Post: #426

(06-09-2016 01:17 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  A supernatural creation solution still leaves you with the problem of who/what created the supernatural deity in the first place.

Not at all. By even the dictionary definition, a super-natural being is a force beyond scientific understanding or beyond the laws of nature. By what rule must an omnipotent, omniscient being be confined to causality?

Quote:Occam's razor says ditch the deity.

William of Ockham says only that causes should not be multiplied without necessity.

And Ockham's Razor is not exactly a law of nature. Per Wikipedia, it is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Ockham's Razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence. That is, scientific theories, which the existence of God is not, being unfalsifiable. Philosophers and mathematicians from Leibnitz to Kant have produced any number of counter-arguments to the Razor, but Kant's response is the most succinct: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."

Interesting factoid about Galileo Galilei, a popular corpse atheists like to wave about in example of religion's intransigence: in the Dialogue that got him into shit with the Papacy, Galileo mocked the misuse of Ockham's Razor. Per Wikipedia, the principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio (Simplicio being the figure Galileo wrote as a parody of Urban VIII). The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if one really wanted to start from a small number of entities, one could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since one could construct the whole of human knowledge out of them.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #427

(06-09-2016 01:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 10:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Anyway, you must have doubts sometimes like spectrumwalker. How then can you call yourself a believer?

Glad you asked. Let's talk about the meaning of the word believe. I know you have a big problem with defining words properly, so bear with me.

Karen Armstrong's studies tell us that “faith” has its etymological roots in the Greek pistis, “trust; commitment; loyalty; engagement.” Jerome translated pistis into the Latin fides (“loyalty”) and credo (which was from cor do, “I give my heart”). The translators of the first King James Bible translated credo into the English “belief,” which came from the Middle English bileven (“to prize; to value; to hold dear”). Faith in God, therefore, was a trust in and loyal commitment to God. Belief in Christ was an engaged commitment to the call and ministry of Jesus; it was a commitment to do the gospel, to be a follower of Christ. In neither case were “belief” or “faith” a matter of intellectual assent, at least as originally translated. As others have already said -- belief is about action, not intellectual assent.

It's looks like you are trying to say that to be a Christian is not about 'belief' but about action. But that is not what I, and I believe most others, understand it to be. I looked it up on wiki to be sure and found this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%2...anslations

Every statement starts with the words "I believe...".

Nice try, but clearly doing every 'action' that a Christian does is not getting me into Heaven unless "I believe..".

(06-09-2016 01:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I don't have any doubts about the existence of God. Such doubts as I have relate to His form, and are ultimately how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions, since God itself is a transcendent concept, i.e. that which is omniscient and omnipotent is by definition not going to be completely or perhaps even substantially comprehensible to a human being.

I meant do you have doubts about your religion, not about some ill-defined and generic idea of 'God', which could mean anything. It doesn't matter anyway, because nothing is stopping you from being dishonest here if you wanted to be. I know most believers do doubt from my own experiences so my point is that one who doubts cannot be a believer, and they are only lying to themselves. I am not saying they are not Christians (clearly the religion only wants people to submit to it) but they cannot literally call themselves believers if they doubt. 'Followers' would be a more accurate term.

To clarify, my point is that believers should be honest to themselves if they have doubts and not say they believe. It doesn't make sense and is not correct.

(06-09-2016 01:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Once you start getting your head around the fact that logic, reason, and the laws of physics cannot apply to a being that by definition surpasses them, and start developing some humility against the infinite variety and complexity of human existence, these issues become much simpler to resolve. Unless of course you have sufficient arrogance to think that after a mere six thousand years or so of human civilisation (itself a blip on humanity's own existence as distinct from the apes, one might add) that humanity has worked out the rules and meaning of existence.

Do you not see it is you who is arrogant? It is absurd that you would take a position against (of all things, and on this forum) logic, reason and the laws of physics to try and justify your personal world-view.

You're essentially saying let's disregard all human experience and knowledge accumulated over thousands of years, because we cannot know everything anyway. And now, because we know nothing, lets accept everything in this book here. Nice try again, dont think anyones falling for that old trick though. Anything written in a book, any book, needs to confirm to our experiences of the world around us, not the other way round. Otherwise how do you know Christianity is right and not Islam, ofcourse you need something objective by which to evaluate both theories. To demand, and expect, the physical world to confirm to your beliefs is the height of arrogance.

Also, there are no "issues to resolve". You think you have the answer, but there is no question being asked. The concept of "meaning" is not something that is applied to life. Life is Life. Lets go to the dictionary

Quote:Meaning:

what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.

Clearly life is not a "word", "text", "concept" or "action" nor does life intend to communicate anything.

Religious people created these concepts to justify the existence of their religion. An answer is no good if no one asks the question. So religious people start talking about "the meaning of life" and quasi-intellectuals join in because they dont know any better. See Occam's Razor

The idea of meaning cannot be applied to life, nor to a football match, for instance. When you're playing football, you just play. You dont stop during the game and start asking your teammates "Why are we here?" "What is the meaning of this game?" "What happens when the game is over?".

Post: #428

Come on Paracelsus, you are getting too quarrelsome. Ockham's Razor has to be taken on faith.

Post: #429

(06-09-2016 07:31 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Not at all. By even the dictionary definition, a super-natural being is a force beyond scientific understanding or beyond the laws of nature. By what rule must an omnipotent, omniscient being be confined to causality?

It's not even that. God is a necessary being, one who logically cannot fail to exist. Asking "what created God?" misses the definition of God.

Quote:William of Ockham says only that causes should not be multiplied without necessity.

And Ockham's Razor is not exactly a law of nature. Per Wikipedia, it is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Ockham's Razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence. That is, scientific theories, which the existence of God is not, being unfalsifiable. Philosophers and mathematicians from Leibnitz to Kant have produced any number of counter-arguments to the Razor, but Kant's response is the most succinct: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."

Ockham's razor is notoriously problematic, but the other issue is that it's not an argument against monotheism at all. It's an argument against polytheism.

Quote:Interesting factoid about Galileo Galilei, a popular corpse atheists like to wave about in example of religion's intransigence: in the Dialogue that got him into shit with the Papacy, Galileo mocked the misuse of Ockham's Razor. Per Wikipedia, the principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio (Simplicio being the figure Galileo wrote as a parody of Urban VIII). The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if one really wanted to start from a small number of entities, one could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since one could construct the whole of human knowledge out of them.

The Galileo affair is poorly understood by the huge majority of people. Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail and John Hedley Brooke's Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives both dismantle the Galileo myth.

Post: #430

(06-08-2016 09:37 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  How can a deity DEMAND you believe in an alternate reality (afterlife) when we cannot even perceive it?

You engineer creatures to be rational to survive, then demand they suddenly believe in physical impossibilities, otherwise they suffer for eternity?

Why else would God have to blatantly come and 'tell Moses' all that shit? Because as a man, Moses had no way of knowing. Or the alleged Fatima apparitions, etc...

I don't recall being in limbo before conception, so why would death be any different?

Again, Disco, and others reading this, there are [at least] two necessary that reinforce one another:

BELIEF and
RIGHT UNDERSTANDING

You can't have understanding without some belief that there is purpose in the world (this is naturally in us, we use the same way of thinking to show ourselves that we can understand the world through the scientific method).

Similarly, you can't have belief that is profitable without right understanding. This is self explanatory; there are all sorts of retarded beliefs and belief systems out there.

Yes, seeking the truth can be difficult, but it is the most important thing in life.

Disco, pay attention, God desires that you know what TRUTH and LIFE are, that is, what TRUE LIFE is. There is no demand, as you say. You are called to life, not death and corruption, which is what the world knows and sees, and what animals, unable to choose between good and evil, also experience --- making us indistinguishable to them if we don't understand what it is about LIFE that is so important.

Post: #431

(06-09-2016 12:28 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  The idea of meaning cannot be applied to life, nor to a football match, for instance. When you're playing football, you just play. You dont stop during the game and start asking your teammates "Why are we here?" "What is the meaning of this game?" "What happens when the game is over?".

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes you do.
3. We ask that question all the time, and we answer it.
4. We go on to the next game.

Post: #432

(06-09-2016 03:38 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 12:28 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  The idea of meaning cannot be applied to life, nor to a football match, for instance. When you're playing football, you just play. You dont stop during the game and start asking your teammates "Why are we here?" "What is the meaning of this game?" "What happens when the game is over?".

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes you do.
3. We ask that question all the time, and we answer it.
4. We go on to the next game.

1. No it cant. We can go back and forth on this unless you wanna elaborate and actually make a case for your position.
2.3.4 No. No manager, no fans and no teammates would play with someone who stops in the middle of the game and starts asking those questions. The best sportsman, during the game is only a sportsman, he is not a family man, he has no hobbies, no other interests, he is nothing but a sportsman trying to win the game. This is expected of performers. To think about other things is to disrespect the game. The same holds for life.

Post: #433

You're being totally literal. We don't go through life with that kind of focused flow (or lack thereof, those would be animals) ALL THE TIME. As such, in football, we wait til the end to analyze. In life (halftime, if you will) we stop intermittently, and analyze, regroup, adjust, etc. It's weird that you are being literal about this; I'm sure you understand.

Post: #434

(06-09-2016 12:28 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  It's looks like you are trying to say that to be a Christian is not about 'belief' but about action.

The original meaning of the word 'believe' was not intellectual assent. It was far more to do with commitment.

Quote:But that is not what I, and I believe most others, understand it to be.

For someone supposedly committed to logic and reason you have a poor understanding of logical fallacies -- in this case, argumentum ad populum. It's a womanly rhetorical tactic.

Quote:Nice try, but clearly doing every 'action' that a Christian does is not getting me into Heaven unless "I believe..".

It's actually the reverse, as the Bible makes pretty clear: you can mouth belief in God all you like, but unless it's backed with action, it's not going to get you anywhere.

Quote:I meant do you have doubts about your religion,

Good heavens, darling boy. Of course you can doubt aspects of one's religion, as I do. Religions are human interpretations of divine will, not the word of God in themselves. Every thoughtful religion understands that it's a spiritual discipline above all. It doesn't make them wrong.

After all, science is by definition a thought system of continual doubt. All theories are, by definition, always up for grabs. They are never objective inerrant truths of nature.

Quote:not about some ill-defined and generic idea of 'God', which could mean anything.

It's amusing to see you complain about ill-definition when you've repeatedly allowed this debate to fall into Category Error. Particularly so given your handy resort to dictionary definitions about "meaning" below. Why don't you have sufficient guts to try and similarly define God?

Quote:It doesn't matter anyway, because nothing is stopping you from being dishonest here if you wanted to be. I know most believers do doubt from my own experiences so my point is that one who doubts cannot be a believer, and they are only lying to themselves. I am not saying they are not Christians (clearly the religion only wants people to submit to it) but they cannot literally call themselves believers if they doubt. 'Followers' would be a more accurate term.

Self-serving and circular, dear, but keep on asserting that if it makes you feel better. Although by the way, it's your parent religion, Islam, that means "submission", not Christianity.

To clarify, my point is that believers should be honest to themselves if they have doubts and not say they believe. It doesn't make sense and is not correct.

Quote:Do you not see it is you who is arrogant? It is absurd that you would take a position against (of all things, and on this forum) logic, reason and the laws of physics to try and justify your personal world-view.

Not really. Answer the question I've been putting to you repeatedly throughout this thread and to which you have replied with circular logic: by what rule of science, or logic, must an omnipotent, omniscient deity conform to human logic, human reason, or laws of physics?

Quote:You're essentially saying let's disregard all human experience and knowledge accumulated over thousands of years, because we cannot know everything anyway.

I am saying all human experience and knowledge, including spiritual knowledge, is a pretty small and paltry sum, that human beings shouldn't be quite so self-congratulatory for completing a postage-stamp-sized square of a twenty-foot-wide jigsaw puzzle -- or asserting they know what the entire picture looks like.

Even quantum physics necessarily implies as human beings we cannot know everything: the deterministic universe theory fell away the moment we realised we can know a particle's velocity or its position, but never both at the same time.

Quote:Anything written in a book, any book, needs to confirm to our experiences of the world around us, not the other way round. Otherwise how do you know Christianity is right and not Islam, ofcourse you need something objective by which to evaluate both theories. To demand, and expect, the physical world to confirm to your beliefs is the height of arrogance.

Where did I say I expect the physical world to conform to my religious beliefs? Where does any Christian say that except for Literal Genesis Creationists, who have the same relation to religion as Flat Earthers do to science?

Quote:Clearly life is not a "word", "text", "concept" or "action" nor does life intend to communicate anything.

Religious people created these concepts to justify the existence of their religion. An answer is no good if no one asks the question. So religious people start talking about "the meaning of life" and quasi-intellectuals join in because they dont know any better. See Occam's Razor

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/

Start your reading here, dear. I didn't realise you thought of Aristotle, famously executed for his atheos, as religious or as a quasi-intellectual.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #435

(06-09-2016 01:14 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Reading that and the rest of your post convinces me you don't really understand the thought experiment.

Let me try again:

If you were born 40,000 years ago in a desert in Australia, you would worship pagan gods. With all the faith, fervor and passion that you currently worship whatever god you do now. Undeniable fact.

You would think you were right, and everyone else was wrong.

Multiply this by all the times, places and gods in the Earth's history (and whatever nameless gods are invented and worshipped by aliens on countless planets in the universe:-)

Even statistically, the odds you have selected (or been brainwashed into) the right god are very very low.

But you must understand how the whole thing looks to an Atheist.

People having faith based on what is essentially a random event in time and place.

Please explain to me in as few a words as possible how your rational mind overcomes this problem. I am really interested. No one has ever given me a good answer to this.

When I was an atheist myself I also thought this was a devastating, unanswerable critique. And it seems so on the surface. But with deeper theological understanding it falls apart, and even becomes laughable. Why? Essentially, you're failing to appreciate the majesty, power and sovereignty of an omnipotent god. If there is such a god, a god who created the entire physical universe ex nihilo, then his power and authority over his creation is total and complete. He is entitled to administer his creation in whatever manner he sees fit. Any human notions of "fairness" or "logic" are completely out the window. It's the equivalent of you asking a termite in a rotting tree a hundred miles south of your house whether or not you should marry the girl you're dating. Relatively, that's your position to an omnipotent creator god. You exclaim to God, "That's not fair!" as if your human notions of "fairness", cobbled together over the course of a couple decades of relatively easy twenty-first century living have some cosmic significance or weight. You are not in a position to dictate to God what is and is not fair. Your entire existence, indeed your ability to even entertain the concept of "fairness" in the first place, is entirely and exclusively due to the pleasure and will of God. Your concept of God is too small. Think bigger.

To be more particular, in regards to people, "having faith based on what is essentially a random event in time and place." The answer is: it only seems random from your perspective. But it is not random. Again, you fail to appreciate the absolute power of an omnipotent God. Everything was known and planned from the beginning. If you think about the sum of reality as being a sort of simulation designed by God for his own purpose then you start to apprehend the situation. In short, there are no accidents of this sort, and hypotheticals about me or you being born at a different time and thus having different beliefs are useless: it is impossible that we should have been born at a different time and place, because in that case we would not be us, anymore than if we had been born women, or of a different race. We are who we are, here and now, and that is not by chance. All of us were foreknown and predestined by God for a purpose. Ours happens to be at this exact place and time. Every man who lived before across the world had his own purpose as well. The majesty of God is such that his purposes for men span millennia and extend across the entire globe, even to the most remote inhabited areas. His purposes may seem inscrutable to us, but that is not surprising: the finite cannot hope to grasp the infinite. God's ways are not our ways.

This is what is properly understood by the phrase "the fear of God": a recognition of your utter helplessness in face of the infinite. A realization that your human understanding - no matter how great - is like a speck of dust measured against a mountain when compared to God's. It is, more than anything else, a chronic dose of intellectual humility. This is why the Bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Post: #436

I don't know who's trolling who in this thread.

Post: #437

I believe there's a higher power. Do I believe it's the Christian god? Probably not (even though it's interesting to read up on demonology and see how much of it I believe).

Christianity, however, built Western civilization, and the Bible is one of the greatest books ever written. It's all a very effective and organized mythology to center your life around, and we need that to keep most people in line. So I'm more pro-Christianity than a believer.

Post: #438

Just something to think about though, Stugatz: You can't be pro-christianity if you don't live it out, it is not an intellectual pursuit or a mental assent (regardless of what heretical protestants teach). It is not "of this world" so if you look at it that way, it won't even last, and your lip service to it as a mode of living/social construct, eventually decaying like all the rest, is evident by the fact that many didn't take it seriously (that is, for what it was) and thus it has declined and is being even persecuted in the west in the face of barbarism of more primitive religions (islam) --- the ultimate irony.

Any "religion" is destined to fail, because religions are man-made. Christianity is revelation, and it is personal, because God is personal.

The soft, affluent westerner who has forgotten what it takes to survive with prosperity and give thanks for it is now seeing what happens when you forget and distance yourself from the source of goodness, in exchange for material comforts and vain pursuits.

I would never focus on particular aspects of IC XC to create disequilibrium, but I've found that it is an easy trap to forget that Jesus stood for very important things, corrected and/or reprimanded others, and called evil for what it was. It wasn't this soft, nice guy (all the time) that a lot of people want to suggest. Remember, he came first to save (and be our example, show us what God is), but he will come again to judge. We could do neither, so our purpose is to follow and be obedient --- and if not (the most important part), continually try to change after failing. I find it interesting that so many people have a hard time admitting that we are broken and need healing ... yet rebel over and over instead of admitting that brokenness needs help and requires our cooperation in order to heal ourselves.

Post: #439

(06-08-2016 09:29 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  How can you actually believe something if you have doubt? Can you say you're sure of it if you have doubt?

In light of what is being discussed it is not wrong to doubt. We're not talking about believing in ones ability to run a race in a certain amount of time. We're dealing with the most profound questions any man has about his existence and why he's here, who he is, and where he's going. It's that seemingly unfullfillable longing that has driven man since the beginning. Conveniently the Bible has the answers. Whether or not you like those answers it's up to the individual to decide. The only answer comes in death. Until then, it's faith. Trust. "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"There hath no temptation taken you but such is common to man". (1 Cor. 1:13). Doubt is something that is "common to man". Jeremiah wanted to quit preaching. Job and Gideon doubted God. Abraham and Sarah laughed. John the Baptist had doubt. The forerunner to Christ himself who from his own birth had all the knowledge, signs, and wonders concerning the truth of God any man could ask for. And in prison, he became discouraged sending out two disciples to ask Christ "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another". John the Baptist needed his faith restored. And what did Jesus say about John in Matthew 11? "Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater prophet than John". John was still justified in the eyes of God despite his situation in prison and his subsequent discouragement and doubt about the messiah. That's pretty comforting to know. In Matthew 17:20, Jesus said you only need faith the size of a mustard seed. When you believe on Jesus Christ, you thereby put your faith, your trust, on him to save your soul, be justified before God, and have your sins forgiven so you don't taste spiritual death. "But to him that worketh not, but believe on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness". Believe it or not, it does not take rock solid belief to have the faith needed to please God. If God took into consideration a believers doubt, no one would enter the kingdom. The road is already narrow as it is. On the other hand, the stronger one's faith, the more work he'll desire to do for God. (James 2:21). The more you grow, and learn, the less you doubt. The weaker a man's faith, the more he'll be tossed around like a wave of the sea. (James 1:6). Personally speaking I have less doubts now then when I first believed. A man in the Gospel of Mark cries out to Jesus: "... Cried out, and said with tears, Lord I believe; help thou thine unbelief". Ask and you shall receive if you earnestly seek.

You mentioned something about " otherwise how do you know Christianity is right and not Islam". For starters, one can actually read and compare scriptures. You be the judge. They are like night and day. If you're a former Muslim, I know you have it in you to believe. You already know the Quran and from the sound of it, it seems like your knowledge of Christianity seems a bit limited. If that's the case, you gotta X out your browsers and crack open the scriptures before condemning. If I go to a Dawah and ask a Muslim if he knows if he'll be forgiven by God, the only answer I get is along the lines of " God willing, I hope ". This can lead many Muslims to reject religion for fear of never being good enough in the eyes of God or "Allah", and just throwing in the towel. Or stick with it to just go through the motions to save face. And it's a shame. In Islam you put your trust in your hands and hope your righteous deeds will be good enough. That's a very very heavy burden to bear that only comes with nothing but uncertainty. The Bible says none is righteous, no not one. The God of the Bible is backed by his actions, not only his words. He led by example and was nailed to a cross for it. Like a Marine jumping on a grenade to save his boys, God knew what he was doing, and did it out of love for the world...his creation. (John 3:16). In Christianity we call it the Good News for a reason as we place our redemption in God's hands. In Christ there is assurance of salvation. 1 John 5:13, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." If you open a Bible, put any hatred or personal problems in a box up on the shelf... and then read. You may just hear the Shepherds voice. Eternity is a long time. When you take your last breath it'll be too late. Do it now. If you still reject it, then so be it.

With that said however, in Christianity it matters first and foremost what's in your heart concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus to assure one has salvation. It's your heart that knows what the truth is even if you find yourself in doubt sometimes. You know when you believe, and so does God. 1 Sam 16:7,"...for the Lord seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart". "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9). Going into a church and merely chanting vain repetitions like the apostles creed you linked to, does not necessarily mean that person has been made righteous before God when he dies. It's much deeper than that. Jesus said you need to search the scriptures for understanding. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". The Bible is the word of God. Don't rely on man's word.

The Bible is one of two things. It's either the greatest literary conspiracy of all time, or it really is the word of God. Considering the time and length at which it was written from start to finish, and how perfectly it all harmonizes, I can not accept that it was written from the minds of men alone. The greatest evidence for the Bible, is the Bible. There is power, majesty, beauty, mysteriousness, and deep deep timeless truths of what is written in those 66 books that nothing else in the world can compare to it. And it's backed by history and archeology.

And when one reads the Bible, looks at the physical world, observes the current state of humanity and the direction we're headed, it's obvious. There's far, far to many coincidences to be written off. Don't believe in the miracles talked about in the Bible? We're living inside of a giant miracle. If the universe is possible; anything is possible. I see no "evidence to the contrary" as you put it. I see nothing but evidence.

The physical world. It's all too perfect. Hebrews 2:7 says "For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God." Can you blow up a hardware store and have it magically become a house with people living inside of it? Of course not. To say that the universe exploded from nothing, perfectly formed itself to produce an earth like ours that has given us life all just magically happened by accident is absurd. People can rationalize it all they want, but the evidence for creation is all around us. Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

Both sides of the science argument only have circumstantial evidence. A theist may look to the building block of a cell and see evidence of design. Atheist looks at the same cell and thinks it magically just happened. In the end, there is no "proof" for either.
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The "manosphere", grew out of a response to cultural rot and the absolute blatant lies we were taught by a system that tells us we're apes. We can clearly see the repercussions of such thinking. Belief on Christ and his Word is the antidote to repel the encroachment of Globalist marxism and Islam. First and most importantly a resurgence of the faith will save lost souls so they won't taste death. Secondly with the faith comes discipline in abiding to the word of God and taking a stand against that which is tearing down our countries, families, and all that is good. All that our forefathers built and worked for. And it starts with Christian men taking a stand and making known the hard truths of the Bible. Atheists need to check what side their on. If you don't believe, to each their own. But if a man relishes in seeing Christianity put to death by haters just like Jesus was, that man is about on par with the SJW's.

Jesus Christ was with Joshua at Jericho combat ready with a sword in hand ready to fight against iniquity. (Joshua 5:13) For us, our sword is the word of truth.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

There's nothing to lose and everything to gain.


@Ratinthewoods. I understand your argument loud and clear. Shortest answer possible: irrelevant.

Post: #440

You tipped your hand here:

(06-11-2016 11:39 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  The "manosphere", grew out of a response to cultural rot and the absolute blatant lies we were taught by a system that tells us we're apes. We can clearly see the repercussions of such thinking. Belief on Christ and his Word is the antidote to repel the encroachment of Globalist marxism and Islam. First and most importantly a resurgence of the faith will save lost souls so they won't taste death. Secondly with the faith comes discipline in abiding to the word of God and taking a stand against that which is tearing down our countries, families, and all that is good. All that our forefathers built and worked for. And it starts with Christian men taking a stand and making known the hard truths of the Bible. Atheists need to check what side their on. If you don't believe, to each their own. But if a man relishes in seeing Christianity put to death by haters just like Jesus was, that man is about on par with the SJW's.

(03-13-2016 06:34 AM)Walker Wrote:  Every "christian" I've seen, in real life and on the internet, has some major problem with the way his or her immediate peers live their lives. They're pushing christianity to try to scare their peers into some sort of lifestyle change.

Post: #441

I consider myself a neutral inquirer. I'm committed to the pursuit of truth, and suspend conclusion in the lack of conclusive proof. I'm not presently committed to any particular belief regarding God. Not theism, the belief that God exists. Nor atheism, the belief that God doesn't exist. Not even agnosticism, the belief that it's impossible to know whether God exists. Nor apatheism, the indifference to the question whether God exists. I'm ready to commit when I find irrefutable beyond-all-doubt conclusive proof for any position. So far, I have not found it.

This is not so with everything in life, of course. With regard to practical matters I practice provisional commitment that's subject to revision when there is reasonably compelling indication to the contrary. Absolute commitment to not-yet-ascertained position is incongruous with my commitment to the search for truth. If I say "I'm sure", understand that's it's a rhetorical device; it does not mean I'm 100% sure, but maybe 70% convinced.
In decision-making my intuition also plays a huge role, and not just evidence and calculation. Oftentimes there are just not enough evidence and not enough time.

As for practical attitude towards religion, I appreciate religion and the role it plays in people's personal and cultural life. I consider religions like Christianity an important foundation of a healthy civilization and a cohesive society. I don't expect everyone to be neutral inquirers like I am. And it's better that way.

Post: #442

I used to be the same: neutral, agnostic. But after a lot of reading on the history of religion I changed my mind.

I consider myself an Atheist in that I categorically reject any discussion on the existence of a (Monotheistic) god as valid. I believe it is important for non Christians/Muslims to take this view, as accepting the idea as legitimate gives it undeserved credibility.

We know that much, likely most of, the pre-Christian world was polytheistic. The prevalent type of Monotheism we see today seems to be first expounded by Zoroaster likely somewhere in Afghanistan. This guy said he was a 'Prophet' of Ahura Mazda, the Creator God, and that all pre-existing Gods were false-gods. Zoroaster's message was that of duality more than Monotheism, but it was generally Monotheism with some pre-existing divinities being kept as minor divinities or 'angels'. The reasons for the acceptance of his ideas seem to be political/cultural not scientific. The jews seem to take on Monotheism after contact with the Zoroastrians. Similarly for the Muslims.

So the question is was the Monotheism reform based on evidence of such a world-view, or was it based on cultural and political factors. Well, there is absolutely no evidence for the former, and loads in support of the latter.

The Polytheists would think along the lines of "Do the Gods exist?" or more likely "Do the Gods have value?". Monotheists think in terms of "Does God exist (literally)?"

If I asked "Does Superman exist?" you would reply No. Ofcourse if God exists so can Superman. But you would still categorically answer No. The reason is you know Superman to be the figment of someones imagination, an idea that was created only a hundred or so years ago without any scientific basis, but one in philosophy/entertainment. Knowing this you can categorically reject any discussion on the existence of Superman, because we only seriously discuss ideas that have some scientific basis. In the same way, I can reject any idea of a Monotheistic God as baseless (having roots in culture/politics rather than science) though one may exist, as may Superman.

I sincerely believe the above is single most relevant point on any discussion of a religion today in the West. In the East it is somewhat different as literal belief in any god or fable is not the defining characteristic of the adherent.

Post: #443

(07-07-2016 07:18 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  In decision-making my intuition also plays a huge role, and not just evidence and calculation. Oftentimes there are just not enough evidence and not enough time.

Would you consider the possibility that the stronger your intuition gets, the closer you get to faith, and that belief in God is merely a larger version of the mini leap of faith you have to make every time you follow your intuition?

And also that you may not get a huge confirmation from a deity in the sky, but that you may just get a million small confirmations that are very similar to the confirmations you get when you follow your intuition and it pans out?

No one's intuition is right all of the time, but if you are getting all sorts of benefits from following your intuition overall, it makes you more likely to follow it, and that every time you do, you are in fact taking a leap of faith, not ostensibly in the direction of God, but in the nebulous set of perceptions that we call intuition?

And that faith, finally, might just be the logical conclusion of learning to trust your intuition more and more, and that, you will never come to the point that you have no doubts whatsoever, and that it is intrinsic to the process of belief that there always be a measure of doubt, otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be science?

And as you trust this unknowable thing called intuition, you are actually showing yourself willing to take a stand on something that you cannot explain or rationalize, and that it is not until you make at least this level of commitment to something that you can't back up with facts that God will begin to reveal himself to you?

I am not saying this is the sole path to faith, only that the process may not lend itself to rational discussion in the same way that other subjects do, and God, if he exists, may need to see your willingness trust in things that seem right that still need some measure of trust, and that he might not be willing to reveal himself until he has seen that commitment from you.

This explanation also has relevance to Atheistani's post, although you have to be in a certain frame of open-mindedness, as well as open-heartedness, for it to have any meaning.