It's a interesting dilemma. How do you make an arguement against a position which you're fully aware is not grounded on logic? Typically Atheists don't respond to emotional appeals & consider them to be a dirty tactic. Yet this is the framework by which the religious often operate. Does the end justify the means or is it a double standard on "our" part? Or is it just hypocritical to declare that "we" don't value such statements?
@MrLittletomdj Ultimately I believe that you, personally, cannot reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. But it's important that religious people are not the only ones giving their opinions. If they are the only ones putting out their cultural memes and their ideas, then those ideas will be (ironically) naturally selected for lack of competition.
@TheGeneralCritic Maybe the idea of God is a natural bi-product of developed consciousness & a survival mechanism which binds cultures & protects the mind from dispairing at nature's cruelty & absurdity. In a world where we compete for limited resources, conflict is inevitable & I also think it's an essential part of evolution. Whilst Atheists are quick to remind that Atheism isn't a religion, it seems to me that an ideology is emerging from the community anyway. (continued)
@TheGeneralCritic (sorry for the 2 parter) We are hard wired with the notion that life is preferable to death. But there's nothing to substantiate this idea beyond subjective oppinion. Neither worldveiw honestly tackles the problem. It may be that a God delusion is essential to life's perpetuation to some degree. If thats true, faith, religion & ideologies will just adapt & evolve but never disolve entirely. It's an uncomfortable to think that we may be dependant on a delusion.
I clung to the belief in Santa for an embarrassingly long time. Like, I know I made it to the double digits before I realized that there was no way I could continue lying to myself.
..........
I'm really lucky my family was never religious, or it would probably have taken a lot longer to come to my senses.
Religionists, Don't hope for a future because there is no future for Muslims, Christians or Judaists; the days of dictatorship is over. The planet is reviving and evolving into civilization. Ten thousand centuries with religion and without civilization is long enough to bear. Our right of passage should be the epitaph on the tombstone of religion:
Methinks you have too much logos and not enough mythos. Too much primate is like Mosaic Law without the Compassion introduced by Jesus. No one has had the impact on civilization as Jesus; albeit his messages have been suppressed or twisted by the Christian community but if you reject his common sense teaching whether you believe in the person or not, you are the lesser reptile for it. "Kingdom of Heaven within you" speaks to the dream of Mankind, IMMORTALITY, not Christianity.
If "get off the drugs" is your only rebuttal, you have no rebuttal and fail as a debater by shirking the issue with ad hominem attacks. Where is your mentality or are you just another 13 year old with nothing but a puberty cycle between your ears?
Humans are subject to the reptile brain, the first brain that we respond to and that part of the brain that operates unconscious behavior; thus when humans are exposed to repetition for example, as religion is so prone to do, the reptile brain accepts it as truth merely because of the repetition; fight or flight is another aspect of the reptile brain so that when a leaf blows across the path, the reptile brain cannot discern wind blowing the leaf and prepares for fight or flight.
If you are religious you are acting on reptilian instincts. And if you get hooked on the reptilian Drug of Absolute Certainty, Religion, and if you keep taking it, you too could wake up one day, so full of righteousness that suddenly the only thing that makes sense to you anymore is somebody else’s death. And you’ll realize that your mind is no longer your best friend. So if someone offers you, the Reptile Drug of Absolute Certainty, just say NO! Religion is the Dinosaur of the past
Religion is not merely, "outdated"; given half a chance that religion would control every aspect of my life whether I want it to or not. And would impose a morality on me, telling me what to think, what to believe and who to attack and kill for believing something else. Thus religion is the natural home of the psychopath. Historically whenever religion gets any power the result is always repression. I’m sure, if it could, it would bring back crucifixion.
religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in. When the truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice.
All Supernatural Religions are delusional. It's adherents suffering a mental illness that generates a toxic neurological condition requiring followers to ram cranium up arse to justify the Brains for Shit Syndrome in defense of humanity’s cancer. The devilish irony consists in the fact that ‘God’, 'divine judgment' and 'damnation' are themselves religious inventions: religion creates and perfects the fear, then declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it.
There is no aspect of our lives, no matter how intimate, which religion does not unblushingly insist on its right to control. Whom we may love, whom we may desire, with whom we may physically express those feelings: in such restrictions on our freedom religion is at its most insistent and intrusive. But it does not stop even here, for religion does not limit its control to our deeds or even words:
no, the invisible Thought Police of religion do not scruple to pursue us even into the innermost recesses of our minds and there to stand ready to condemn us for our very thoughts. Not even the most heinous ruler or most brutal slave-owner ever achieved such extremes of tyranny; yet religion grants us no privacy, nowhere to hide, no freedom to entertain even a fleeting thought without its being immediately known to - and judged by - a cosmic dictator.
You are the one being stupid. Who is talking about government?...I never mentioned government, you did. I am talking about intrusive of tyranny religion into government and the tyranny of dictatorships like in Yemen and in Syria. Do you think the dictatorship of Syria killing thousands of its people, is that the prevention of chaos that government must do, you are talking about?
If that is all you have to offer in comments,are you a teenager? Or on the drug of Absolute Certainty?
You're resorting to silly assertions and guesses so we're pretty much finished. I'm neither a teenager nor absoloutly certain about the topic why did you turn the conversation to that anyway?
I can agree that you do not know the topic you are talking about. You mean earthly regimes like Ghaddaffi, Assad in Syria and Saleh in Yemen, Mubarak in Egypt, the brute royalty of Saudi Arabia and their religious police, Burma? Are those the governments you think are required to keep Chaos in check. Now there's a topic. Care to answer and justify these earthly tyrannical regimes remaining in power?
A: “This doesn’t make sense. My wife let me put my dick in her ass last night. How did this happen?
C: “ God did it.”
A: “What about free will?”
C: “God has a plan. Obviously he needed you to have anal sex with your wife. You can’t mess with Gods plan."
A: "So I should be thanking the guys who killed my child that caused my wife to take all those prescription drugs that allowed me to convince her of this…THANK YOU GOD!!!"
You are an atheist when it comes to any other god.
your book came from a pedophile sheep herder only 1400 years ago, who spoke with satan? Hajj 22:52-53
who took massive parts from the bible to and they took it from other people
and laws like "kill your son if he doesn't believe in 'me' "
"beat up your wife" "Don't eat this and that" "kill your women if they marry other religions" and so many more.. may make sense to you, but not to others, because only you are FORCED to think it is god's law
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
the human wasn't allowed to replace god whenever he learned new things, books were made to keep the illiterate and uneducated ones obedient and afraid of THE authority, to do what others want them to do, think what others want them to think, who explained the world to them according to their, in meantime obsolete knowledge, forced us to stck to it ever since, for millenia
it is sad that people still think they need some ancient books to believe in god, or to live their lives in a decent manner
well at any rate, you don't even know if i believe in god
which i don't, in meantime i don't even give it a chance anymore, all the gods that humans praise or believe in are fake, man made construct, an image of reality created by the early self conscient brain to avoid overload from the completely unknown world that he faced, he put the gaps in his knowledge on queue by saying "goddidit" until he gets an explanation, that feature was ABUSED by slave drivers to create religions
OK, dude- can I merely request that you read the book of Acts of the Apostle before we continue. What I think you are not following is that it was not an isolated leader or a few followers of the sect acting in a fanatical fashion. Rather, based on the spread of the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, MASSES of people throughout the Roman Empire & beyond (different nations, languages and cultures) turned to faith in Jesus.10's of thousands continued to convert despite death edicts
Christians tell me It is unacceptable for them to live in a world with out god, so god has to be real. To them I say it is unacceptable for me to live in a world that is infested with the self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. Therefore I believe there are no self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. Theist logic is great stuff. It gives the user a sense of exuberance.
absolutely insane. i have had the exact same experience with my family. what tore me apart was watching my mom cry because she thinks ill go to hell. i asked her if she thought i deserved that. her eyes wanted to say no, but she couldnt. no matter how many times i asked her, she couldnt answer. She knows it would be wrong to send a good person to hell just for non belief. I told her "you want to say no but you cant because of your religion. you have better morality than the god you serve."
@autopsy87 why are people always thinking the morality of human beings should apply to "God". Look around you, in the animal kingdom Filial cannibalism is where the adult eats their own immediate offspring and i promise you it is seen as completely normal to other animals. The set of biological rules and morals apply differently to the occupants of the earth, and they are not a measure in any way. Lets pretend that God's morals are questionable? that is no proof that God does not exist.
@atheer87 questionable? have you read the bible? that's a gross understatement. Also why would god have a different set of moral standards than the one he holds us accountable for? The very set of standards he lists for us are the ones HE deems as moral yet he continuously defies his own rules of morality. The only thing humanity has to go off of in regards to the christian god is the bible. A book written and compiled by men. full of historical and scientific impossibilities.
OK, guys, here's the deal on this stuff and God's (real} secret plan for you and all other atheists, agnostics, secularist, etc....Here's the real deal now:
God's plan is about GOD- His Truth, His Will; His Purpose; His Revelation.
In short- NOT YOU !
Now, a final point, why is the caller & host accusing God & expressing resentment. God made U&all creation- we are the creatures, OK ? Everyone DESERVES hell. When we die, without God you have no existence anyway? U have NO RIGHT TO INDICT GOD
"OK, guys, here's the deal on this stuff and God's (real} secret plan for you and all other atheists, agnostics, secularist, etc...."
why do you put secularists and agnostics and atheists in the same category? A lot of theists are secularists too, you don't have to be an atheists to uphold secularism.
"Now, a final point, why is the caller & host accusing God & expressing resentment."
@shieldsff 1.- Define "god". 2.-Explain how do you know it has a plan 3.-Explain how do you know what it's plan is. 4.-Present evidence for your claims. 5.-Look for the word "atheist" in the dictionary.
If you did #5 then you know that an atheist does not believe the claims of a god existing are real, therefore an atheist can't be accusatory or resentful to god anymore than you can be accusatory or resentful towards the lucky charm's leprechaun.
permit by means of opposition: [Your] god would be observable, naturalistic random forces subject to finite time & matter-.Your acts of devotion (worship) , include your rationalizations, works, efforts & endeavors for the purpose of reassuring yourself of the same. My God,(as the BIble makes clear) is the transcendent Creator of Heaven& earth. He is the source & first cause of all Life & reality which has ever existed . For more details see the Bible & all relevant vids on my channel.
@shieldsff Why do religious people (like you in this case) can't see that some of us don't have a god? You have to go and label nature, or the study of it as "god" or "dogma" in order to feel reassured and cozy inside. Arbitrary changing the meaning of a word doesn't make your point valid. You are just telling me "nature" means god now and "critical thinking" means worship. How dishonest.
It's like saying, "Well you don't believe in my god, but you play chess, that is definitely Your god!"
@Moreba can't see that some of us don't have a god?
I don;t agree that I am arbitrarily doing any such thing,..... Why isn't'it just as likely that you are the one who fails to understand the exact nature of your enterprise to begin with. Feel free to check out some of the relevant vids on my channel if you like for more discussion on this issue
@shieldsff "I don;t agree that I am arbitrarily doing any such thing" Well you are. You are changing the meaning of the words nature to god and the words "work, effords and endeavors" to worship. I guess you can deny it but it's written right there.
You are right that I read other books than the bible and that I accept their content as real, but those books are written based on experimentation and knowledge of facts. There is not one thing that I accept for which there is no evidence of in them.
ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts. But the last thing I would want in this situation is to accept the narrow dogma and doctrines of an all-knowing materialist such as yourself. What confidence shd any reasoning person ever have that your metphysics has any objective reality outside of UR own brain chemistry. I don't believe [in] U
@shieldsff You claim you have different sources than the bible, yet you fail at mentioning even 1 of them other than the videos in your channel that are also based on the bible. You have convinced yourself that people who use logic and see reality for what it is are following a "narrow dogma"
Saying that"a supernatural all powerful being exists and it's the creator of all" it's a very unbelievable claim, but not backing it up with real evidence and expecting everyone to believe it is just silly.
@Moreba "it's a very unbelievable claim, but not backing it up with real evidence "
I guess that would make (convoluted) sense for a person who thinks they know everything, U are free to have at it for now, but as I made clear, I could never have your type of absolute BELIEF in the finite processes of your brain chemicals- that may make sense to you someday if you were to say suffer from alzheimers or dementia.In the meantime,how can U be so arrogant- U don't know the mechanics of all universes
@shieldsff I know I don't know everything. if I did I wouldn't bother to ask for evidence of your claims, I'd just assume they are not true. It is because I know I don't know everything that I am open to accept evidence that proves, what I accept to be real, wrong. You are the one failing to provide this evidence.
I don't "believe" in the chemical process of my brain, it's a fact that it works as it does.Qouting Inigo here you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means
Yet when I refence the Bible as a credible source for the discovery of God you cavalierly dismiss it with no sincere investigation. That's like a man who insists on proof of say "electrons" but rejects the validity if the instrument to do so (a electron microscope) . Consider: you really are like someone who says, here's my proof that there is "no such thing as proofs" - talk about circular reasoning
@shieldsff By that reasoning, I could claim The Silmarillion is true and turn Tolkien in to a prophet. "Oh you mean it says so in 1 book? Then it must be true!" The bible makes less sense than fairy tales, yet you expect people to accept it without any objection, why? because god wrote it how do you know this?because it says so in the bible.<-That is a circular argument.
And again, I don't have a "conception of god" I am simply asking for evidence backing up Your claims about the god you defined
No, you cannot because I am NOT saying any such thing (i.e., it's merely a book)
Last time I read (viewed) Tolkien's "Lord of the Ring" ,no where was Tolkien making
claims regarding historical, present time or prophetic events. U will note that the Biblia contains all three- it can be readily verified that Gaius Octavia (Augustus)was Caesar at the birth of Jesus in Judea. More importantly, the Gospels assert the historical fact of Jesus' singular, glorified resurrection
"ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts"
Oh what a load of
I ask for evidence of your claims about god, you fail to deliver, instead you present the bible as evidence and try to manipulate words to make it look like critical thinking is dogma and nature is god and then you say I'm the one who is not open to any other concepts?
Yet you are altogether oblivious to the fact that your pre-suppositionalist materialism is exactly what is negating UR grasp of the so-called proof you seek. I too read all kinds of book & evaluate their merits based on their accuracy. But some ideas do not lend themselves to that - you cannot model some 'scientific theories" like Hawking's 'pre-time" concept
@shieldsff In a nutshell, your definition of god is "the transcendent Creator of Heaven& earth. He is the source & first cause of all Life & reality which has ever existed." And you know this because of what is written in the bible and from what other people who's only source is the bible too, tell you.
Circular argument we meet again.
You might want to check out Tim Minchin's song "The good book" I bet you will be able to relate.
"And you know this because of what is written in the bible "
In fact, what I was saying is that's how YOU can know (as well as from several other interesting writings). I am sure that similarly, you read some work(s) which offer all kind of conjecture about the big bang, or the time space continuum, or the concept of infinity or the notion of cooling coefficients, or about the Oedipal complex- & U BELIEVE IT
The Bible is certainly valid &compelling- but I did not say my exclusive source
@Moreba - In a nutshell, my realization of God is not the god you seem intent on making for your self and serving . Hope you can see that and understand that someday you too will have to encounter this true One, God who is the Creator of all things & truth and light. That you will have to encounter Him in knowledge and peace, or (not knowing him) in darkness and separation. You may want to check that out in the Bible too in the Gospel of John if you care to. thanks
@Moreba Look, you are the one who goes on demanding proof of (UR conception) of "god"; your reductionist faith in a finite, deterministic force which you do worship (because this 'belief' controls your action)
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or *define* His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being *YET* He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
if you are too stupid to understand god, why do you think you understand him better than we do?
we understand perfectly, don't worry.
It is a ridiculous attempt to explain the world to illiterate uneducated people to mesmerize them into blind obedience through fear of dying, threats about eternal punishment, violence and murder... nothing else.
It is too sad that so many people even nowadays, in those modern times where we are both literate and educated, still believe such bullsh!t
@realbojay We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
but there is a great thing about that.. in science, nobody tells you you will be put into a jar on a shelf in some laboratory and tortured forever if you don'T believe what your physics book says
we surpased the obsolete, and in meantime ridiculous knowledge from ancient times
we are above it, it would be hilarious how people fight science and reality to keep their illusion protected.. but unfortunately they fu**ed up the world too much for it to be funny, its horrifying
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
@realbojay When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws,
when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;
they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
sure it is very logical to take some old books full of meaningless blathering and obsolete knowledge and pseudo morality and countless contradictions, scientific idiocy and other bullshit and take it as the ultimate guide through life, where you see the word of god
seriously keep your brainless comments to yourself
the only one who might be interested is a psychiatrist
@realbojay Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@realbojay If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
UR probably aware, but this is a stock question that so the poster can proceed w/an illogical line of questioning about why can't we then measure God, see him, sensory perceive him, etc, In short what ever real definition is offered related to his personal attributes will be rejected based on naturalist assumptions. This type of argumentation is of course, obviously spurious. Like someone seeing the [former] world trade towers & insisting if the architect isn't a part of it, he never existed
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to measure a body, but when it comes to measuring the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to measure the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge
of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
@1tabligh Again, all you are doing is listing what “God” is not and telling me nothing about what “God” is. You keep calling your opponents “closed-minded” but it’s not even clear what you want them to accept.
"This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature"
@adler2adler Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
you created your own image of your god to fit the parts that you selected from your book, the teachings and theories that you collected through life from people close to you, the world as you percieved it through your senses
that is god, he is in your head
that is why you will never find him anywhere else in the universe
we looked on the earth, in the sea, on the sky, the only place where he is, is your heads
@1tabligh "Your argument for disbelief is foolish. " Say you are prosecutor in court. The defendant's attorney asks you what are the charges against her client (Mr Smith). Your answer is "its not theft and it doesn't involve Mrs Smith" Can you imagine a legal system where guilt is determined for unspecified crimes?
When you say "cannot be perceivable by the five senses" you are making a similar Alice in Wonderland type argument.
@adler2adler Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
@1tabligh The CIA, FBI, ATF are completely under Jesuit control. The Jonestown massacre, the Waco massacre and other massacres(including the Twin Towers) were all orchestrated to cause worldwide abhorrence and demonization of any group that seeks to get out from under the control of the worldwide Jesuit influence, domination, subversion and infiltration.
@lewisner Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Answer the question instead!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
@1tabligh Because years of scientific evidence have decided this. You , on the other hand, believe a silly story which your parents drummed into your head as a child. They LIED. Your parents lied to you. Admit it and move on.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it,
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh How could a 52 year old man believe a silly fairy story because his parents drummed it into his tiny brain as a kid? Why wouldn't he have the maturity to reject it?
@lewisner Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
@lewisner How could a 52 year old man believe a silly fairy story....... Born a lot of years ago and infected with a love of rock music and railways from a very early age. Atheist
____
So much science for this brainless kid "Born a lot of years ago and infected with a love of rock music and pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "How could a 52 year old man ....... "!
@1tabligh You come up with these completely nonsensical arguments for God. All we as atheists ask is for some Evidence of God and you have yet to provide it. :P
@atheistram How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh Some scientists acknowledge that the God's of any of the worlds religions is impossible. They don't rule out the possibility of a deist God. Therefore, they're agnostic atheists.
Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@atheistram Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@atheistram Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@atheistram just because the big bang is still a ''mystery'' stupid xians all of a sudden think that means that there god is real & not other gods smh even though the bibles full of errancy,contridictions,errors and plagerism. oh but it has historical evidence lol so does the oddessy,trojan war,and greek mythologies. heres one jesus said love thy eniemies yet hated the scribes & phersies.
@1tabligh Some scientists acknowledge that the God's of any of the worlds religions is impossible. They don't rule out the possibility of a deist God. Therefore, they're agnostic atheists.
@1tabligh They make the claim based on zero evidence of a divine creator. If God is so concerned with Earth, why hasn't he even left one iota of evidence behind?
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
@1tabligh okay quick question what is the smallest form of matter you know of and what functions do those particles serve alone? Because depending on your answer I can disprove your theory differently and want to make this easy for both of us.
@a something can't come from nothing. well u should tell him that recently scientist discovered particles that come into existance & dissapear from existance which in fact goes w/ rules of quantim phsyics=oh oh. btw u should check infidel,org OR COM ITS A SECULAR SITE website that shows the TRUE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE. INCLUDING THEIST KNOWINGLY DELEBRATLY CHANGING THE HEBREW WORD FOR LORDS INTO LORD WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN BIBLE SAYS LORD IT MEANS LORDS=THEY BELIEVED IN MANY GODS=AW SHIT
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
On the contrary, while authentic miracles are, by definition, rare that does not inevitably imply that they are impossible. You certainly do not deny the existence of so-called) materialist 'singularities (e.g, event(s) resembling the so-called big-bang). Such events are admittedly rare &improbable& non-empirical- but NOT impossible. What prevents miracles from possessing this same 'black swan' feature? I submit only your materialist assumptions
"why would god have a different set of moral standards than the one he, etc....? "
In short, he doesn't - In some respects it may appear that way to us because (if you accept the Bible account). He is perfectly "moral",just, & righteous, but Transcendent. Many of the evils which are described in the Bible are not necessarily attributable to God or His intervention(s). Many events are, on the contrary attributable to human actions&agency. There is also a 'degenerative' 'x" factor at work.
@shieldsff "when I refence the Bible as a credible source for the discovery of God you cavalierly dismiss it " Even IF you accepted every miracle claim in the NT you still wouldn't have proved anything. You have no good explanation for miracles without begging the question. "you are the one who goes on demanding proof of (UR conception) of "god" "In defense of Moreba at least he/she has a conception . What you call "god" is a bunch of secondary and relational attributes
On the contrary, while authentic miracles are, by definition, rare that does not inevitably imply that they are impossible. You certainly do not deny the existence of so-called) materialist 'singularities (e.g, event(s) resembling the so-called big-bang). Such events are admittedly rare &improbable& non-empirical- but NOT impossible. What prevents miracles from possessing this same 'black swan' feature? I submit only your materialist assumptions
@adler2adler - that an unjustifiable,circular argument---you are insisting that one must be able to scientifically study an alleged historical events. Yet,no historical event is EVER subjected to that demand or level of scrutiny.I find that like Matt you want to impose impossible and arbitrary standards which [self-serve your position.As Matt has stated he claims certainty only about the what he believes; not exeogenous facts Rather William Jamesian, No ? Also why do U keep deleting UR comments
@shieldsff "if there were such things as miracles it's highly unlikely that the scientific method would assess them." Then how do you assess them? This is sounding similar to an argument from ignorance.
"U have no basis for the arbitrary allegation that thousands of pple would want to share the same hallucination." I don't recall saying any such thing.
A final example of the inconsistency&fallacy of your perspective relating to the illogical insistence that a historical event (miraculous or otherwise) is incredible and potentially unverifiable unless it can be subjected to scientific inquiry, hypothesis formulation and repeatability. Let's take for example the big bang; Please tell us:When was the last time an empirically tested staged explosion led to even greater complexity, order and spontaneous, diverse biological, sentient organisms
@shieldsff "A final example of the inconsistency of your perspective relating to the illogical insistence that a historical event is potentially unverifiable unless it can be subjected to science"
But I'm NOT saying that. I cant make that any more clear. Claiming that Bob has hallucinations and that dopamine causes hallucination his hallucinations are two DIFFERENT claims. We are NOT debating the historicity.
@shieldsff “I find that like Matt you want to impose impossible and arbitrary standards which self-serve your position” You mean like not begging the question? Is that the impossible and arbitrary standard that self-serves my position?
“why do U keep deleting UR comments?” I keep writing you sexual advance but chicken out before posting
@adler2adler - that definitely explains everything to me now.... even why you are able to formulate a coherent argument. It's been - not so real. Good bye
U see there's the problem -I don't grant your premise. UR premise is the pre-supposition that the physical laws & materialist boundaries of our natural world are the full extent of reality;that may be scientifically true,but if there were such things as miracles it's highly unlikely that the scientific method would assess them. U have no basis for the arbitrary allegation that thousands of pple would want to share the same hallucination.(said hallucinations being the cause of protracted deaths
if i let 4 billion people write that Yahweh and Jesus are fake, will you believe them?
if we write 2 million books about miracles and god in the bible being lies, will you believe them?
if i get 50000 people to swear that an invisible leprichaun talked to them and explained them that God is fake and that the world is a better place without religions, will you believe them?
it is about the quality of the evidence when it comes to believing, not the quantity
@realbojay - Uh, would you care to answer the question I posed.
I certainly do not dispute the issue of "quality (credibility) of evidence. But with nearly 6000 manuscript which are very accurate and nearly identical the documents we have on hand today, I would have to say you are in a very difficult position as far as discrediting the validity of the Bible friend
Great video! Just so you know I also make videos contra a islam if you're interested.
Yewon2001 6 days ago
The moral argument is what got to me...
shadywolf91 1 month ago
It's a interesting dilemma. How do you make an arguement against a position which you're fully aware is not grounded on logic? Typically Atheists don't respond to emotional appeals & consider them to be a dirty tactic. Yet this is the framework by which the religious often operate. Does the end justify the means or is it a double standard on "our" part? Or is it just hypocritical to declare that "we" don't value such statements?
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Ultimately I believe that you, personally, cannot reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. But it's important that religious people are not the only ones giving their opinions. If they are the only ones putting out their cultural memes and their ideas, then those ideas will be (ironically) naturally selected for lack of competition.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
@TheGeneralCritic Maybe the idea of God is a natural bi-product of developed consciousness & a survival mechanism which binds cultures & protects the mind from dispairing at nature's cruelty & absurdity. In a world where we compete for limited resources, conflict is inevitable & I also think it's an essential part of evolution. Whilst Atheists are quick to remind that Atheism isn't a religion, it seems to me that an ideology is emerging from the community anyway. (continued)
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@TheGeneralCritic (sorry for the 2 parter) We are hard wired with the notion that life is preferable to death. But there's nothing to substantiate this idea beyond subjective oppinion. Neither worldveiw honestly tackles the problem. It may be that a God delusion is essential to life's perpetuation to some degree. If thats true, faith, religion & ideologies will just adapt & evolve but never disolve entirely. It's an uncomfortable to think that we may be dependant on a delusion.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
haha, funny ending.
tompatomp 2 months ago
I clung to the belief in Santa for an embarrassingly long time. Like, I know I made it to the double digits before I realized that there was no way I could continue lying to myself.
..........
I'm really lucky my family was never religious, or it would probably have taken a lot longer to come to my senses.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun At least by believing in Santa you got extra presents. :D
atheistram 1 month ago
God made me an atheist! Who are you to question his wisdom?
Enlightenedopinion92 2 months ago
@Enlightenedopinion92 lol, yeah, the best propaganda book for atheism is the bible itself.
Forlo12345 2 months ago
@Forlo12345 Q'uran, Torah etc.
MarcusEFN 2 months ago
@MarcusEFN those too.
Forlo12345 2 months ago
Don Baker is the Ed McMahon of the AE.
KokotTheMonkey 3 months ago
More like a christian's plan for atheists
Squidy214 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece will DESTROY atheism in one read. Click on my channel to see it...
youneekk 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religionists, Don't hope for a future because there is no future for Muslims, Christians or Judaists; the days of dictatorship is over. The planet is reviving and evolving into civilization. Ten thousand centuries with religion and without civilization is long enough to bear. Our right of passage should be the epitaph on the tombstone of religion:
"Tried everything twice. Loved it both times!"
LeoTheGreater 4 months ago
I wish god was real.. I am a white man.. so my life would be fantastic. According to the bible.
oknatora 4 months ago
@oknatora
Methinks you have too much logos and not enough mythos. Too much primate is like Mosaic Law without the Compassion introduced by Jesus. No one has had the impact on civilization as Jesus; albeit his messages have been suppressed or twisted by the Christian community but if you reject his common sense teaching whether you believe in the person or not, you are the lesser reptile for it. "Kingdom of Heaven within you" speaks to the dream of Mankind, IMMORTALITY, not Christianity.
LeoTheGreater 4 months ago
@LeoTheGreater Get off the drugs?
oknatora 4 months ago
@oknatora
If "get off the drugs" is your only rebuttal, you have no rebuttal and fail as a debater by shirking the issue with ad hominem attacks. Where is your mentality or are you just another 13 year old with nothing but a puberty cycle between your ears?
LeoTheGreater 4 months ago
@LeoTheGreater go be a fail troll elsewhere. I don't need a rebuttal as I don't give a shit as to what your saying.
oknatora 4 months ago
@LeoTheGreater methinks you're not making much sense.
humans arn't reptiles and the idea of heaven IS the idea of immortality, that's what is promised.
Christianity is a rather nebulous term, which particular brand do you adhere to?
gleehmee 3 months ago
@gleehmee
Humans are subject to the reptile brain, the first brain that we respond to and that part of the brain that operates unconscious behavior; thus when humans are exposed to repetition for example, as religion is so prone to do, the reptile brain accepts it as truth merely because of the repetition; fight or flight is another aspect of the reptile brain so that when a leaf blows across the path, the reptile brain cannot discern wind blowing the leaf and prepares for fight or flight.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@Jesuspeake We are not reptiles.
gleehmee 3 months ago
@gleehmee
If you are religious you are acting on reptilian instincts. And if you get hooked on the reptilian Drug of Absolute Certainty, Religion, and if you keep taking it, you too could wake up one day, so full of righteousness that suddenly the only thing that makes sense to you anymore is somebody else’s death. And you’ll realize that your mind is no longer your best friend. So if someone offers you, the Reptile Drug of Absolute Certainty, just say NO! Religion is the Dinosaur of the past
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@Jesuspeake You're making silly metaphors now. however I agree with the notion of religion being out dated.
gleehmee 3 months ago
@gleehmee
Religion is not merely, "outdated"; given half a chance that religion would control every aspect of my life whether I want it to or not. And would impose a morality on me, telling me what to think, what to believe and who to attack and kill for believing something else. Thus religion is the natural home of the psychopath. Historically whenever religion gets any power the result is always repression. I’m sure, if it could, it would bring back crucifixion.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@gleehmee
religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in. When the truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@gleehmee
All Supernatural Religions are delusional. It's adherents suffering a mental illness that generates a toxic neurological condition requiring followers to ram cranium up arse to justify the Brains for Shit Syndrome in defense of humanity’s cancer. The devilish irony consists in the fact that ‘God’, 'divine judgment' and 'damnation' are themselves religious inventions: religion creates and perfects the fear, then declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@gleehmee
There is no aspect of our lives, no matter how intimate, which religion does not unblushingly insist on its right to control. Whom we may love, whom we may desire, with whom we may physically express those feelings: in such restrictions on our freedom religion is at its most insistent and intrusive. But it does not stop even here, for religion does not limit its control to our deeds or even words:
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@gleehmee
no, the invisible Thought Police of religion do not scruple to pursue us even into the innermost recesses of our minds and there to stand ready to condemn us for our very thoughts. Not even the most heinous ruler or most brutal slave-owner ever achieved such extremes of tyranny; yet religion grants us no privacy, nowhere to hide, no freedom to entertain even a fleeting thought without its being immediately known to - and judged by - a cosmic dictator.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@gleehmee
True freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@Jesuspeake now you're being stupid. And spamming. Was that really nessisary?
Government is nessisary to prevent chaos.
gleehmee 3 months ago
@gleehmee
You are the one being stupid. Who is talking about government?...I never mentioned government, you did. I am talking about intrusive of tyranny religion into government and the tyranny of dictatorships like in Yemen and in Syria. Do you think the dictatorship of Syria killing thousands of its people, is that the prevention of chaos that government must do, you are talking about?
If that is all you have to offer in comments,are you a teenager? Or on the drug of Absolute Certainty?
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@Jesuspeake Earth regimes = government.
You're resorting to silly assertions and guesses so we're pretty much finished. I'm neither a teenager nor absoloutly certain about the topic why did you turn the conversation to that anyway?
gleehmee 3 months ago
@gleehmee
I can agree that you do not know the topic you are talking about. You mean earthly regimes like Ghaddaffi, Assad in Syria and Saleh in Yemen, Mubarak in Egypt, the brute royalty of Saudi Arabia and their religious police, Burma? Are those the governments you think are required to keep Chaos in check. Now there's a topic. Care to answer and justify these earthly tyrannical regimes remaining in power?
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
@Jesuspeake Your wording was wrong, so we don't agree.
Why do I have to justify bad examples? Without them there could be equally bad examples.
gleehmee 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gleehmee
You have already justified them by your previous comments: I remind you that you stated: "Government is nessisary to prevent chaos."
I rest my case. I believe from your comments that you suffer from theotardation, the noun being a Theotard.
Jesuspeake 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
since there is no such thing as god, then there is no plan.
trampledone 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God can go fuck himself
PETAVER 4 months ago
A: “This doesn’t make sense. My wife let me put my dick in her ass last night. How did this happen?
C: “ God did it.”
A: “What about free will?”
C: “God has a plan. Obviously he needed you to have anal sex with your wife. You can’t mess with Gods plan."
A: "So I should be thanking the guys who killed my child that caused my wife to take all those prescription drugs that allowed me to convince her of this…THANK YOU GOD!!!"
C: "God works in mysterious ways.”
A55TRICKY 4 months ago
why would a grown man or woman belive in a god show me 1 just 1 piece of evidence
i can show you loads that we evolved from apes religion was just a con some 1 came up with to make money out of the old and ill people
701shep 4 months ago
Awesome caller.
lewisner 4 months ago
You are an atheist when it comes to any other god.
your book came from a pedophile sheep herder only 1400 years ago, who spoke with satan? Hajj 22:52-53
who took massive parts from the bible to and they took it from other people
and laws like "kill your son if he doesn't believe in 'me' "
"beat up your wife" "Don't eat this and that" "kill your women if they marry other religions" and so many more.. may make sense to you, but not to others, because only you are FORCED to think it is god's law
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 5 months ago
the human wasn't allowed to replace god whenever he learned new things, books were made to keep the illiterate and uneducated ones obedient and afraid of THE authority, to do what others want them to do, think what others want them to think, who explained the world to them according to their, in meantime obsolete knowledge, forced us to stck to it ever since, for millenia
it is sad that people still think they need some ancient books to believe in god, or to live their lives in a decent manner
realbojay 5 months ago
*picture of me
well at any rate, you don't even know if i believe in god
which i don't, in meantime i don't even give it a chance anymore, all the gods that humans praise or believe in are fake, man made construct, an image of reality created by the early self conscient brain to avoid overload from the completely unknown world that he faced, he put the gaps in his knowledge on queue by saying "goddidit" until he gets an explanation, that feature was ABUSED by slave drivers to create religions
realbojay 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice guy he is. :)
Spaghettimonster777 5 months ago
OK, dude- can I merely request that you read the book of Acts of the Apostle before we continue. What I think you are not following is that it was not an isolated leader or a few followers of the sect acting in a fanatical fashion. Rather, based on the spread of the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, MASSES of people throughout the Roman Empire & beyond (different nations, languages and cultures) turned to faith in Jesus.10's of thousands continued to convert despite death edicts
shieldsff 5 months ago
Christians tell me It is unacceptable for them to live in a world with out god, so god has to be real. To them I say it is unacceptable for me to live in a world that is infested with the self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. Therefore I believe there are no self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. Theist logic is great stuff. It gives the user a sense of exuberance.
scotttebben 5 months ago
Atheists are fair game!! hahaha, Don is funny.
But yeah, cmon get me, i got a challenge going on for a while already for whoever wants to convert me, right on my profile, check "about me" section.
realbojay 5 months ago
absolutely insane. i have had the exact same experience with my family. what tore me apart was watching my mom cry because she thinks ill go to hell. i asked her if she thought i deserved that. her eyes wanted to say no, but she couldnt. no matter how many times i asked her, she couldnt answer. She knows it would be wrong to send a good person to hell just for non belief. I told her "you want to say no but you cant because of your religion. you have better morality than the god you serve."
autopsy87 5 months ago
@autopsy87 why are people always thinking the morality of human beings should apply to "God". Look around you, in the animal kingdom Filial cannibalism is where the adult eats their own immediate offspring and i promise you it is seen as completely normal to other animals. The set of biological rules and morals apply differently to the occupants of the earth, and they are not a measure in any way. Lets pretend that God's morals are questionable? that is no proof that God does not exist.
Regards
atheer87 5 months ago
@atheer87 questionable? have you read the bible? that's a gross understatement. Also why would god have a different set of moral standards than the one he holds us accountable for? The very set of standards he lists for us are the ones HE deems as moral yet he continuously defies his own rules of morality. The only thing humanity has to go off of in regards to the christian god is the bible. A book written and compiled by men. full of historical and scientific impossibilities.
autopsy87 5 months ago
OK, guys, here's the deal on this stuff and God's (real} secret plan for you and all other atheists, agnostics, secularist, etc....Here's the real deal now:
God's plan is about GOD- His Truth, His Will; His Purpose; His Revelation.
In short- NOT YOU !
Now, a final point, why is the caller & host accusing God & expressing resentment. God made U&all creation- we are the creatures, OK ? Everyone DESERVES hell. When we die, without God you have no existence anyway? U have NO RIGHT TO INDICT GOD
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff
"OK, guys, here's the deal on this stuff and God's (real} secret plan for you and all other atheists, agnostics, secularist, etc...."
why do you put secularists and agnostics and atheists in the same category? A lot of theists are secularists too, you don't have to be an atheists to uphold secularism.
"Now, a final point, why is the caller & host accusing God & expressing resentment."
I don't think he accused God or even implied it.
adler2adler 5 months ago
@shieldsff 1.- Define "god". 2.-Explain how do you know it has a plan 3.-Explain how do you know what it's plan is. 4.-Present evidence for your claims. 5.-Look for the word "atheist" in the dictionary.
If you did #5 then you know that an atheist does not believe the claims of a god existing are real, therefore an atheist can't be accusatory or resentful to god anymore than you can be accusatory or resentful towards the lucky charm's leprechaun.
Moreba 5 months ago
permit by means of opposition: [Your] god would be observable, naturalistic random forces subject to finite time & matter-.Your acts of devotion (worship) , include your rationalizations, works, efforts & endeavors for the purpose of reassuring yourself of the same. My God,(as the BIble makes clear) is the transcendent Creator of Heaven& earth. He is the source & first cause of all Life & reality which has ever existed . For more details see the Bible & all relevant vids on my channel.
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff Why do religious people (like you in this case) can't see that some of us don't have a god? You have to go and label nature, or the study of it as "god" or "dogma" in order to feel reassured and cozy inside. Arbitrary changing the meaning of a word doesn't make your point valid. You are just telling me "nature" means god now and "critical thinking" means worship. How dishonest.
It's like saying, "Well you don't believe in my god, but you play chess, that is definitely Your god!"
._.
Moreba 5 months ago
@Moreba can't see that some of us don't have a god?
I don;t agree that I am arbitrarily doing any such thing,..... Why isn't'it just as likely that you are the one who fails to understand the exact nature of your enterprise to begin with. Feel free to check out some of the relevant vids on my channel if you like for more discussion on this issue
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff "I don;t agree that I am arbitrarily doing any such thing" Well you are. You are changing the meaning of the words nature to god and the words "work, effords and endeavors" to worship. I guess you can deny it but it's written right there.
You are right that I read other books than the bible and that I accept their content as real, but those books are written based on experimentation and knowledge of facts. There is not one thing that I accept for which there is no evidence of in them.
Moreba 5 months ago
ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts. But the last thing I would want in this situation is to accept the narrow dogma and doctrines of an all-knowing materialist such as yourself. What confidence shd any reasoning person ever have that your metphysics has any objective reality outside of UR own brain chemistry. I don't believe [in] U
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff You claim you have different sources than the bible, yet you fail at mentioning even 1 of them other than the videos in your channel that are also based on the bible. You have convinced yourself that people who use logic and see reality for what it is are following a "narrow dogma"
Saying that"a supernatural all powerful being exists and it's the creator of all" it's a very unbelievable claim, but not backing it up with real evidence and expecting everyone to believe it is just silly.
Moreba 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
@Moreba "it's a very unbelievable claim, but not backing it up with real evidence "
I guess that would make (convoluted) sense for a person who thinks they know everything, U are free to have at it for now, but as I made clear, I could never have your type of absolute BELIEF in the finite processes of your brain chemicals- that may make sense to you someday if you were to say suffer from alzheimers or dementia.In the meantime,how can U be so arrogant- U don't know the mechanics of all universes
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff I know I don't know everything. if I did I wouldn't bother to ask for evidence of your claims, I'd just assume they are not true. It is because I know I don't know everything that I am open to accept evidence that proves, what I accept to be real, wrong. You are the one failing to provide this evidence.
I don't "believe" in the chemical process of my brain, it's a fact that it works as it does.Qouting Inigo here you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means
Moreba 5 months ago
Yet when I refence the Bible as a credible source for the discovery of God you cavalierly dismiss it with no sincere investigation. That's like a man who insists on proof of say "electrons" but rejects the validity if the instrument to do so (a electron microscope) . Consider: you really are like someone who says, here's my proof that there is "no such thing as proofs" - talk about circular reasoning
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
adler2adler 5 months ago
@shieldsff By that reasoning, I could claim The Silmarillion is true and turn Tolkien in to a prophet. "Oh you mean it says so in 1 book? Then it must be true!" The bible makes less sense than fairy tales, yet you expect people to accept it without any objection, why? because god wrote it how do you know this?because it says so in the bible.<-That is a circular argument.
And again, I don't have a "conception of god" I am simply asking for evidence backing up Your claims about the god you defined
Moreba 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"By that reasoning, ."
No, you cannot because I am NOT saying any such thing (i.e., it's merely a book)
Last time I read (viewed) Tolkien's "Lord of the Ring" ,no where was Tolkien making
claims regarding historical, present time or prophetic events. U will note that the Biblia contains all three- it can be readily verified that Gaius Octavia (Augustus)was Caesar at the birth of Jesus in Judea. More importantly, the Gospels assert the historical fact of Jesus' singular, glorified resurrection
shieldsff 5 months ago
"ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts"
Oh what a load of
I ask for evidence of your claims about god, you fail to deliver, instead you present the bible as evidence and try to manipulate words to make it look like critical thinking is dogma and nature is god and then you say I'm the one who is not open to any other concepts?
._. lol?
Moreba 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
Yet you are altogether oblivious to the fact that your pre-suppositionalist materialism is exactly what is negating UR grasp of the so-called proof you seek. I too read all kinds of book & evaluate their merits based on their accuracy. But some ideas do not lend themselves to that - you cannot model some 'scientific theories" like Hawking's 'pre-time" concept
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff In a nutshell, your definition of god is "the transcendent Creator of Heaven& earth. He is the source & first cause of all Life & reality which has ever existed." And you know this because of what is written in the bible and from what other people who's only source is the bible too, tell you.
Circular argument we meet again.
You might want to check out Tim Minchin's song "The good book" I bet you will be able to relate.
Moreba 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
"And you know this because of what is written in the bible "
In fact, what I was saying is that's how YOU can know (as well as from several other interesting writings). I am sure that similarly, you read some work(s) which offer all kind of conjecture about the big bang, or the time space continuum, or the concept of infinity or the notion of cooling coefficients, or about the Oedipal complex- & U BELIEVE IT
The Bible is certainly valid &compelling- but I did not say my exclusive source
shieldsff 5 months ago
@Moreba - In a nutshell, my realization of God is not the god you seem intent on making for your self and serving . Hope you can see that and understand that someday you too will have to encounter this true One, God who is the Creator of all things & truth and light. That you will have to encounter Him in knowledge and peace, or (not knowing him) in darkness and separation. You may want to check that out in the Bible too in the Gospel of John if you care to. thanks
shieldsff 5 months ago
@Moreba Look, you are the one who goes on demanding proof of (UR conception) of "god"; your reductionist faith in a finite, deterministic force which you do worship (because this 'belief' controls your action)
shieldsff 5 months ago
@Moreba 1.- Define "god".
___
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or *define* His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being *YET* He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
if you are too stupid to understand god, why do you think you understand him better than we do?
we understand perfectly, don't worry.
It is a ridiculous attempt to explain the world to illiterate uneducated people to mesmerize them into blind obedience through fear of dying, threats about eternal punishment, violence and murder... nothing else.
It is too sad that so many people even nowadays, in those modern times where we are both literate and educated, still believe such bullsh!t
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
"Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!"
you made it very easy to answer them all by saying "goddidit"
you can't prove god, you just believe in him, that is all
calling a book the ultimate truth and finding new ways to give us new jokes like "god explained the big bang in the qur'an"
but it took you 1400 years to understand it, after somebody else made the discovery
so much for the 43:3 part of the Qur'an
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
but there is a great thing about that.. in science, nobody tells you you will be put into a jar on a shelf in some laboratory and tortured forever if you don'T believe what your physics book says
we surpased the obsolete, and in meantime ridiculous knowledge from ancient times
we are above it, it would be hilarious how people fight science and reality to keep their illusion protected.. but unfortunately they fu**ed up the world too much for it to be funny, its horrifying
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
also my atheism is based on myself, i didn't need anybody for that
just 2 parents from 2 different religions who made an arrangement, that their kids can choose whatever they wish to believe in, or not believe in
which is why i am my own boss and don't blame everything on my imaginary friends
if you pull your heads out of the clouds you might be able to understand that
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws,
1tabligh 5 months ago
when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;
1tabligh 5 months ago
they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
sure it is very logical to take some old books full of meaningless blathering and obsolete knowledge and pseudo morality and countless contradictions, scientific idiocy and other bullshit and take it as the ultimate guide through life, where you see the word of god
seriously keep your brainless comments to yourself
the only one who might be interested is a psychiatrist
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
the humans are atheists by nature
it takes doctrine to punch god into their brains
if god wanted us to love him and believe in him and what he does being the right thing, he wouldn't need utterly idiotic books and advocates
you know nothing about me and how i perceive the world
when you saw i don't share your god illusion. you created a twisted picture or me to fit to your distorted reality
i perceive mine through sense and scrutiny, you cling onto your illusion and adjust the rest
realbojay 5 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 5 months ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
what is your hopeless poetical point if i may ask?
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
in short, stop thinking about it and say "goddidit" and people from like 1500 years ago told me i am too stupid to understand so i shouldn't even try?
yeah makes sense... but only for the indoctrinated part of the world..
realbojay 5 months ago
UR probably aware, but this is a stock question that so the poster can proceed w/an illogical line of questioning about why can't we then measure God, see him, sensory perceive him, etc, In short what ever real definition is offered related to his personal attributes will be rejected based on naturalist assumptions. This type of argumentation is of course, obviously spurious. Like someone seeing the [former] world trade towers & insisting if the architect isn't a part of it, he never existed
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff God and Empirical Logic
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
1tabligh 5 months ago
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to measure a body, but when it comes to measuring the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to measure the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge
1tabligh 5 months ago
of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh Again, all you are doing is listing what “God” is not and telling me nothing about what “God” is. You keep calling your opponents “closed-minded” but it’s not even clear what you want them to accept.
"This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature"
Wow talk about bad faith
adler2adler 5 months ago
@adler2adler Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
1tabligh 5 months ago
For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
well glad you realize it
he isn't the creator, we agree
you are the creator
you created your own image of your god to fit the parts that you selected from your book, the teachings and theories that you collected through life from people close to you, the world as you percieved it through your senses
that is god, he is in your head
that is why you will never find him anywhere else in the universe
we looked on the earth, in the sea, on the sky, the only place where he is, is your heads
realbojay 5 months ago
@1tabligh "Your argument for disbelief is foolish. " Say you are prosecutor in court. The defendant's attorney asks you what are the charges against her client (Mr Smith). Your answer is "its not theft and it doesn't involve Mrs Smith" Can you imagine a legal system where guilt is determined for unspecified crimes?
When you say "cannot be perceivable by the five senses" you are making a similar Alice in Wonderland type argument.
adler2adler 5 months ago
@adler2adler Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
you all worship an imagination as your gods
glad you agree
realbojay 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh The CIA, FBI, ATF are completely under Jesuit control. The Jonestown massacre, the Waco massacre and other massacres(including the Twin Towers) were all orchestrated to cause worldwide abhorrence and demonization of any group that seeks to get out from under the control of the worldwide Jesuit influence, domination, subversion and infiltration.
bornbythesea 4 months ago
@1tabligh You capitalise various words to bolster your delusion.
lewisner 4 months ago
@lewisner Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Answer the question instead!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Because years of scientific evidence have decided this. You , on the other hand, believe a silly story which your parents drummed into your head as a child. They LIED. Your parents lied to you. Admit it and move on.
lewisner 4 months ago
@lewisner The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it,
1tabligh 4 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
1tabligh 4 months ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Firmly and forcibly stated crap is still crap; your god does not exist. Prove it or admit your parents lied to you.
lewisner 4 months ago
@lewisner The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh How could a 52 year old man believe a silly fairy story because his parents drummed it into his tiny brain as a kid? Why wouldn't he have the maturity to reject it?
lewisner 4 months ago
@lewisner Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@lewisner How could a 52 year old man believe a silly fairy story....... Born a lot of years ago and infected with a love of rock music and railways from a very early age. Atheist
____
So much science for this brainless kid "Born a lot of years ago and infected with a love of rock music and pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "How could a 52 year old man ....... "!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh You come up with these completely nonsensical arguments for God. All we as atheists ask is for some Evidence of God and you have yet to provide it. :P
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Some scientists acknowledge that the God's of any of the worlds religions is impossible. They don't rule out the possibility of a deist God. Therefore, they're agnostic atheists.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram
Gods.
Sorry :)
Surtak 4 months ago
@atheistram Use the reply button instead!
Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Is it more logical to posit the existence of something MUCH more complex than anything in the universe before the universe was even formed?
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Maybe so... but what evidence do you have for a wise creator??
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@atheistram just because the big bang is still a ''mystery'' stupid xians all of a sudden think that means that there god is real & not other gods smh even though the bibles full of errancy,contridictions,errors and plagerism. oh but it has historical evidence lol so does the oddessy,trojan war,and greek mythologies. heres one jesus said love thy eniemies yet hated the scribes & phersies.
MegaGangstaparadise 4 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Yep... I agree with you completely.
atheistram 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Some scientists acknowledge that the God's of any of the worlds religions is impossible. They don't rule out the possibility of a deist God. Therefore, they're agnostic atheists.
atheistram 4 months ago
@1tabligh They make the claim based on zero evidence of a divine creator. If God is so concerned with Earth, why hasn't he even left one iota of evidence behind?
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram just tell me this, where did the matter for the universe come from? and also, do you have morals?
Stryker523 4 months ago
@atheistram why hasn't he even left one iota of evidence behind?
____
It's right there in front of your nose!
But you refuse to acknowledged!
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
1tabligh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh So the iota of evidence left by god is pixel 1452, 544 on my monitor.
TheBlitMaster 4 months ago
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh No scientist that I know of believes that. So I don't know where you got that from.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
1tabligh 4 months ago
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh okay quick question what is the smallest form of matter you know of and what functions do those particles serve alone? Because depending on your answer I can disprove your theory differently and want to make this easy for both of us.
TheBlitMaster 4 months ago
@a something can't come from nothing. well u should tell him that recently scientist discovered particles that come into existance & dissapear from existance which in fact goes w/ rules of quantim phsyics=oh oh. btw u should check infidel,org OR COM ITS A SECULAR SITE website that shows the TRUE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE. INCLUDING THEIST KNOWINGLY DELEBRATLY CHANGING THE HEBREW WORD FOR LORDS INTO LORD WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN BIBLE SAYS LORD IT MEANS LORDS=THEY BELIEVED IN MANY GODS=AW SHIT
MegaGangstaparadise 4 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Why is this directed toward me? It should be directed toward 1tabligh. I am a skeptic toward claims of the Bible.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram I to am a skeptic but after reading bible history on INFIDEL,ORG I am REALLY skeptical to the point where am about atheist.
MegaGangstaparadise 4 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Congrats... you're a rationalist. :)
atheistram 4 months ago
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
1tabligh 5 months ago
Comment removed
adler2adler 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You have no good explanation for miracles"
On the contrary, while authentic miracles are, by definition, rare that does not inevitably imply that they are impossible. You certainly do not deny the existence of so-called) materialist 'singularities (e.g, event(s) resembling the so-called big-bang). Such events are admittedly rare &improbable& non-empirical- but NOT impossible. What prevents miracles from possessing this same 'black swan' feature? I submit only your materialist assumptions
shieldsff 5 months ago
"why would god have a different set of moral standards than the one he, etc....? "
In short, he doesn't - In some respects it may appear that way to us because (if you accept the Bible account). He is perfectly "moral",just, & righteous, but Transcendent. Many of the evils which are described in the Bible are not necessarily attributable to God or His intervention(s). Many events are, on the contrary attributable to human actions&agency. There is also a 'degenerative' 'x" factor at work.
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff "when I refence the Bible as a credible source for the discovery of God you cavalierly dismiss it " Even IF you accepted every miracle claim in the NT you still wouldn't have proved anything. You have no good explanation for miracles without begging the question. "you are the one who goes on demanding proof of (UR conception) of "god" "In defense of Moreba at least he/she has a conception . What you call "god" is a bunch of secondary and relational attributes
adler2adler 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You have no good explanation for miracles"
On the contrary, while authentic miracles are, by definition, rare that does not inevitably imply that they are impossible. You certainly do not deny the existence of so-called) materialist 'singularities (e.g, event(s) resembling the so-called big-bang). Such events are admittedly rare &improbable& non-empirical- but NOT impossible. What prevents miracles from possessing this same 'black swan' feature? I submit only your materialist assumptions
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
adler2adler 5 months ago
@adler2adler - that an unjustifiable,circular argument---you are insisting that one must be able to scientifically study an alleged historical events. Yet,no historical event is EVER subjected to that demand or level of scrutiny.I find that like Matt you want to impose impossible and arbitrary standards which [self-serve your position.As Matt has stated he claims certainty only about the what he believes; not exeogenous facts Rather William Jamesian, No ? Also why do U keep deleting UR comments
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff “that an unjustifiable,circular argument” what the hell does this mean?
"you are insisting that one must be able to scientifically study an alleged historical events.”
Nope. Not even implying that. My argument was that miracles do not support theism one bit not that said miracles didn't occur.
adler2adler 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff "if there were such things as miracles it's highly unlikely that the scientific method would assess them." Then how do you assess them? This is sounding similar to an argument from ignorance.
"U have no basis for the arbitrary allegation that thousands of pple would want to share the same hallucination." I don't recall saying any such thing.
adler2adler 5 months ago
A final example of the inconsistency&fallacy of your perspective relating to the illogical insistence that a historical event (miraculous or otherwise) is incredible and potentially unverifiable unless it can be subjected to scientific inquiry, hypothesis formulation and repeatability. Let's take for example the big bang; Please tell us:When was the last time an empirically tested staged explosion led to even greater complexity, order and spontaneous, diverse biological, sentient organisms
shieldsff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff "A final example of the inconsistency of your perspective relating to the illogical insistence that a historical event is potentially unverifiable unless it can be subjected to science"
But I'm NOT saying that. I cant make that any more clear. Claiming that Bob has hallucinations and that dopamine causes hallucination his hallucinations are two DIFFERENT claims. We are NOT debating the historicity.
adler2adler 5 months ago
@shieldsff “I find that like Matt you want to impose impossible and arbitrary standards which self-serve your position” You mean like not begging the question? Is that the impossible and arbitrary standard that self-serves my position?
“why do U keep deleting UR comments?” I keep writing you sexual advance but chicken out before posting
adler2adler 5 months ago
@adler2adler - that definitely explains everything to me now.... even why you are able to formulate a coherent argument. It's been - not so real. Good bye
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff ^^ thank you for calling my arguments coherent.
adler2adler 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adler2adler "thank you for calling my arguments coherent."
Thanks for pointing that our sir- I stand corrected... incoherent argument
shieldsff 5 months ago
U see there's the problem -I don't grant your premise. UR premise is the pre-supposition that the physical laws & materialist boundaries of our natural world are the full extent of reality;that may be scientifically true,but if there were such things as miracles it's highly unlikely that the scientific method would assess them. U have no basis for the arbitrary allegation that thousands of pple would want to share the same hallucination.(said hallucinations being the cause of protracted deaths
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff
if i let 4 billion people write that Yahweh and Jesus are fake, will you believe them?
if we write 2 million books about miracles and god in the bible being lies, will you believe them?
if i get 50000 people to swear that an invisible leprichaun talked to them and explained them that God is fake and that the world is a better place without religions, will you believe them?
it is about the quality of the evidence when it comes to believing, not the quantity
you believe in thin air
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay - Uh, would you care to answer the question I posed.
I certainly do not dispute the issue of "quality (credibility) of evidence. But with nearly 6000 manuscript which are very accurate and nearly identical the documents we have on hand today, I would have to say you are in a very difficult position as far as discrediting the validity of the Bible friend
shieldsff 5 months ago