True atheists?

[Alive_Again]

<The Christian can smugly attribute the former to God (regardless of whether God really did cause the experience), and the latter to insincerity on the atheists part (regardless of the actual sincerity of the atheist). You define people's sincerity on the success or failure of this ritual, which is absurd

Jesus isn't hanging out outside of your door permanently. In the course of one's life one is confronted with the truth. If you're heart is humble and seeking, He will knock on the door of your heart. It is in response to the preaching of His Word. The Word of His covenant. It's not going to happen while your chanting or doing things He doesn't approve of.

<And who's fault is it if he isn't knocking loud enough?

<We're surrounded by doors, with different people telling us to open their door and only their door, and we're not even convinced that anyone's knocking. Once you convince us that someone's actually knocking on the door, maybe we'll take your claims more seriously. Till then...

It is in response to the preaching of the Word of the covenant. Jesus said that He was the door. If there are other "doors" (people claiming to be doors), that preach another way, God won't confirm that Word. He only confirms His Word.

<Then why does God leave us in a sea of religions, without any indication which one is true - or even if any is true? And why should it matter what religion we pick?

It matters because He's running the show. If He made you, then He's calling the shots. There are many other religions because their are demonic spirits who will go to Hell, and they want to take as many people with them as they can. Their "doctrines of demons" are intended to deceive and lead people away from Christ.

<Is God so petty that we not only have to believe he exists, but we have to believe in precisely the right way?

It's really pretty simple. The truth has been plainly been spelled out in a simple to read book.

<Why should our eternal destiny depend on which country we were born in (because, y'know, you, Alive_Again, wouldn't have been a Christian were you born in a mud hut in the Amazon), rather than our moral worth? Why don't we all get a free ticket to Heaven?

God requires those in Indian or South America to believe the gospel to be saved. It's true in America, it is easy to hear the Word preached. This nation was basically founded on people seeking religious freedom. Obviously others came with different motives (financial), but this was formerly a very different country.

<So worrying about which religion to pick is just a time-waster: either it doesn't matter, so I won't worry about it, or it does matter, in which case I have no idea which religion to pick, so I just don't worry about it.

Jesus said, If anyone wants to do His will, he will know of the doctrine, whether He speaks of HImself or not (paraphrased).

<"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone." - Charles Darwin

That says a lot about Darwin I wasn't aware of.
​

​

 

[Tiberius]

Jesus isn't hanging out outside of your door permanently. In the course of one's life one is confronted with the truth. If you're heart is humble and seeking, He will knock on the door of your heart. It is in response to the preaching of His Word. The Word of His covenant. It's not going to happen while your chanting or doing things He doesn't approve of.

I don't see why an omnipotent god is limited in this manner.

It is in response to the preaching of the Word of the covenant. Jesus said that He was the door. If there are other "doors" (people claiming to be doors), that preach another way, God won't confirm that Word. He only confirms His Word.

in other words, you're just saying that your religion is right and all others are wrong, without providing any reason to actually accept this claim.

It matters because He's running the show. If He made you, then He's calling the shots. There are many other religions because their are demonic spirits who will go to Hell, and they want to take as many people with them as they can. Their "doctrines of demons" are intended to deceive and lead people away from Christ.

Of course, those other religions could say the same about Christianity. What makes your religion so different?

It's really pretty simple. The truth has been plainly been spelled out in a simple to read book.

if it is so plainly spelled out, why are there so many different versions of christianity? Doesn't seem to be very plain to me!

And why does it contradict reality? Besides, doesn't the Bible say that the best place to learn about God is through his works? And doesn't that mean the world and universe around us? Why not, then, study the world around us to learn about all this stuff?

God requires those in Indian or South America to believe the gospel to be saved. It's true in America, it is easy to hear the Word preached. This nation was basically founded on people seeking religious freedom. Obviously others came with different motives (financial), but this was formerly a very different country.

Shame that the people living there had to wait until explorers arrived dragging the Bible with them, isn't it? One would think that a god capable of doing ANYTHING would have ensured that EVERYONE knew about it as soon as possible if it was that important!

Jesus said, If anyone wants to do His will, he will know of the doctrine, whether He speaks of HImself or not (paraphrased).

Huh? A person untouched by the western world will still know about jesus and accept Jesus into his heart? And how does that work?

That says a lot about Darwin I wasn't aware of.

It says that science can only be undertaken when it is free from personal bias.

And learn to use the quote tags please.

 

[Greg1234]

Yup. You're making exactly the "argument" I thought you were making. And since it's neither new nor interesting and you are quite remarkably rude to boot, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Unlike you, I'm fairly polite, so you may have the last word if you want it. I'll probably post a complete syllogism of your argument in a day or so.

Bingo. It's not new. In fact it was given thousands of years ago. God is made known through that manifested. Like radio waves to a voice on the radio, the man is a physical reflection of his non physical nature. Or what the man is as a physical form. Or the representation of the life that is man in the physical. The non physical is what we aptly call God. You do not see radio waves, but its manifestation are what are perceptible. And through its representation in the radio as a voice on the radio, radio waves are known.

The debate over the voice on the radio being a manifestation of radio waves, and it being the result of a cassette recorder is the atheism vs theism debate. The Creationism vs Darwinism debate. Romans 1:20 vs the rejection of Romans 1:20. You went off to say that it is because the bible said so. I told you it as not because "the bible said so" (or not merely because it is said), though it is the basis of faith. I.e, a man studies, how a radio works in a science book.Through that he believes that radio waves are invisible and the voice on the radio is what should be sought as evidence for radio waves. You come and say that the voice on the radio is evidence for radio waves because the "the science book said so". Its not merely because the "science book said so" that a person can reap evidence that the voice on the radio is of non local source.

One, and only one such "reaping" was given as intelligent design. We know you don't accept intelligent design and I'm not about to step down from evidence for what is given, to evidence for evidence for what is given. The latter is not the subject at hand and the former is where the point is being made. That God is known through that created. Where should you look for radio waves, through the voice on the radio. It is one of the reasons why you should not be surprised at the speed and rate a "TE" becomes a materialist. Or the inclination for a "TE" to attack the bible (what is given). The system functions as an integrated whole. Irreducibly complex.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For anyone who has experienced the new birth and the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and the subsequent supernatural joy, peace, and love that is a gift, a not of yourself, all for the price of faith and obedience, it is a gift beyond compare.

Falling in love is also something that is "a gift, a not of yourself", but few people regard this as supernatural. The problem here is that Christians tend to assume that what is happening to them is divine intervention, rather than a natural change of brain function.

Every man should be a seeker.

... and a finder, and a spiritual architect.

You might think to yourself that if there was a supreme being, you'd want to know Him.

Or Her. Or It. Or Them.

God won't throw Himself at you, so being a seeker with a sensitive heart would seem like a good idea, wouldn't it?

As long as one also has a sensitive mind as well. Hearts alone aren't good at sifting truth from fiction.

And the natural godless universe won't throw itself at you. It's an accomplishment to realize what that this is what it is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BrianOnEarth]

You matter because God lives on the inside of me, and He living through me indicates to me that you matter.

That's what I thought.

That's the deception. Every man is accountable. Please don't make that your final answer. At least be a seeker and don't be convinced before the time.

The problem you have is that you are in love with the abstract idea of a god. When we are in love with something we stop seeking other things. Our minds become focussed and closed. You are in love with an idea so you are unwilling to seek alternatives.

I am afraid that your god idea is complete fantasy. You are infatuated with it. And because it is an idea in your head that you entertain for your own pleasure, it is essentially self-centred.

You have a sub-conscious choice what you fall in love with but not a conscious choice. And your sub-conscious shapes your conscious perception to suit its wants.

So I sort of feel sorry for you that you are unable to be objective and see the world for what it is. I am more disturbed by your attitude to human life because you demean it through your prejudice of a grass is greener afterlife and a subservient, toy boy purpose.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Then why does God leave us in a sea of religions, without any indication which one is true - or even if any is true? And why should it matter what religion we pick? Is God so petty that we not only have to believe he exists, but we have to believe in precisely the right way? Why should our eternal destiny depend on which country we were born in (because, y'know, you, Alive_Again, wouldn't have been a Christian were you born in a mud hut in the Amazon), rather than our moral worth? Why don't we all get a free ticket to Heaven?

So many questions, so little time. Like you said, we only get one pass. So worrying about which religion to pick is just a time-waster: either it doesn't matter, so I won't worry about it, or it does matter, in which case I have no idea which religion to pick, so I just don't worry about it.

I wonder if there is a parallel here with falling in love? If we look at religious belief objectively then the obvious question is which one of the hundreds of variations should I choose as none of them are supported by evidence. But I think this is the wrong way to look at it because the theist is not using an objective approach. It would be like arguing to a man that he should not love his partner because how does he know that she/he is the best partner when there are billions of others to choose from and they are all unique. The question of how to choose among so many is not the right question. The subconscious infatuation makes the objective approach redundant.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Jesus isn't hanging out outside of your door permanently. In the course of one's life one is confronted with the truth. If you're heart is humble and seeking, He will knock on the door of your heart. It is in response to the preaching of His Word. The Word of His covenant. It's not going to happen while your chanting or doing things He doesn't approve of.

So the 'free gift' has added caveats?
1) Be 'humble and seeking',
2) Be preached to,
3) Don't chant, and
4) Don't do things he disapproves of.
Anything else? Burn ox flesh to please the Lord?

It is in response to the preaching of the Word of the covenant. Jesus said that He was the door. If there are other "doors" (people claiming to be doors), that preach another way, God won't confirm that Word. He only confirms His Word.

The point is that he doesn't confirm any word. I've prayed in churches and cathedrals, mosques and synagogues, even a Gurudwara, with total sincerity. God did not deign to show himself. If he wants me to worship him, he can ask me himself.

It matters because He's running the show. If He made you, then He's calling the shots. There are many other religions because their are demonic spirits who will go to Hell, and they want to take as many people with them as they can. Their "doctrines of demons" are intended to deceive and lead people away from Christ.

How do you know Christianity isn't just one of these 'demonic' religions, and that God is actually endorsing (say) Sikhism?

It's really pretty simple. The truth has been plainly been spelled out in a simple to read book.

The Bible? The Qu'ran? The Kitab-i-Aqdas? The writings of the Bahaulla? The Vedic texts?

Obviously you're talking about the Bible, conveniently ignoring all the other religious texts that claim to be authored by God for man's use. But that misses two rather large points:

1) The Bible isn't automatically assumed to be The Truth™. From the non-Christian's point of view, simply stating that the Bible is the truth is like shouting at a mountain; it's not going to do a whole lot. Muslims will just counter and say "Nope, the Qu'ran is the truth". Jews will counter with "Nope, the Torah is the truth". Atheists will just shrug and let you all duel it out.
2) My argument was that God is petty. He requires us to believe in him (why?), and he requires us to believe in him in a precise fashion (again, why?). He doesn't judge us according to virtues like compassion and altruism, but according to how we devote our lives to a being who may as well not exist.

God requires those in Indian or South America to believe the gospel to be saved.

Why?

It's true in America, it is easy to hear the Word preached This nation was basically founded on people seeking religious freedom. Obviously others came with different motives (financial), but this was formerly a very different country.

Then things are skewed in your favour. Why should a pre-contact tribe in South America burn in Hell because God has chosen such a daft method of salvation that the tribe will never actually get the chance to convert?

Jesus said, If anyone wants to do His will, he will know of the doctrine, whether He speaks of HImself or not (paraphrased).

So now you don't have to know the Gospel?

<"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."- Charles Darwin

That says a lot about Darwin I wasn't aware of.
​

A misunderstood quote if ever there was one. Darwin was making the point that one's emotions, wishes, affections, etc, shouldn't interfere with one's science. What we want to be true should not cloud what is true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wonder if there is a parallel here with falling in love? If we look at religious belief objectively then the obvious question is which one of the hundreds of variations should I choose as none of them are supported by evidence. But I think this is the wrong way to look at it because the theist is not using an objective approach. It would be like arguing to a man that he should not love his partner because how does he know that she/he is the best partner when there are billions of others to choose from and they are all unique. The question of how to choose among so many is not the right question. The subconscious infatuation makes the objective approach redundant.

But theists make it objection, or, at least, the ones to whom that point is relevant. By saying that you're in a sort of cosmic lottery where your religion determines your eternal destiny - eternal paradise or eternal suffering - finding the Right Religion™ does become objective. With such stakes, we have to treat it as rigorously as possible, lest we burn forever and ever.

Of course, everyone who believes in such an afterlife system conveniently says that they're religion is the Right Religion™ that guarantees salvation. Funny, that.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Well. I think the whole belief in god thing is an abstract, emotional fixation. Any objectivity that is associated with it is a mere garnish. Theists pay lip service to the garnish but I don't think they really care about it. Atheists do care about it because they care about objectivity. Ironically, I suspect the spread of science has created such demands for objectivity as a requirement of credibility that theists have focussed more and more on devising fragmented, largely futile rationalizations of what is essentially irrational.

The objective argument that accuses Christians of being Hindu- (insert alternative religion here) atheists is a complete clincher. There is no way out of this other than for Christians to claim everyone else is wrong. But everyone else is the majority of humans so it would be high arrogance to assume they are wrong and it would be bizarre to assume god only talks to a minority.

We don't even need to consider other breaches of objectivity; and there are loads of them. Religious belief has scant respect for objectivity. It is all about emotional utility. That is the nature of it.

Having said that, I think everything we do is about emotional utility. The big difference is between giving emotional significance to the imaginary as opposed to the real. This is superstition in its benign form but can be neurotic and lead to serious dysfunction. You just have to scan the mental health posts in this forum to see where belief in gods and devils and demons has become a dysfunctional, neurotic or psychotic obsession.

So I think "true atheists", at least in matters of alleged gods, are people who avoid giving emotional significance to imaginary concepts.

My guess is that it is futile to try to influence a theist by pointing out flaws in the garnish. One must first ease the emotional fixation which is a barrier to objectivity. The converse is that to try to persuade an atheist to give emotional significance to the god concept it is first necessary to give them an objective reason, which is futile because there aren't any, or to seduce them into giving emotional significance to an imaginary idea.

 

[Greg1234]

Well. I think the whole belief in god thing is an abstract, emotional fixation. Any objectivity that is associated with it is a mere garnish. Theists pay lip service to the garnish but I don't think they really care about it. Atheists do care about it because they care about objectivity.

The man is created. Without the man there is not a man with emotion. Atheism is not about objectivity either. The adoption of Darwinism and the negation of the objective fact that chance cannot assemble life being two of the most notorious examples. While in theism, this objectivity is simply recognized. There is only the will for materialism.

Ironically, I suspect the spread of science

With the spread of science we have seen the man get even more complex, uncovered the workings of the human system and through science have contested and is refuting Darwinism. With the rise of scientific protocol, we are now recognizing that the atheist can no longer hide behind the speculative barrier as objective reasoning espouses theism.

The objective argument that accuses Christians of being Hindu- (insert alternative religion here) atheists is a complete clincher. There is no way out of this other than for Christians to claim everyone else is wrong. But everyone else is the majority of humans so it would be high arrogance to assume they are wrong and it would be bizarre to assume god only talks to a minority.

Dawkins doctrine. There is only one no matter what name you call it.

We don't even need to consider other breaches of objectivity; and there are loads of them. Religious belief has scant respect for objectivity. It is all about emotional utility. That is the nature of it.

We don't require objectivity for the atheist's claims that the bible writers were ignorant, or for the beliefs warranting their rejection. Or for the idea that one day man will find a materialistic cause for life. The appeal to objectivity to build a foundation in materialism is but an illusion as it searches for something to identify itself with. Because on its own, its nothing more than men saying they cannot see radio waves. Big news.

Having said that, I think everything we do is about emotional utility. The big difference is between giving emotional significance to the imaginary as opposed to the real. This is superstition in its benign form but can be neurotic and lead to serious dysfunction. You just have to scan the mental health posts in this forum to see where belief in gods and devils and demons has become a dysfunctional, neurotic or psychotic obsession.

The belief that it is "superstition" is also yours. The objective evidence for the conditions and intent of the bible writers developing outside the conditions as depicted and within those you put them in, amounts to nil. Also for there to be people with psychological functions, there are first created people.

So I think "true atheists", at least in matters of alleged gods, are people who avoid giving emotional significance to imaginary concepts.

There is first the belief that the voice on the radio as manifested do not stem from radio waves. Then there is the belief that radio waves are imaginary. Then there is the Darwinist saying "imagine a scenario where...".

My guess is that it is futile to try to influence a theist by pointing out flaws in the garnish.

You must first realize where to point.

One must first ease the emotional fixation which is a barrier to objectivity.

Objectivity is embodied and carried. Emotion a result of that objectivity.

The converse is that to try to persuade an atheist to give emotional significance to the god concept it is first necessary to give them an objective reason, which is futile because there aren't any, or to seduce them into giving emotional significance to an imaginary idea.

The atheist has his own beliefs and state. His persuasion is not a priority, His permission not required. His pamphlets are merely rejected. His ideas easily substituted with the objective fact of the man. The "imaginary" line as significant as the paralleling of that same appeal with the conditions of a "radiowavist". The ability to have emotion, evidence.

 

[Gishin]

You begged the question 4 times in your first paragraph. I'm not reading anymore.

 

[Alive_Again]

<The problem you have is that you are in love with the abstract idea of a god. When we are in love with something we stop seeking other things. Our minds become focussed and closed. You are in love with an idea so you are unwilling to seek alternatives.

Eternal life is to know God. That's what He promised in His covenant. His life overshadows and fills everything. We often turn to other things which don't satisfy, only to return to life.

<I am afraid that your god idea is complete fantasy. You are infatuated with it. And because it is an idea in your head that you entertain for your own pleasure, it is essentially self-centred.

Christian love means to put others first. Although there is fulfillment in loving others from a worldly perspective, obeying God and letting Him live through you is more fulfilling than anything else you could possible pursue. It's no fantasy. It's a sacrifice, and it must be deliberate. It's every day real. It has the potential of touching everyone you meet. Only the cold hearted aren't touched by it.

<And your sub-conscious shapes your conscious perception to suit its wants.

I lived according to my own wants for a long time. It did not satisfy. When we finally come to the end of ourselves, we look past EVERYTHING else to the Lord who fills us with His presence. It's satisfying. It's why people are willing to forsake everything to follow.

<So I sort of feel sorry for you that you are unable to be objective and see the world for what it is.

I see what it is. It's cold, corrupt and cursed. It's overrun by demons who deceive people into doing things they'll be accountable for when they die. What they do also affects their life now, as they come under curses.

<I am more disturbed by your attitude to human life because you demean it through your prejudice of a grass is greener afterlife and a subservient, toy boy purpose.

I guess if this is all there is to you, then it would seem that way. The servanthood mentality brings freedom, because He lives through you. It's an easy trade to have an abundant life that is not of yourself. That's why you have a testimony. Everyone who knows you knows it's not you.

 

[Tiberius]

Alive Again, two things...

First, I'd like it if you could reply to my post HERE.

Second, please use quote tags! it makes it much easier to see who you are quoting, and also which parts are yours.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

The man is created. Without the man there is not a man with emotion. Atheism is not about objectivity either. The adoption of Darwinism and the negation of the objective fact that chance cannot assemble life being two of the most notorious examples. While in theism, this objectivity is simply recognized. There is only the will for materialism.

What do you mean by Darwinism and what do you mean by "chance cannot assemble life"?
I think you have got some fundamental error in your understanding of evolution.
If you believe that a god created reality then why are you in denial of reality? Nature tells us that we evolved. There is a DNA history and a species family tree.
Doesn't it bother you to hold the position that your god created a deliberate deception?
Of course not...you simply cannot accept that your god would be deceitful because that is not a characteristic of "the ultimate being". So what do you do to deal with this dichotomy? You compromise your objectivity - you deny the facts of nature and/or deliberately misunderstand them. Like I say, this is your emotional fixation overriding your cognition.

With the spread of science we have seen the man get even more complex, uncovered the workings of the human system and through science have contested and is refuting Darwinism. With the rise of scientific protocol, we are now recognizing that the atheist can no longer hide behind the speculative barrier as objective reasoning espouses theism.

I have no idea what leads you to say science increasingly refutes Darwinism. What do you mean by Darwinism? Darwin did his work 151 years ago. Since then a lot more is known including discovery of DNA, but although some details have been corrected, the basic process has been verified rather than refuted. An easy to digest update can be had by reading Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth.

We don't require objectivity for the atheist's claims that the bible writers were ignorant, or for the beliefs warranting their rejection. Or for the idea that one day man will find a materialistic cause for life. The appeal to objectivity to build a foundation in materialism is but an illusion as it searches for something to identify itself with. Because on its own, its nothing more than men saying they cannot see radio waves. Big news.

I think it basically comes down to where you start from. You either start from objective reality and seek more of it or you start from imagination and pay lip service to reality. You appear to be doing the latter. Normally, I am sure you would never advocate this because it is so obviously prone to mistakes. However, in the case of the god concept you suspend your common sense because it has such strong emotional appeal.

The belief that it is "superstition" is also yours. The objective evidence for the conditions and intent of the bible writers developing outside the conditions as depicted and within those you put them in, amounts to nil.

I am not sure what you mean by superposition. The one thing we do know is that there is no evidence and no objective requirement that a god had any participation in the writing of the bible. The bible was authored and edited by various men a long, long time ago when eduction and knowledge of the world was a mere thimbleful compared with today. And there were very strong social and political reasons influencing them.

Also for there to be people with psychological functions, there are first created people.

There have to be people, not there have to be "created" people. If by "created" you mean made as people by design. If you understood evolution and were not emotionally opposed to it you would accept that people are at the end of a very long tree branch of ancestry.

There is first the belief that the voice on the radio as manifested do not stem from radio waves. Then there is the belief that radio waves are imaginary. Then there is the Darwinist saying "imagine a scenario where...".

The radio analogy was not mine but I think what's wrong is that you are comparing a real thing with an imaginary thing. The voice on the radio is real and can be measured objectively by others and by machines. The voice of a god, by contrast, is individually perceived and cannot be measured objectively (yet). However, the science of psychology, which includes neuroscience, has objective data about how our perceptions work and how we can subconsciously generate perceptions that seem consciously real. It is an individual experience.

Objectivity is embodied and carried. Emotion a result of that objectivity.

I don't understand.

The atheist has his own beliefs and state. His persuasion is not a priority, His permission not required. His pamphlets are merely rejected. His ideas easily substituted with the objective fact of the man. The "imaginary" line as significant as the paralleling of that same appeal with the conditions of a "radiowavist". The ability to have emotion, evidence.

I don't understand. However, your last sentence rings a loud deja vu bell. The hypothesis that man's ability to have emotion is proof of the divine. Well, modern psychology refutes that. Of course, from our own individual perspectives, our emotions are of ultimate importance - they matter to us more than anything objectively perceived. And our emotional brain is separated from our cognitive brain and our primitive brain so it is no surprise that our conscious perception can become confused and conflicted sometimes. Ironically, if we had been intelligently designed I don't think we would be able to believe in a god!

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Eternal life is to know God. That's what He promised in His covenant. His life overshadows and fills everything. We often turn to other things which don't satisfy, only to return to life.

Paraphrasing: Your perception of eternal life is to know your god. That is what was promised in a 2000 year old book authored by humans. Your emotional fixation is more emotionally satisfying to you than anything else.

Christian love means to put others first.

No. It is to put God first.
This is a very, very important point.

Although there is fulfillment in loving others from a worldly perspective, obeying God and letting Him live through you is more fulfilling than anything else you could possible pursue. It's no fantasy. It's a sacrifice, and it must be deliberate. It's every day real. It has the potential of touching everyone you meet. Only the cold hearted aren't touched by it.

This is your personal perceptual experience.

I lived according to my own wants for a long time. It did not satisfy. When we finally come to the end of ourselves, we look past EVERYTHING else to the Lord who fills us with His presence. It's satisfying. It's why people are willing to forsake everything to follow.

I have news for you, you still are living according to your own wants. You have simply erected a god to focus your wants on. What worries me is what you are willing to foresake in order to feed your want.

I see what it is. It's cold, corrupt and cursed. It's overrun by demons who deceive people into doing things they'll be accountable for when they die. What they do also affects their life now, as they come under curses.

I see reality quite differently. There are no demons. Imagine being like me where you are free of such neurotic notions. Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?

I guess if this is all there is to you, then it would seem that way. The servanthood mentality brings freedom, because He lives through you. It's an easy trade to have an abundant life that is not of yourself. That's why you have a testimony. Everyone who knows you knows it's not you.

I think we have a natural instinct to be loving and altruistic towards other people. This is a real way to gain emotional satisfaction. I find it very odd that some people seem to have corrupted this and instead focus on an abstract, idealisation of a person. The quip that Christian's are married to Jesus is probably quite close to the truth. What worries me is that if a person is married to an imaginary, idealized person, what emotional bandwidth have they got left to apply to real people? And if there is a conflict where do the priorities lie - not with real people!

The fact that many religious people will prioritize the alleged needs of an imaginary entity over the real needs of real people is a serious concern.

This goes beyond a concern when it results, as it always does, in divisiveness and regularly in pointless conflict, suffering and death of real people.

 

[Greg1234]

What do you mean by Darwinism and what do you mean by "chance cannot assemble life"?
I think you have got some fundamental error in your understanding of evolution.
If you believe that a god created reality then why are you in denial of reality? Nature tells us that we evolved. There is a DNA history and a species family tree.
Doesn't it bother you to hold the position that your god created a deliberate deception?
Of course not...you simply cannot accept that your god would be deceitful because that is not a characteristic of "the ultimate being". So what do you do to deal with this dichotomy? You compromise your objectivity - you deny the facts of nature and/or deliberately misunderstand them. Like I say, this is your emotional fixation overriding your cognition.

Like I said, there is no deception. Only the facts.

I think it basically comes down to where you start from. You either start from objective reality and seek more of it or you start from imagination and pay lip service to reality.

As much as radio waves are from the imagination because their assessment starts with the voice on the radio.

You appear to be doing the latter. Normally, I am sure you would never advocate this because it is so obviously prone to mistakes. However, in the case of the god concept you suspend your common sense because it has such strong emotional appeal.

The ability for a man to have emotion is because there is the created man.

I am not sure what you mean by superposition.

Not sure by what I mean by what was never said either. But this does serve as a primer for a premeditated recital.

The one thing we do know is that there is no evidence and no objective requirement that a god had any participation in the writing of the bible. The bible was authored and edited by various men a long, long time ago when eduction and knowledge of the world was a mere thimbleful compared with today. And there were very strong social and political reasons influencing them.

What we do know is you have no objective evidence that the conditions of the bible writers as they are depicted should be rejected. Your appeal to the conditions of the day, notwithstanding.

There have to be people, not there have to be "created" people. If by "created" you mean made as people by design. If you understood evolution and were not emotionally opposed to it you would accept that people are at the end of a very long tree branch of ancestry.

The ability for one to be "emotionally opposed" to evolution is because there is the created man And as a result of such, he can have emotion.

The radio analogy was not mine but I think what's wrong is that you are comparing a real thing with an imaginary thing.

The radio waves are compared as they are under the same conditions. The assertion is as relevant as saying radio waves are imaginary because you cannot see them.

The voice on the radio is real and can be measured objectively by others and by machines. The voice of a god, by contrast, is individually perceived and cannot be measured objectively (yet).

There was the desire to talk about the "voice of God". In the meantime, the voice on the radio is mapped with the man. Both are perceptible.

However, the science of psychology, which includes neuroscience, has objective data about how our perceptions work and how we can subconsciously generate perceptions that seem consciously real. It is an individual experience.

The man is objective. The voice on the radio, to which man is mapped, is objective. The radio waves are not. The conditions which will arise should the voice on the radio be a result of radio waves are fulfilled.

I don't understand.

Man. Objective. Created
Man with emotion. Man needed.

I don't understand. However, your last sentence rings a loud deja vu bell. The hypothesis that man's ability to have emotion is proof of the divine.

You had the desire to talk about the basis of emotion. In the meantime though, the ability to have emotions is because man is created.

Well, modern psychology refutes that. Of course, from our own individual perspectives, our emotions are of ultimate importance - they matter to us more than anything objectively perceived. And our emotional brain is separated from our cognitive brain and our primitive brain so it is no surprise that our conscious perception can become confused and conflicted sometimes. Ironically, if we had been intelligently designed I don't think we would be able to believe in a god!

The ability to have emotions does not "confuse and conflict sometimes" the perceiving of the man. Or any other occurrence associated with, and as a result of, such an origin, decent and completeness.The material mind is not a problem, its impact and role mapped. And the ability of the man to continue his expression of will to believe or not believe in radio waves is because he was created.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Greg, I think I understand your replies. One of us has changed for the better.

Like I said, there is no deception. Only the facts.

I would like to focus on this.

I don't understand what facts lead you to conclude that man was created by a god as opposed to being evolved from energized dirt.

I quite understand how absurd it seems that evolution is feasible. It is a mind-boggling notion - the idea that I with all my abilities and emotions could be the result of natural processes, without an overseeing deliberateness. Emotionally, for me, it is hard to accept.
However, my intuitive judgement is not a reliable way to judge facts. No one's is. This has been proven again and again over history and is the reason the scientific method was developed - so that our individual bias would be removed from our judgement about facts. The fact that evolution is so emotionally difficult to accept and, in the past has been politically unacceptable, is what makes Darwin's work so brave. Darwin had the courage and discipline to look at nature and record it accurately. And what he found was alarming to society and especially to religions, and consequently highly threatening to his own social standing, his marriage and his life. What he found was man was not specially created. Man was a descendent from other animals. And today, we see absolute proof of this in the DNA record.

What facts do you have that convince you that the facts of evolution are not facts?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism is not about objectivity either. The adoption of Darwinism and the negation of the objective fact that chance cannot assemble life being two of the most notorious examples.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution theory, but both are particularly noteworthy examples of objectivity.

With the spread of science we have seen the man get even more complex

"the man"? A native English speaker wouldn't say this. What is your first language?

uncovered the workings of the human system and through science have contested and is refuting Darwinism. With the rise of scientific protocol, we are now recognizing that the atheist can no longer hide behind the speculative barrier as objective reasoning espouses theism.

Evolution theory is stronger and better supported than ever. It is only in your dreams that science is opposed to evolution theory.

We don't require objectivity for the atheist's claims that the bible writers were ignorant, or for the beliefs warranting their rejection. Or for the idea that one day man will find a materialistic cause for life. The appeal to objectivity to build a foundation in materialism is but an illusion as it searches for something to identify itself with. Because on its own, its nothing more than men saying they cannot see radio waves. Big news.

No, it is nothing like that. This is a terrible analogy. We see the CD player in the desk, and that it is plugged in to what you have mistakenly called "the radio". You refuse to look at the CD player, and insist that "ghosts" are making the voices we hear on "the radio".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

No, it is nothing like that. This is a terrible analogy. We see the CD player in the desk, and that it is plugged in to what you have mistakenly called "the radio".

Radio waves are a more apt comparison as with the inclusion of specific properties, it is not arbitrarily that the analogy is made. The radio is mapped across with the physical. A plugged in CD player would be a non local source for the voice on the radio which also proves the point. The little cassette recorder, little men, big men inside the radio is materialism. Voices not coming from the radio is not the recognition of the radio and is irrelevant as the radio is present.

"The debate over the voice on the radio being a manifestation of radio waves, and it being the result of a cassette recorder is the atheism vs theism debate. The Creationism vs Darwinism debate. Romans 1:20 vs the rejection of Romans 1:20."


​

You refuse to look at the CD player,

"The application of scientific knowledge (leprachology) will enable a man to identify the various components involved, their relation to the nature of radio waves, conduct tests and experiment with conditions to be fulfilled based on the nature of this frequency, diagnose phenomena involved and see that it is through the application of radio waves, the voice on the radio is manifested."

​

You meant I refuse to look at the radio. The CD player would not be seen. Could be used, but not adequate.

and insist that "ghosts" are making the voices we hear on "the radio".


eudaimonia,


Mark

"Radio waves" makes the "voices" we hear on the "radio".

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Here's my first draft of what Greg is claiming. I will refine it.

P1. The Bible is a true and accurate document.

P2. Science has proved that evolution cannot produce Man.

P3. Either evolution or God produced Man.

P4. God is invisible, and cannot be seen except through his works, one of which is Man.

P5. Man exists.

C1. Therefore God must exist.

Strip away all the goo, dribble, random meanderings, insults, fake rhetoric, and nonsensical asides (including ad hominems), and that's what you've got. Not much content for all that verbiage.