Not one single word McGrath has said so far has the slightest bearing upon the truth of religion. Evidence for memes? How about evidence for Jesus being an immortal God who single-handedly created the whole universe and reads everybody's mind. How about some evidence for THAT.
"Cultural items can spread, whether or not they're good for us." - Dennett
This is the heart of the problem between these two opposing, but ultimately unprovable points of view.
The quote by Dennett is not self-evident. Just because Dennett says that assuming cultural items spread whether or not they are good is the only scientifically valid research hypothesis, it doesn't mean that it's correct.
Discerning how change happens in humanity is damn difficult work, both of these men reduce the task.
The best McGrath seems to manage is trying desperately to say "You're view is just as ungrounded as mine," a beautiful Freudian admission that his own belief is ungrounded.
The memetic explanation for religion lacks non-anecdoatal evidence: its hard to construct experimental religions (although actually a number of avowedly fake ones, like scientology, have been started.) but the alternative is this:
Religion arises because the world is full of goblins, spirits, ethers, unicorns, mermaids, Olympus, etc. and we're just describing them.
@hymnofashes My question to you: What evidence would you like to see to believe there is a God? Seriously, what on Earth physically or spritiually would you need to see/experience before you thought there was a higher power?
@thelionsshare100 Any prophet, anywhere, who can demonstrate he or she has metaphysical powers. Any holy text that completely and unambiguously produces extensive, detailed knowledge about the world that its authors could not have had. Any specific natural catastrophe that indicates a moral judgment, like all gays being struck by lightning bolts out of a blue sky. That would be a start, and the bar is really pretty low.
@thelionsshare100 But if God really, really wants to convince me in just one go, how about this? Levitate every object in my room by one foot in exactly five minutes, and then turn all said objects into steel. It's very easy to demonstrate a higher power. To demonstrate its nature would be more complicated. The religious narrative (ANY religious narrative) doesn't explain even ONE thing better than I can. That'd be where to start.
My thoughts on Religions and Atheism is like a bunch of people who do not really believe in what their belief is but just getting back at the other side. Or I guess what I am saying is, I feel that most people are just following what they want to believe, not because they really believe in it but because they are just mad at the other side.
Nonsense, most Atheists are usually people who came to the conclusion that what they were told from birth has no evidence behind it and is illogical.
It is this awakening and usually rebellion against what they were brought up that creates the vigour in their arguments.
Also once you come to the conclusion that religion might be false it quickly unravels and becomes ludicrous in the extreme to the extent you can't believe that people actually do believe it.
Is it possible that there are other kinds of evidence, other than that which is objectively observable? Is it possible that there are certain kinds of evidence that are can only be experienced subjectively (through subjective experience?) And is it possible that to some extent the observer jointly creates reality with what is observed? To what extent do our ideological dipostions, personality traits, environment, and aesthetic judgments affect the way we allegedly view objective reality?
@SweetRandal No. If it's just subjective, then by definition it's just about what's going on in your mind and has nothing to do with the outside world. Of course, our subjective minds are biased when viewing the 'outside world'. But that's why we have scientific method, which is designed to counter subjective bias as much as possible. If someone argued a religion or religious experience corresponded to truth, they'd still have to use reason, and scientific method is the best thing to do that.
That may be true of some people and especially here on YT where people love to argue and call each other names but In my experience, the vast majority of religious people I have met seem very sincere. I have found this to be equally true of atheists.
What a great response by Dennett to that sophistic tripe McGrath was spewing. I can't believe people consider Alister intelligent. His entire critique utterly irrelevant and didn't even respond. What a joke.
McGrath is harping on this idea of memes in the way that Creationists harped unsuccessfully on "irreducible complexity." They spotted what they saw as a weakness in the theory, but it turned out to be a weakness in their thinking. Memes ARE a hypothesis, and Dawkins offers them as such. He observed units of culture (religion) being transmitted (and failing to be transmitted); but he doesn't rest his case on the existence of memes. Take away memes and you haven't weakened D's argument at all.
True, being an atheist only gets rid of the problems that come from religion. True, being an atheist doesn't stop you from becoming an irrationalist or a dogmatist on some other account.
But then, we're not just arguing for atheism. We're arguing for reasonableness.
@sam51092 well then, be reasonable. Reason out why you're here and where you came from. If not, why bother, what's the point? Who matters? Certainly your heart tells you something..
@thelionsshare100 Strange, do you think I, as an atheist, don't think about why we're here or where we came from? Of course I do. It's just that my reason tells me that scientific method is the best way to answer those questions. All of science, with the big bang, evolution etc. can be seen as part of the answer. Beyond this my reason tells me to say 'i don't know' in answer to the unknown, instead of 'god did it'. This 'I don't know' is a call to discovery, part of what makes life worth living.
@jacobromu Too bad atheism isn't the same thing as skepticism. Atheism is, perhaps, skepticism towards theism, but no more so than theism is skepticism towards atheism. Even Dawkins points out that specific theisms are skeptical toward other theisms. So, yes, you're right, skepticism, insofar as all that means is "adherence to questioning ideas and authority" is not an ideology. But atheism is, and as such, is just as plausibly fanatical.
I think I've distilled the essence of Dennett's arguments from readings and about 35 to 40 videos I would guess. I enjoy him but simply don't share your opinion that his position is the better account of reality. Having listened to this entire debate and a few segments twice, its more than clear to me that McGrath was as prepared to deconstruct his opponent's line of reasoning--memes and all--as he was when he wrote The Dawkins Delusion (in answer to Dawkins' wrist-slittingly boring rant.)
What a twat. As if proving something to be a meme was proof that it was harmful or wrong. He doesn't understand what a meme is at all. You can tell what kind of a twat he is by the meme he is infected with: Anglican vicar sermon technique. He couldn't sound any more like a vicar if he announced the number and title of the next hymn or said that there would be a whist drive next Wednesday evening in the parish hall.
MartinJ~The molecular biologist McGrath has read his opponents' work, be they Dennett or Dawkins. An interesting article along these lines of meme theory is Are the Gospels Mythical by Rene Girard in First Things. In his theory of Mimetic Contagion he deconstructs the idea of the gospels as myth with profound depth of insight. It is this word "mimetic" that is artificially re-constructed by Dawkins to rhyme audibly and visually with genetic"...
MartinJ: 1) Be nice! 2) I said "depth of insight" Not "depth of profundity" 3) Girard "utterly discredits the notion that Christianity is in any sense mythological. The world's myths do not reveal a way to interpret the Gospels, but exactly the reverse: the Gospels reveal to us the way to interpret myth." 4) My reading and reflection have caused me to change my thoughts on many occasions: I now accept the theory of evolution and the existence of a faithful and loving God for starters...
Some person you have never heard of totally discredits and stands on their head ideas you believe in. So there! You're wrong. Now stop it. I won't tell you again.
At what point did Dennet claim atheism was not a meme? McGrath continually reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of memes and the complete universality of what the theory can be applied to.
From the conglomeration of religious dogma and institutions to the smallest tick of polite society memes can be identified and the forces which have propagated their success.
Meme theory doesn't negate religious claims by definition - memes can be successful for their truth value or lack thereof.
McGrath doesn't seem to know what a meme is. I think that's the only explanation for what he said in this video. I'm guessing that's why he rambled on about them in the most incoherent fashion. Almost everything he said there was completely irrelevant to this debate.
I'm really disappointed with what McGrath is doing. He's straw manning Dennet's book--Dennet's book _says_ it's speculative, and more of a call for more research. So for him to say there's not enough evidence is just facetious. Likewise, Dennet doesn't refute religion in the book by saying they are memes. He argues that we should look into why some memes are successful--that the reason isn't always that they are successful because they are true, or even good for us.
It seems to be working for me. Try using another link to it. Sometimes that works. I was having that problem yesterday, and I think it was because the YouTube codemonkeys were busy at work. They might still be at it.
@supergopi "a meme routed in reality unlike belief in god."
By saying that belief in God is not routed in reality, you are saying you *know* the ultimate truth. Not just by your deductions, but by your ultimate knowledge. So, by your ultimate knowledge you are saying that belief in God cannot be truth or a reality because you know the truth. This can't be so. You have just as much faith that there isn't a God as I do that there is. You are more agnostic than you are atheist, naturally.
no i don't claim to know 'everything' or 'ultimate truth', what I say is, just because I am not omniscient doesn't mean I can't assert the things I already know ! i.e even future knowledge is valid only if it doesn't contradict with what i know currently !
eg: before knowing various blood groups, already people knew certain type of bloods won't match with others... the 'future truth' never invalidated their 'current' knowledge...i.e: not everyone can donate blood to anyone.
@supergopi "I am not omniscient doesn't mean I can't assert the things I already know"
-Asserting things you already know is where you lose me. Are you saying that you already know there is no god (before continuing onto future knowledge)?
@supergopi , you're mistaken. I do know the Ultimate Truth. He is Jesus the Christ. I know this by my active relationship with the Father. You don't know Him because you don't acknowledge Him -and know how awesome it is to know Him! I know this because of the Holy Spirit He gives to us -something that I never experienced before accepting Christ that leads my life now.
oh my bad! you know 'ultimate truth' bypassing logic and reason.
that's sweet. *rolling my eyes* okay...will wait until things dawn on me some day ;) to 'get it' like you. its interesting to note, muslims already know allah is the truth, christians already know jesus is truth... but
never accept each others truth ;)
gosh... give me a break, still its not too later for you to ponder on
the study of human knowledge and its validity i.e epistemology.
@supergopi Have you read the Quran? Muslims don't know God -just to call out a name isn't to have a relationship with God. Google the following Quran verses: 33:37, 33:50, 33:51, 66:1-5, 4:24, Bukhari 62:18, 4:232 and 62:6. Muhamed married a 6 year old girl named Aisha and 'consumated' the marriage when she was 9, he then married his own daughter in law and had 5 other wives -all the meanwhile saying 'Allah' only allows 4.
@supergopi The Quran barely has the word "love" in it, and even when a form of the word shows up its never that Allah loves you, sinners, or that you should love one another.
In the Bible, Colossians 3:12-13 alone tells us to "put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another..."
@supergopi Use the reason you have to ask yourself which comes from God? Muhamed was a false prophet who created a religion of conquest and bondage. Jesus Christ reveals the love of God, asks us to love one another and freed us from the bondage of the law.
Did I bypass logic and reason? Of course not -it lead me to Christ. Logic and reason does not rule out a creator, life beyond ours or other realms of existence.
@supergopi "logic and reason rules out the need for a creator or prime mover.
Existence just exist."
I disagree that logic and reason rules out the *need* for a creator, or that Existence just exists. Thats on you to question.
I'm aware of the atheist arguments, even to the point of reading "The Atheist Manifesto" by Micheal Onfray while being an atheist. Their arguements didn't satisfy my questions, I hope that you'll continue to question them as well. Take care friend. Peace.
@supergopi I said to you that to say there is no God is to say that you *know* there is no God. You can't *know* that. That's a decision of faith -not knowledge, just as my accepting Christ was. Now I *know* there is a God. The Holy Spirit isn't someone to be ignored, its His promise to us. When the Holy Spirit enters your life -things are different. I was an Athiest before, I know the "logic" people use to tell themselves there is no God. Its self deception.
This has been flagged as spam show
Not one single word McGrath has said so far has the slightest bearing upon the truth of religion. Evidence for memes? How about evidence for Jesus being an immortal God who single-handedly created the whole universe and reads everybody's mind. How about some evidence for THAT.
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Yes atheism is a meme.
A meme isn't always a false idea - its simply a *successful idea*.
Since McGrath evidently didn't understand that, then he has missed the entire point of the concept.
richo61 2 months ago
Fanatics are our problem? I'm a fanatic for romance, humor and fun. McGrath fails again.
SubconsciousGatherer 6 months ago
McGrath spend his entire 20 mins arguing against a straw man...
QuantumGh0st 8 months ago
Did any one count how many "ah" Dannett said?
Theism411 9 months ago
dennett = fail
Gurn92 10 months ago
"Cultural items can spread, whether or not they're good for us." - Dennett
This is the heart of the problem between these two opposing, but ultimately unprovable points of view.
The quote by Dennett is not self-evident. Just because Dennett says that assuming cultural items spread whether or not they are good is the only scientifically valid research hypothesis, it doesn't mean that it's correct.
Discerning how change happens in humanity is damn difficult work, both of these men reduce the task.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
Is Dennet kinda losing it at the end here? He sounds like a guy trying to herd cats!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
It seems strange hearing the American voice making more sense than the British voice.
leechazki 1 year ago
The best McGrath seems to manage is trying desperately to say "You're view is just as ungrounded as mine," a beautiful Freudian admission that his own belief is ungrounded.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
McGrath is an idiot. I did have some respect for him, but it is gone. Stalin and Hilter had mustaches so people with mustaches are evil.
Stalin didn't murder because he was athesist, he murder out an ideology.
Hitler used Christianity to justify much of what he did, and the Catholic churched helped him. And Hitler never renounced his Catholic beliefs.
I cannot believe that religious people keep harping on this when it is not the case.
s4stem 1 year ago
The memetic explanation for religion lacks non-anecdoatal evidence: its hard to construct experimental religions (although actually a number of avowedly fake ones, like scientology, have been started.) but the alternative is this:
Religion arises because the world is full of goblins, spirits, ethers, unicorns, mermaids, Olympus, etc. and we're just describing them.
hymnofashes 2 years ago 2
@hymnofashes My question to you: What evidence would you like to see to believe there is a God? Seriously, what on Earth physically or spritiually would you need to see/experience before you thought there was a higher power?
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 Any prophet, anywhere, who can demonstrate he or she has metaphysical powers. Any holy text that completely and unambiguously produces extensive, detailed knowledge about the world that its authors could not have had. Any specific natural catastrophe that indicates a moral judgment, like all gays being struck by lightning bolts out of a blue sky. That would be a start, and the bar is really pretty low.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 But if God really, really wants to convince me in just one go, how about this? Levitate every object in my room by one foot in exactly five minutes, and then turn all said objects into steel. It's very easy to demonstrate a higher power. To demonstrate its nature would be more complicated. The religious narrative (ANY religious narrative) doesn't explain even ONE thing better than I can. That'd be where to start.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
My thoughts on Religions and Atheism is like a bunch of people who do not really believe in what their belief is but just getting back at the other side. Or I guess what I am saying is, I feel that most people are just following what they want to believe, not because they really believe in it but because they are just mad at the other side.
TheLoneWolf1921 2 years ago
Nonsense, most Atheists are usually people who came to the conclusion that what they were told from birth has no evidence behind it and is illogical.
It is this awakening and usually rebellion against what they were brought up that creates the vigour in their arguments.
Also once you come to the conclusion that religion might be false it quickly unravels and becomes ludicrous in the extreme to the extent you can't believe that people actually do believe it.
mikdalton 2 years ago
Comment removed
SweetRandal 2 years ago
Is it possible that there are other kinds of evidence, other than that which is objectively observable? Is it possible that there are certain kinds of evidence that are can only be experienced subjectively (through subjective experience?) And is it possible that to some extent the observer jointly creates reality with what is observed? To what extent do our ideological dipostions, personality traits, environment, and aesthetic judgments affect the way we allegedly view objective reality?
SweetRandal 2 years ago
@SweetRandal No. If it's just subjective, then by definition it's just about what's going on in your mind and has nothing to do with the outside world. Of course, our subjective minds are biased when viewing the 'outside world'. But that's why we have scientific method, which is designed to counter subjective bias as much as possible. If someone argued a religion or religious experience corresponded to truth, they'd still have to use reason, and scientific method is the best thing to do that.
sam51092 1 year ago
That may be true of some people and especially here on YT where people love to argue and call each other names but In my experience, the vast majority of religious people I have met seem very sincere. I have found this to be equally true of atheists.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
What a great response by Dennett to that sophistic tripe McGrath was spewing. I can't believe people consider Alister intelligent. His entire critique utterly irrelevant and didn't even respond. What a joke.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
McGrath is harping on this idea of memes in the way that Creationists harped unsuccessfully on "irreducible complexity." They spotted what they saw as a weakness in the theory, but it turned out to be a weakness in their thinking. Memes ARE a hypothesis, and Dawkins offers them as such. He observed units of culture (religion) being transmitted (and failing to be transmitted); but he doesn't rest his case on the existence of memes. Take away memes and you haven't weakened D's argument at all.
jamesharrel 2 years ago 2
True, being an atheist only gets rid of the problems that come from religion. True, being an atheist doesn't stop you from becoming an irrationalist or a dogmatist on some other account.
But then, we're not just arguing for atheism. We're arguing for reasonableness.
sam51092 2 years ago 2
@sam51092 well then, be reasonable. Reason out why you're here and where you came from. If not, why bother, what's the point? Who matters? Certainly your heart tells you something..
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 Strange, do you think I, as an atheist, don't think about why we're here or where we came from? Of course I do. It's just that my reason tells me that scientific method is the best way to answer those questions. All of science, with the big bang, evolution etc. can be seen as part of the answer. Beyond this my reason tells me to say 'i don't know' in answer to the unknown, instead of 'god did it'. This 'I don't know' is a call to discovery, part of what makes life worth living.
sam51092 1 year ago
Lenin Stalin - Adherence to dogma => violence
Islam Christianity - Adherence to dogma => violence
Skeptiism - adherence to questioning ideas and autheroity =>not violence
jacobromu 2 years ago 8
@jacobromu Too bad atheism isn't the same thing as skepticism. Atheism is, perhaps, skepticism towards theism, but no more so than theism is skepticism towards atheism. Even Dawkins points out that specific theisms are skeptical toward other theisms. So, yes, you're right, skepticism, insofar as all that means is "adherence to questioning ideas and authority" is not an ideology. But atheism is, and as such, is just as plausibly fanatical.
grandampersand 1 year ago
Well done McGrath. An excellent display of ignorance of what a meme is even supposed to be.
uvauva2 2 years ago 2
I think I've distilled the essence of Dennett's arguments from readings and about 35 to 40 videos I would guess. I enjoy him but simply don't share your opinion that his position is the better account of reality. Having listened to this entire debate and a few segments twice, its more than clear to me that McGrath was as prepared to deconstruct his opponent's line of reasoning--memes and all--as he was when he wrote The Dawkins Delusion (in answer to Dawkins' wrist-slittingly boring rant.)
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
What a twat. As if proving something to be a meme was proof that it was harmful or wrong. He doesn't understand what a meme is at all. You can tell what kind of a twat he is by the meme he is infected with: Anglican vicar sermon technique. He couldn't sound any more like a vicar if he announced the number and title of the next hymn or said that there would be a whist drive next Wednesday evening in the parish hall.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Comment removed
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
MartinJ~The molecular biologist McGrath has read his opponents' work, be they Dennett or Dawkins. An interesting article along these lines of meme theory is Are the Gospels Mythical by Rene Girard in First Things. In his theory of Mimetic Contagion he deconstructs the idea of the gospels as myth with profound depth of insight. It is this word "mimetic" that is artificially re-constructed by Dawkins to rhyme audibly and visually with genetic"...
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
Wrong. Mimetic is not the same word as memetic. If you understood memes you would know this.
New words are coined, never artificially re-constructed. Re-constructed from what?
How do you measure depth of profundity? Is it anything to do with coming up with (or starting from) a conclusion you agree with?
When was the last time (or first time) you came across a profoundly deep insight that was at odds with what you wanted to believe?
MartinJWillett 2 years ago 2
MartinJ: 1) Be nice! 2) I said "depth of insight" Not "depth of profundity" 3) Girard "utterly discredits the notion that Christianity is in any sense mythological. The world's myths do not reveal a way to interpret the Gospels, but exactly the reverse: the Gospels reveal to us the way to interpret myth." 4) My reading and reflection have caused me to change my thoughts on many occasions: I now accept the theory of evolution and the existence of a faithful and loving God for starters...
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
You haven't answered my questions.
Some person you have never heard of totally discredits and stands on their head ideas you believe in. So there! You're wrong. Now stop it. I won't tell you again.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
And he never will answer your questions.
jamesharrel 2 years ago
At what point did Dennet claim atheism was not a meme? McGrath continually reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of memes and the complete universality of what the theory can be applied to.
From the conglomeration of religious dogma and institutions to the smallest tick of polite society memes can be identified and the forces which have propagated their success.
Meme theory doesn't negate religious claims by definition - memes can be successful for their truth value or lack thereof.
anwyll 2 years ago
McGrath doesn't seem to know what a meme is. I think that's the only explanation for what he said in this video. I'm guessing that's why he rambled on about them in the most incoherent fashion. Almost everything he said there was completely irrelevant to this debate.
stuckvanilla 2 years ago
Stuckvanilla~what is a meme and how is it being spoken of in an incoherent fashion by McGrath?
Chiangmai007 2 years ago
You are sat in the greatest library the world has ever known. Why are you ignorant?
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I'm really disappointed with what McGrath is doing. He's straw manning Dennet's book--Dennet's book _says_ it's speculative, and more of a call for more research. So for him to say there's not enough evidence is just facetious. Likewise, Dennet doesn't refute religion in the book by saying they are memes. He argues that we should look into why some memes are successful--that the reason isn't always that they are successful because they are true, or even good for us.
klalkity 2 years ago
McGrath,
yes, atheism is also meme, a meme routed in reality unlike belief in god.
Ayn Rand has a different name for memes not based on reality : floating abstractions.
so what :p ?
----
riversonthemoon,
Thanks for uploading the debate !
supergopi 2 years ago
Happy to do it. More on the way.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
Might just be a glitch but the 4th part seems to not be functioning as I attempted to view it a few minutes ago
anwyll 2 years ago
It seems to be working for me. Try using another link to it. Sometimes that works. I was having that problem yesterday, and I think it was because the YouTube codemonkeys were busy at work. They might still be at it.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
@supergopi "a meme routed in reality unlike belief in god."
By saying that belief in God is not routed in reality, you are saying you *know* the ultimate truth. Not just by your deductions, but by your ultimate knowledge. So, by your ultimate knowledge you are saying that belief in God cannot be truth or a reality because you know the truth. This can't be so. You have just as much faith that there isn't a God as I do that there is. You are more agnostic than you are atheist, naturally.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
no i don't claim to know 'everything' or 'ultimate truth', what I say is, just because I am not omniscient doesn't mean I can't assert the things I already know ! i.e even future knowledge is valid only if it doesn't contradict with what i know currently !
eg: before knowing various blood groups, already people knew certain type of bloods won't match with others... the 'future truth' never invalidated their 'current' knowledge...i.e: not everyone can donate blood to anyone.
supergopi 1 year ago
@supergopi "I am not omniscient doesn't mean I can't assert the things I already know"
-Asserting things you already know is where you lose me. Are you saying that you already know there is no god (before continuing onto future knowledge)?
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
eg: no one really knows what the heck is gravity and how it works.
BUT every one can observe the effect of it.
If the future theory fails to account for current known observations its invalid !
that is any valid knowledge of gravity should not contradict what
already we know now, instead it should explain it !
now take the concept of 'God' it violates everything we already know now !
eg: law of cause and effect.
more over i invite u to study 'objectivistic epistemology'
supergopi 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
Its also slightly amusing to see you arguing with someone...
whats the point? according to you... you don't know 'ultimate truth' too !
so whats the point ;) of whole damn arguments !?
no one knows anything bcoz they are not omniscient :)
you actually don't have anything to stand for or argue for from your very reasoning !
supergopi 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
wait...before typing anything ! accept your position is pointless and
you don't have any valid knowledge, what ever you are going to type
is... well... totally meaning less... :) because you don't know 'ultimate truth'.
Without knowing it all.. you can't be sure of anything now !
That's what you end up with your 'way of reasoning' ;)
supergopi 1 year ago
@supergopi , you're mistaken. I do know the Ultimate Truth. He is Jesus the Christ. I know this by my active relationship with the Father. You don't know Him because you don't acknowledge Him -and know how awesome it is to know Him! I know this because of the Holy Spirit He gives to us -something that I never experienced before accepting Christ that leads my life now.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
oh my bad! you know 'ultimate truth' bypassing logic and reason.
that's sweet. *rolling my eyes* okay...will wait until things dawn on me some day ;) to 'get it' like you. its interesting to note, muslims already know allah is the truth, christians already know jesus is truth... but
never accept each others truth ;)
gosh... give me a break, still its not too later for you to ponder on
the study of human knowledge and its validity i.e epistemology.
supergopi 1 year ago
@supergopi Have you read the Quran? Muslims don't know God -just to call out a name isn't to have a relationship with God. Google the following Quran verses: 33:37, 33:50, 33:51, 66:1-5, 4:24, Bukhari 62:18, 4:232 and 62:6. Muhamed married a 6 year old girl named Aisha and 'consumated' the marriage when she was 9, he then married his own daughter in law and had 5 other wives -all the meanwhile saying 'Allah' only allows 4.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
you should say this to guy called 'zahir naik' ;)
anyways the point every primitive religion and their world view
is funny for other primitive gang but not for themselves.
i ve given up all these primitive stuffs and am still not convinced
for 'contradictions' and 'illogical' stuffs... Don't worry may be God
just wants me to be tat way ;)
supergopi 1 year ago
@supergopi The Quran barely has the word "love" in it, and even when a form of the word shows up its never that Allah loves you, sinners, or that you should love one another.
In the Bible, Colossians 3:12-13 alone tells us to "put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another..."
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@supergopi Use the reason you have to ask yourself which comes from God? Muhamed was a false prophet who created a religion of conquest and bondage. Jesus Christ reveals the love of God, asks us to love one another and freed us from the bondage of the law.
Did I bypass logic and reason? Of course not -it lead me to Christ. Logic and reason does not rule out a creator, life beyond ours or other realms of existence.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
well logic and reason rules out the need for a creator or prime mover.
Existence just exist. Dude...its all rehash of old arguments check
out some atheists site online...all these questions are well answered.
supergopi 1 year ago
@supergopi "logic and reason rules out the need for a creator or prime mover.
Existence just exist."
I disagree that logic and reason rules out the *need* for a creator, or that Existence just exists. Thats on you to question.
I'm aware of the atheist arguments, even to the point of reading "The Atheist Manifesto" by Micheal Onfray while being an atheist. Their arguements didn't satisfy my questions, I hope that you'll continue to question them as well. Take care friend. Peace.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@supergopi I said to you that to say there is no God is to say that you *know* there is no God. You can't *know* that. That's a decision of faith -not knowledge, just as my accepting Christ was. Now I *know* there is a God. The Holy Spirit isn't someone to be ignored, its His promise to us. When the Holy Spirit enters your life -things are different. I was an Athiest before, I know the "logic" people use to tell themselves there is no God. Its self deception.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
our argument will end once you reach the point...
"oh...well logic and reason isn't everything...' bcoz if that's the case there is no point in arguing logically ! anything goes !
supergopi 1 year ago
Thanks for posting!
revtyson 2 years ago
You're welcome.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago