it can even appear a little organized. Although, I wouldn't necessarily call living on a rock floating around a giant gas reaction organized.

Let me clear up my previous statement to avoid confusion. In the past, people looked up at the sun and thought it was a god. If you ignore the complexity that a god itself would entail, the explanation is actually rather simple. Only later did we find out that the sun is actually a very large hydrogen reaction with a more scientific explanation. That's how I feel about the God explanation of the universe. I think there's a better and probably more complex answer than God out there, even though we may never find it.

 

[JCFantasy23]

What do you think of the following statement. It is a quote from a blog where they are discussing whether or not people should quote scripture in a moral debate. One person said that Christians shouldn't quote scripture when debating with non-Christians because it would be no different than quoting Dr.Seuss.

If you are debating about your beliefs you use your most reliable avenue, which for Christians is the bible. You cannot ask why a Christian believes what they do without them being able to show what they consider their source.

 

[ephraimanesti]

What is it?

MY DEAR SISTER,

The definition of "Faith" generally held by Christians is, of course, found in Hebrews 11:1--"NOW FAITH IS BEING SURE OF WHAT WE HOPE FOR AND CERTAIN OF WHAT WE DO NOT SEE."

In my personal lexicon, it seems to me that "FAITH" is the trust that beliefs which have proven true in one's personal experiences in the past--or in the experiences of others one trusts in their pasts--will continue to prove true in the future although the fruit of that faith/trust is not yet seen, or the implications of it perhaps not even understood.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[JohnCR]

If you are debating about your beliefs you use your most reliable avenue, which for Christians is the bible. You cannot ask why a Christian believes what they do without them being able to show what they consider their source.

I agree for the most part, but if they are going to quote the Bible, they should answer why the Bible is a valid source.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Something random can still be intricate. If natural forces are at work (i.e.- gravity, chemical reactions), it can even appear a little organized. Although, I wouldn't necessarily call living on a rock floating around a giant gas reaction organized.

Let me clear up my previous statement to avoid confusion. In the past, people looked up at the sun and thought it was a god. If you ignore the complexity that a god itself would entail, the explanation is actually rather simple. Only later did we find out that the sun is actually a very large hydrogen reaction with a more scientific explanation. That's how I feel about the God explanation of the universe. I think there's a better and probably more complex answer than God out there, even though we may never find it.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

i have come to the inescapable conclusion that it requires a great deal more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

I agree for the most part, but if they are going to quote the Bible, they should answer why the Bible is a valid source.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

A Christian holds that the Spiritual Truths in the Bible are God's revelation to His earthly children transmitted through human writers by the Holy Spirit.

An atheist relies on his own mind to figure things out as best he/she can and acts upon whatever answer he/she is able to arrive at; a Christian, on the other hand, accepts the Bible as God's "Owner's Manual" written so we can know His Mind and Will and act accordingly.

Based on past experiences, i have unlimited faith in the latter, and absolutely no faith in the former--based upon the track records of both.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

Do geese see god?

(Work it out. )

eudaimonia,

Mark

That's cool!

ephraim

 

[JohnCR]

MY DEAR BROTHER,

i have come to the inescapable conclusion that it requires a great deal more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

That's an interesting conclusion. I would disagree because Christians claim to have specific knowledge on the nature and creation of the universe, while all I'm saying is I don't think there is a God.

Perhaps if believers in God(s) could actually agree with each other, you'd have a point. It reminds me of the people on Deal or No Deal that are always so sure that the million dollars is in their case.

 

[JohnCR]

MY DEAR BROTHER,

A Christian holds that the Spiritual Truths in the Bible are God's revelation to His earthly children transmitted through human writers by the Holy Spirit.

An atheist relies on his own mind to figure things out as best he/she can and acts upon whatever answer he/she is able to arrive at; a Christian, on the other hand, accepts the Bible as God's "Owner's Manual" written so we can know His Mind and Will and act accordingly.

Based on past experiences, i have unlimited faith in the latter, and absolutely no faith in the former--based upon the track records of both.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Friend, that assumes that people accept the Bible as the word of God passed through human writers. We don't all accept that as you can see. Can you prove that the Bible is the word of God? Non-Christians will obviously wonder how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a valid source if you can offer no proof. A Muslim would put just as much faith in the Qur'an, but that doesn't mean you would accept the Qur'an as a reliable source without a reason to.

Track records? What track records? An atheist doesn't just rely on his/her own mind but also on the minds of other people. Granted, they have to have proof before the mind of the atheist will accept the claim. That is what science is all about: discovering the nature of the universe little by little through observations and experiments on material things. If you want compare what science has given us versus what Christianity has given us, then I will put my trust in science's capable hands every time. Science isn't a perfect process, but it has results.

 

[ephraimanesti]

That's an interesting conclusion. I would disagree because Christians claim to have specific knowledge on the nature and creation of the universe, while all I'm saying is I don't think there is a God.

MY BROTHER,

Well, i would disagree also--although not argue the point--with those who "have specific knowledge on the nature and creation of the universe--BEYOND THE FACT THAT GOD CREATED IT. i don't believe that Genesis is meant to be a textbook on HOW God created it or HOW OLD it is. GODDIDIT.

Perhaps if believers in God(s) could actually agree with each other, you'd have a point.

AMEN! Pray for that day, my brother, pray for that day!

The worst part is that the things that are being disagreed upon are, in the main, irrelevant trivial pursuits, the arguing over which accomplishes nothing but the destruction of the Churches' testimony in the eyes of observers such as yourself.

i believe that if the Church spoke with one voice and one witness, there would be not atheists to convert. One voice and one witness converted the Roman Empire in about 300 years. It could do the same today in 300 days--or less.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Riski]

MY BROTHER,

Well, i would disagree also--although not argue the point--with those who "have specific knowledge on the nature and creation of the universe--BEYOND THE FACT THAT GOD CREATED IT. i don't believe that Genesis is meant to be a textbook on HOW God created it or HOW OLD it is. GODDIDIT.


AMEN! Pray for that day, my brother, pray for that day!

The worst part is that the things that are being disagreed upon are, in the main, irrelevant trivial pursuits, the arguing over which accomplishes nothing but the destruction of the Churches' testimony in the eyes of observers such as yourself.

i believe that if the Church spoke with one voice and one witness, there would be not atheists to convert. One voice and one witness converted the Roman Empire in about 300 years. It could do the same today in 300 days--or less.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

I have a quick question for you my brother, why would an average Atheist ever want to convert?
a troubled and depressed Atheist I can understand but an Atheist without problems, never.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Friend, that assumes that people accept the Bible as the word of God passed through human writers. We don't all accept that as you can see. Can you prove that the Bible is the word of God? Non-Christians will obviously wonder how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a valid source if you can offer no proof. A Muslim would put just as much faith in the Qur'an, but that doesn't mean you would accept the Qur'an as a reliable source without a reason to.

MY BROTHER,

The proof of the Bible's authorship and validity is best provided by the witness of the Holy Spirit testifying to the fact that "these things are true."

i have seen many books and heard much discussion on ways of "proving the Bible true"--fulfilled prophecies, archeology, corroborating historical documents, etc., etc., etc. However, it was not until the Spirit spoke that i was convinced beyond any doubt.

Track records? What track records? An atheist doesn't just rely on his/her own mind but also on the minds of other people. Granted, they have to have proof before the mind of the atheist will accept the claim. That is what science is all about: discovering the nature of the universe little by little through observations and experiments on material things. If you want compare what science has given us versus what Christianity has given us, then I will put my trust in science's capable hands every time. Science isn't a perfect process, but it has results.

Perhaps you are forgetting that you live in what's left of a Judeo-Christian culture, and all the social and moral values you (hopefully) espouse are drawn from that source. As Calvin Coolidge put it, "The foundation of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

So the comparing of track records between atheism and Judeo-Christian beliefs leaves no doubt as to which "works"--i.e. which leads to the happiness and fulfillment which most human beings seek for themselves and their children. Perhaps you could simply compare even what's left of our Western Judeo-Christian culture with the best efforts at producing a viable society that atheists--without God or His guidance--have been able to bring forth--Soviet Russia, the Peoples' Republic of China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc. Born and bred in atheism all. Want to live there? i didn't think so.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn probably summed it up best when he said, "If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous [Russian] Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD; THAT'S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.' "

Or, as Solomon put it, "THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO A MAN, BUT IN THE END IT LEADS TO DEATH." (Proverbs 14:12)

ALWAYS!

As far as basing a society on "science" and putting one's trust in "science's capable hands," you reminded me of a quote of Adolf Hitler's where he stated that National Socialism's one ambition must be "to scientifically construct a doctrine that is nothing more than a homage to reason." Yes, making science your "god" does indeed "have results." Are they REALLY what you are looking for?

There is a big difference between seeing human beings as just another evolved animal fighting for survival along the lines of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and seeing them as your brothers and sisters, all being created in the image of their Heavenly Father and each one infinitely valuable and irreplaceable as our Lord Jesus taught and demonstrated.

Thus the varient track records based upon the differing viewpoints.

 

[JohnCR]

MY BROTHER,

Well, i would disagree also--although not argue the point--with those who "have specific knowledge on the nature and creation of the universe--BEYOND THE FACT THAT GOD CREATED IT. i don't believe that Genesis is meant to be a textbook on HOW God created it or HOW OLD it is. GODDIDIT.


AMEN! Pray for that day, my brother, pray for that day!

The worst part is that the things that are being disagreed upon are, in the main, irrelevant trivial pursuits, the arguing over which accomplishes nothing but the destruction of the Churches' testimony in the eyes of observers such as yourself.

i believe that if the Church spoke with one voice and one witness, there would be not atheists to convert. One voice and one witness converted the Roman Empire in about 300 years. It could do the same today in 300 days--or less.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Friend, I don't mean just Christianity. I mean anyone who believes in any kind of God. That means getting Pagans, Hindus, Christians, deists, Buddhists, etc. to agree. Not an easy task.

And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the faith thing. I actually got a little agitated when you said that. I've been fed that line before when Christians were trying to shift the burden of proof for God from themselves to me! I can't just claim something extraordinary and leave it up to you to prove me wrong. Otherwise, I could claim there was an invisible unicorn somewhere in the Amazon rain forest, and if you don't believe me, it's up to you to prove it false.

Anyways, I think it takes less faith to believe a material universe had a material cause. You have faith in the supernatural, which is presumably outside of the material universe. Humanity has yet to establish that there is anything beyond the material, much less God. My beliefs (or lack thereof) do not require me to establish a new plane of existence beyond the material universe.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I have a quick question for you my brother, why would an average Atheist ever want to convert?
a troubled and depressed Atheist I can understand but an Atheist without problems, never.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

An "atheist without a problem" is an oxymoron.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Wicked Willow]

MY DEAR FRIEND,

An "atheist without a problem" is an oxymoron.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

And sentences like this do not smack of hubris to you?

That's quite a high horse you're mounting yourself on, right there.

 

[JohnCR]

MY BROTHER,

The proof of the Bible's authorship and validity is best provided by the witness of the Holy Spirit testifying to the fact that "these things are true."

i have seen many books and heard much discussion on ways of "proving the Bible true"--fulfilled prophecies, archeology, corroborating historical documents, etc., etc., etc. However, it was not until the Spirit spoke that i was convinced beyond any doubt.

Well then, the Holy Spirit isn't doing it's job with me, is it?

Perhaps you are forgetting that you live in what's left of a Judeo-Christian culture, and all the social and moral values you (hopefully) espouse are drawn from that source. As Calvin Coolidge put it, "The foundation of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

So the comparing of track records between atheism and Judeo-Christian beliefs leaves no doubt as to which "works"--i.e. which leads to the happiness and fulfillment which most human beings seek for themselves and their children. Perhaps you could simply compare even what's left of our Western Judeo-Christian culture with the best efforts at producing a viable society that atheists--without God or His guidance--have been able to bring forth--Soviet Russia, the Peoples' Republic of China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc. Born and bred in atheism all. Want to live there? i didn't think so.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn probably summed it up best when he said, "If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous [Russian] Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD; THAT'S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.' "

Or, as Solomon put it, "THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO A MAN, BUT IN THE END IT LEADS TO DEATH." (Proverbs 14:12)

ALWAYS!

I've definitely heard this rant before.

First of all, let's not kid each other. Societies that weren't based on Judeo-Christian values got along just fine both before and after the Bible was written.

If you want an example, consider how Native Americans lived in harmony with nature before European Christians showed up and killed most of them. Do you think the Ancient Greeks didn't have laws and moral codes to guide them? Of course they did. They built societies that were quite revolutionary for the time.

The problem with the Soviet Union and with China today is primarily economic. The Soviets lost the Cold War because they got into an arms race with the United States and couldn't keep up. The U.S. used imperialist policies to profit financially from smaller nations, while the Soviet Union did not enact imperialist policies. Make no mistake; this was a rivalry between capitalism and communism, not Christianity and atheism. China's problem is similar in that the government completely took control of the economy under their socialist policies. Their overall economy is in a bubble, and it could mean financial disaster for the world if it deflates soon. They artificially lower the value of their currency to the dollar so that they have more exports than imports. Factor that in with 1.3 billion citizens, and I'm not surprised that quality of life is lower than the U.S.

I noticed you didn't mention France or Great Britain at all. In fact, a lot of western European countries are over 50% atheist now.

I could go into the cruelty of western Europe during the Dark Ages and the Crusades, but let's be real for a minute and observe that bringing up the success of past societies has no relevance to the accuracy of religion.

As far as basing a society on "science" and putting one's trust in "science's capable hands," you reminded me of a quote of Adolf Hitler's where he stated that National Socialism's one ambition must be "to scientifically construct a doctrine that is nothing more than a homage to reason." Yes, making science your "god" does indeed "have results." Are they REALLY what you are looking for?

There is a big difference between seeing human beings as just another evolved animal fighting for survival along the lines of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and seeing them as your brothers and sisters, all being created in the image of their Heavenly Father and each one infinitely valuable and irreplaceable as our Lord Jesus taught and demonstrated.

Thus the varient track records based upon the differing viewpoints.

For starters, Hitler was Catholic. His rational for war or discrimination against Jews had nothing to do with science. Did I miss the part where science proved that Jews were inferior to the Nazis? They may have claimed this, but I think we should know now that any "science" that backed up their discrimination was bull****.

I do see human beings as another animal. I wouldn't exactly say we are fighting for survival at this point though. There's nothing in the doctrine of Evolution that says you can't feel love for your fellow man. In fact, I would posture that Evolution supported the creation of human societies that work to advance our species. Affection for one another is one way people stay closely connected and work to a mutual advantage. It doesn't sound as romantic as "seeing them as your brothers and sisters, all being created in the image of their Heavenly Father and each one infinitely valuable and irreplaceable," but the truth doesn't have to be nice-sounding.

 

[Greg1234]

We are all blind in the sense that we know very little in relation to the vast universe around us. However, I don't have to see in this dark room to know that you can't see either. I believe the origins of the universe are more complex than the will of a powerful creator. I really don't see how that makes me weak or demonstrates that I have a finite mind.

It's strange the way you guys believe that the inclusion of multiple levels of consciousness, higher dimensions of reality, the projection of mind into a material frequency, the manipulation of energy states, the transmutation of the physical, the perception of thought as real as a solid object, its influence and its practical application, love, patience, all things which we label as "spiritual", things we have not yet grasped, is behind you. The illusion of course, is because it originated at the beginning it is behind you. An illusion supplemented by the manner of man which you believe existed in the distant past.

But origins based on a single dimension is less complex than that based on multiple states. When you go from a square to a cube, it gets more difficult to grasp, more complex, not less. Your ability to be an atheist is because of that source. Your ability to ask for it is because of that source. To overlook, and begin from the center is gap which is already filled by your belief on origin. And every subsequent thought is then molded in accordance to that tenet.

You believe that the mind or consciousness can only be a product of a finite plane. There is a mind which is of this dimension and thusly tied to it. That is the finite mind. The infinite plane, is not immune to consciousness. In fact, mind is a fact of reality as a whole. It is not bound to the finite plane neither are the conditions of same the prerequisite for consciousness to exist. What you see here, or your ability to see and assess, is not yours. It is everywhere, including the eternal state and plane from which the finite emerged. In the infinite, you have what always was, mind being a part and parcel of that state, not a late outgrowth which can only be generated by the conditions of space time.

"Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'

If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'


If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"