Even such superb minds as Newton and Descartes were devout christians. I don't think it has all that much to do with intelligence. it's rather about human need for mystisicm and believing in something greater than themselves. I don't really know. I'm a scientifically trained person myself, but I don't think we should look down at religious people (I did, for a while). I actually think we may have lost something significant when we decided to go world-weary and cynical. Are we any happier?
I'm certainly happier without a violent dictator god sending people to Hell, for example. Some sort of "greater than myself" being wouldn't be Yawweh anymore, though.
Being as skeptical as I hope it gets, I still tend to somewhat believe in things like "synchronicity" or possible effects of my mind on reality, but I realize that those are mere speculative options and probably just a refuge for my psyche.
While C.S Lewis was converted to Chrsitianity, apparently Tolkien (a Roman Catholic) was distraught that he converted to Anglicanism instead. Ah well, it's all for the literal love of God. Would've been nice to have one more epic novel written by one more epic Catholic, though ;)
jack c.s lewis once converted to anglican decade later when he wrote narnia books his old asatru norse pagan religion is symbolizied by jadis white witch queen of narnia...the norse goddess holla or hella of endless winter!...(she is in command of werewoves and dwarves...and uses runes)
both men had been wounded as british infantry officers in ww-1...both men were in the inklings writers group....jack c.s. lewis was asatru norse pagan (until age 30 or 40) understood "death of solar god balder" jrr tolkien was roman catholic...jack c.s. lewis eventually became anglican protestant....
Paganism everywhere. The point is that ALL of those Christians that have experimented a REAL conversion, we all got the same expression of the officers: "No one ever spoke like this man!" Jn 7:46
Death & resurrection rituals were common like in Freemason's, Rosicrucian's & most Eurasian cults so any type of ritual like that at the spring equinox which afterwards nature resurrects & blooms would have been important in occult logic. The Old Testament & the New completely conflict, the religious ideas are different, so later it became harmonized & a linear story created of original sin & prophets awaiting modern Messiah for Jews, Mese/Mose/Moses means old man or old men (Romanian),
The 'sacrifice' elements were devised for those who followed the Pharisee barbecue cults, the Solar elements from the original Roman/Saturnian imperial traditions. & Pythagorean numerical geometrical element for the Pythagoreans based societies, all this is what the NT was striving for, but from that it evolved into the modern lunacy what ALL modern franchises/churches/synagogues interpret. Roman/Ahriman/Armenian, the Greeks came from The Southern Caucasus & they evolved into the Romans.
The whole idea of God needing a sacrifice for himself to pay for sins etc. is completely ridiculous, nor is it based in original elements from the religions it evolved from, it was created as an anecdote to harmonize several cults throughout the Roman empire. Jesus the man never 'died'. The story of Barabbas (Bar=Son, Abbas=Father) clearly states he was let go. The NT then goes into the Cruci-Fiction of the Sun/son in the constellation Aries/The Lamb on the zodical cross at the spring equinox.
This is somewhat inflammatory, to say the least. Didn't C. S. Lewis try other faiths first? I seem to remember reading he even considered Asatru (though maybe by a differing name at that time) - either way Christianity seems to swamp any discussion about any aspect of C. S. Lewis' life nowadays.
Who is the "me"? Is it Jesus or the Christ? This mistake is the fundamental problem of those who dont distinguish or understand the difference between Jesus and the Christ.
When you understand the difference between Jesus and the Christ, you can reply.
12 The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God,
You are overlooking something very important in the trinity. They are said to beof ONE ousia. Ousia in Greek means essentially "the very same substance." Jesus is of the very same substance as God, therefore He and God are one. Jesus told His disciples that "I emanated out from the Father and I am going back into Him." God creates by extending Himself, so all of God's creations are like Him, . Fully divine and fully like the Father.
Wow... Tolkien used a very strong argument to convince Lewis of the veracity of the Bible (even if it was a bit altered by speaking of Jesus as God - Jesus is God's Son, not God Himself.
Still, we are all in debt to Tolkien for having managed that transformation so subtly and yet so strong.
It doesn't have to be strong enough is part of the beauty of it. Unless God draws you then you cannot see so you represent yourself with integrity, I think. I have no doubt that you are comfortable in your own skin and I agree that you should be.
God was drawing Lewis during this time and used Tolkien's clever approach. Both can take full credit or no credit.
It's beautiful in how well it can be explained, but you could just as easily say that it was simply a weak argument that is effective at reeling in people that already want to believe.
I agree with you. God draws you into a personal relationship and because of that you view things differently, that is, you want to believe.
It's like we're on two sides of a river describing a canoe on it. I accurately say it's moving from right to left and it has a name on the front and you from left to right and see no markings.
edualym, Jesus Christ is both the son of God and God. This statement is known as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is a person, Christ is God, Jesus Christ is both true man and true God.
Christ is the Greek word that means "ANNOINTED" the same as the Hebrew word Messiah.
Before coming to earth Jesus lived in heaven with his Father, YHWH. Then he came to earth and gave his life as a ransom; after the resurrection he went back to heaven.
He never was, is or will be GOD himself.
John 17:3- And eternal life is this, that they know you the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom YOU sent.
John 20:17- Say to them, "I go to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and your God."
You reasoning makes no sense. John's theology established the identity of the Father and the Son. Just because you find no "God the Son," reference doesn't mean the theology doesn't contain it. Look at John 14, for example.
Also you references 2Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3 support my statement that the Father and Son are the same.
The first what? Learn how to write. 1Cor 1:3 state that God is the Father of Jesus Christ and does not state that Christ is not God. The other verses are copies of 1Cor 1:3.
Futhermore, Paul had no theology of the divinity of Christ. The theology is devleoped in the Gospel which all occur after the Pauline Letters.
As for the RANSOM, this doctrine is central to Bible understanding. Denial of this doctrine constitutes a denial of God's Justice and rejection of the valid/legal value of Christ's death. PSALM 49:7, 8 - Under the Fall, none of us could give GOD a ransom for our lives. Only God could provide one unto Adam to cover the price of what the first man threw away. JOHN 3:16 GOD so loved the world that He gave himself? NO He gave His only begotten Son. Jesus' death paid the price to cover what Adam lost
Paid the price to whom? Whomever you select leads to a contradiction. Furthermore, RANSOM is not a doctrine and is not central to the Bible. For example it does not occur in the OT. The NT concept appears here and there, and has many theological problems. The basic idea is: 1) You have an unhappy God, 2) Jesus dies, 3) You have a happy God AND 4) Humanity is NOT changed.
It was paid to GOD (Psalm 49:7,8). Why? Adam's sin condemned us to death. By the death of the "Second Adam" the price is paid. Of course, if you have Jesus being both God/Man which the Bible NEVER states then the price was OVER-PAID, not being equal in value what was lost. God was the only one who could provide a Second Adam in the person of His Son. Did you expect Mankind to be free of Sin and Death the moment Jesus expired? Wait, if he is God then he never died, for God cannot die.
Christ/Messiah mean the same thing: ANNOINTED for a special purpose or mission, it never means GOD!!!!!
God cannot be annointed for anything... but HE alone has the power and authority to annoint others.
GOD cannot die because he is immutable: that is he never changes. Jesus Christ DIED a perfect, obedient man and paid the price.
God WAS NOT/IS NOT/ WILL NOT pleased with the death of others. He stuck to his own principles of justice and made the biggest sacrifice: the life of his own Son.
Christ is the Greek of Meshia which is Hebrew meaning anointed. But Christ in Christian terms is a reference to the second person of the Trinity. That is why when Paul talks about Jesus (alone), he is always referring to the HISTORICAL Jesus, not the Christ. The first references to Christ are to Christ Jesus, not to Jesus Christ. Then comes Jesus, the Christ. It is a reference to the Son, the second person of the Trinity, and all persons of the Trinity are God.
Secondly, Jesus Christ in John 14 says: If you know me you would know the Father. This is because the Christ is the Son which is the Father. This teaching is basic Christianity which you are so stupid, that you don't get.
Mary is known as the Mother of God, because she gave birth to Christ (God).
God can do anything God wants and the moment you restrict God, it is your idea of God, not God. [Deal with that one, moron].
God is not immutable, since God changes God's mind, as in Gen 18
So God CAN die and that is the central belief of Christianity. Deal with that one! As in Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again. In fact the dead and resurrected god is a universal theme found in many religions, for example: Dumuzi and Quetzalcoatl.
Finally if the debt (ransom) was paid to God, and God accepted the ransom, then God was PLEASED by the ransom, which includes the death. SO BY YOUR OWN WORDS: GOD WAS PLEASED BY THE DEATH OF JESUS.
@PointsofOriginII The Bible says that right out. It was always God's plan, even from eternity, to send Jesus to die and be raised up, in order that he might reconcile all things unto to Himself.
The word 'Christ' is a variation of the Egyptian 'Horus', in Romanian Christ is 'Hristos' The 'Ch' & 'H' are interchangable is regional spellings. Modern Christianity is a corrupted pagan religion.
The word 'Christ' is simply a Greek word that means 'chosen one'. It is not even a proper name for any person. It was just an ordinary, common, dictionary word - that's all! The followers of Jesus then started using this word as a title for their leader.
It was also used by Roman Emperors, Horus was also known as Kryst. the letters HR (CHR) represent Horus-rising sun, ST-setting sun. The name JeShua (Jesus) represents the sun/son, in Cabala the sound 'SH' represents fire, the name is a combination of the tetragramaton 'JHWH' with SH in the middle. Je-sh-ua cults have been around for a long time, ISUS (Romanian Jesus) is the same as ISIS (Greek) for Aegyptian AST. Dion-Ysus means "God-Jesus" which became Adonis & the Jewish Adoni
The funniest thing that most Christians globally still call God by their local Pagan names in bibles: Romanian "DumneZeu", Dumne=Lord Zeu=Zeus/Zu, Slavonic Bog, Every biblical interpretation uses a local ancient pagan name for God. Even the word God/Good/Got is from "Gad" a pagan god of fortune. Bible=Local pagan Gods in different story settings. Every day the local pagan gods are still invoked in Christian churches & homes!
The Latin catholic mass calls Jesus "Satvr" Sator=Savior. A cross was called "STUR" Star/Sator etc. (same word regional spellings). Rome was called "Saturnia". No Roman called themselves Roman they were Saturnians, later 'experts' used the the word Roman & became academically standardized. X-mas was called "Saturnalia" around the winter solstice (Dec 22-25) with trees & gift giving. SAT=SET, UR=LIGHT, Sat-ur means "Light of Set" or "Set's Light". They should teach that in Sunday school.
I just love how the Trinitarians always go back to Plato's greek to try and define what they call the "CENTRAL BIBLE DOGMA" which the Bible never contains and therefore we must run with haste back to the pagans...
The Bible has no central dogma because its a collection of books. The New testament does, and certainly themes can be found throughout. I do agree many Christian's used Plato as if he himself was christian, when his works point toward his being pagan.
The Trinity is central to Christs teaching and is and always has been part of the Tradition since the beginning, just as the New Testatment came out of tradition.
The most important message in all of 1984 was that truth is not relative. You can change what people believe to be truth by changing their perception, but that does not change things that actually happened. Events do not change because someone destroyed the evidence or altered the historical documents, and the people that believe truth is subjective are the people that end up trying to get other people to accept the lie.
Animal Farm was a reflection on communist society. 1984 is a reflection on communism, fascism, nazism, and every other form of government that attempted to create an oligarchy with other nations in order to dominate its citizens. The messages in 1984 are not exclusive to communist societies; they refer to any society in which certain people attempt to force other people to accept proof by lying, destroying evidence, word manipulation, and outright mind control.
Both 1984 and Animal Farm are reflections on communism and a toltalitarian society. Again this piece has nothing to do with either book. Hence your comment are not germain.
If I decide to stop watching entire videos or responding to conversations that are already in progress in favor of reading the title of the video and responding to that specifically, I'll let you know.
A story becomes truth when you beleive it is true. Our concept of truth is as much of a beleif system as religion itself. Philosophers sleep well thinking that their work has brought closure to language, the logos, and truth, where in reality it only opens the subject further. These men betray themselves by trying to fulfill truth when the simple fact is signs, symbols, words, language, speech, writing, are all interconnected and essential in discovering truth or at least pursuing the notion.
no truth is perception obviously and usually general concensus within a culture makes it true. What I mean is a story becomes true when enough people are convinced it is true regardless of its historical accuracy. Philosophers and theologists are trying to close the book on truth, when truth is something yet to be discovered. Obviously historical accuracy is a flimsy term as most of our historical accounts are written by white dudes who always seem to be the hero.
So then, if in Nazi Germany a general consensus existed that all the Jews deserve to die, then that is true. If in Rwanda, a general consensus exists that all the tzutzis deserve to die, that is also true. If all the scizophrenics confined to a mental hospital think that aliens sending messages into their heads, that is also true.
If certain kinds of stories impress our minds as being truthful it must be because they somehow correspond to an objective reality beyond ourselves.
That's not what he said. What he is talking about is clearly different. Atheists like you are all the same, wanting to impose your theocracy on others.
"A political unit governed by a deity" Please explain how this in any way shape or form applies to atheism, which by definition is godless. (in fact, that's it's only meaning.)
Please explain how saying all atheists are alike is not a generalization.
Better yet, stop trolling, and come back when you have an actual argument. I will not respond back unless you stop intentionally lying and fishing for attention.
I think Russell remarks also in his 'Why I Am Not a Christian' that to look at this world, you would not believe it was God's work.
And then omniscience. There is a deep flaw in the theistic line which contends that evil and wickedness emerge out of the free will of humanity. The problem with this is that if God has omniscience, then human free will is logically impossible (and it might be logically impossible even without God).
To my recollection, Craig's contentions about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ depend mostly on the veracity of the gospels as primary historical sources, which I would have to consider begging the question. To assume the veracity of the gospels is to assume the truth of all of it, and that seems weak philosophically. As I recall, the non-biblical historical sources that Craig referred to were rather less explicit and impressive.
There are criteria for determining historicity. Multiple, independent accounts, principle of embarrassment (women find the empty tomb, disciples are portrayed as unbelieving and cowardly), irrelevant details (John records that they caught 153 large fish), the accounts don't have any theological or propagandistic twist(bare, dry, matter-of-fact), the documents were written too early for legend to develop...
Just read any mythological story and see if it has the same feel
Craig's principal weakness philosophically is that his entire argument for the existence of the Christian God rests on the historical *fact* of the resurrection of Christ, which is a case I don't think he makes out well at all. As sunergos7 has said, the statement that the universe is contingent is hardly controversial, but it's my contention that simple observation of the world around us is enough to refute the existence of God as we are given to understand him (personal, omniscient, etc).
Hello flamingdog76 I think you are correct that it is the fact of the resurrection that is central to Craigs theism. Is this because of its uniqueness amongst other proofs that theist use? I am sure you are familiar with them. Perhaps if BeatBuddy has no other constructive comments you would like to develop your contention on the personal & omniscient aspects of what would be the Islamic, Judeo / Christian deity. I am sure Bertrand Russell would prove to be interesting in these aspects.
I personally think it's because most of Craig's arguments only attempt to cast doubt on what we understand about the origins of the universe. There's still a philosophic leap to make between the notion of a disinterested creator God as a first cause and the God of the Bible. The single thread that I have discerned in his reasoning connecting the former to the latter is the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection.
A belief in the personal nature of God is difficult to sustain I think, faced with the fact of life in this world. Any balanced accounting of God would surely demonstrate him to actually be quite callous and indifferent, rather than loving and constantly interceding on our various behalfs, given the desperate struggles, even for bare, pitiful survival, of many of his beloved subjects. I quite liked Hitchens on this when he said it's as if we are created sick and commanded to be well.
By the way "philosophicus idiotocus" has invited Richard Dawkins to a debate. If "philosophicus idiotocus." is a "fool" and such a pushover why did Dawkins refuse? He could have advanced the cause of atheism immensely and dealt a severe blow to Christian theism. Perhaps it was below his dignity / position to stoop to conquer!
Lots of atheists and scientists feel it's beneath them to debate certain people because it accords them the recognition and a false credibility they don't deserve. Would Carl Sagan bother to debate with Jethro Bodine? This is why evolutionists rarely argue with creationists and why reparative therapists are ignored by the medical establishment.
In that case I guess I should be grateful that you have been gracious enough to continue dialoging and grant me credibility. I have heard McGrath and Lennox (neither of which are that proficient debaters) debate Dawkins and he looses hands down I suspect thats why he wont debate Craig. If you want an atheist debater to idolize try Austin Dacey he is really good and gave Craig a real run for his money; but he still lost.
I never heard of Austin Dacey, but I'm always chary of people who inform me that some so&so lost a debate with this or that person. Often people see in debates what they want to see, as when one Christian told me that Lew Wallace won a debate with Robert Ingersoll. That sounded far fetched to me, so when I investigated it, I found that no such victory took place. In other YT videos others claimed victory over me in debating homosexuality because their Bible was held as the final authority.
But of course, it's the Christian who sees what he wants to see whereas you see the unalloyed objective truth of the matter, rather than what YOU want to see?
Further to this, I think John Humphrys was quite right in his comment about Dr Craig's debating style when he remarked that he had lots of arguments but not much evidence.
Whoa! Hold back there! I never made the claim to objective truth, I referred to impartial investigation, which is a different matter altogether, and what I see from Christians repeatedly is the lack of impartiality. What I like about Russell is his tentative tone. Objectivity is an illusion. No matter how objective we try to be, the biases due to our circumstances will seep in somehow. If you want to chastise someone for unalloyed objective truth, go pick on the Objectivists.
Yes, I will agree with the illusory nature of objectivity. I've watched several of these debates in recent months, and it's often my view that the 'victory' could be taken either way, depending on the proclivities of the audience.
One recent example is the refusal to acknowledge the tactical, maneuvering brilliance of Osama bin Laden on 9-11, an event in which my cousin, a flight attendant, perished. The reigning rhetoric was that bin Laden and his co-conspirators were cowards. Anyone who endeavors to look at the situation impartially will likely come to the conclusion that they were anything but cowards.
I don't claim that all atheists are happy, but every atheist knows that atheism per se is not an obstacle to happiness. Someday, when your acumen improves, you might see the light and become one.
read my previous comments to think about it this way. you have faith in atheism just as much as i have faith in the Christian understanding of God. I am shocked you don't understand this. All uses of the mind are based upon a faith in teh use of logic, which makes sense if you are theistic, but not if you are an atheist, since there is no meaning in anything, even logic. So you are presuming that the mind is to be trusted when you have no basis for it aside from theism. Again, I would read more.
bruce you can not have faith in a negative, it would be like having faith in the non exsistance of a Santa Clause, when you simply do not believe in a Santa. I do not believe in Thousands of gods. The christian god is just one less god I believe in.
yes, i agree totally. However, positively, what you do have faith in is reason (usually expressed in scientific materialism), for which you have no basis as an atheist. i would add that morality is a total social construct in your system which undermines all ethics beyind situaltional ethics, which is a fancy way to say, "what i want", and there is nothing brave or noble in that, and detrimental to humanity and the planet.
bruce, Reason, ? Not always, I was born atheist and raised in an all Atheist Family ( even grandparents and Great Grandparents. I did not know any better until I went to school but in the public school system in the 60's there was no prayer, so it was really i College I learned, about Faith and Religion ,,,Son in many cases reason does not aply.Also beling raised in Cocoa Beach ( home of the space Program did help keep the boogie man away)
i agree reason isn't everything. many people. like yoursefl, are born into their beleif system only to think about it later. no problem with that. it is natural
Born with a belief system? Beliefs are inculcated during the formative years. Atheism is simply a nonbelief in everything supernatural. Why? Because there is no evidence.
Morality is a social construct in any case, sometimes morality is rational and at other times its irrational. To most people, who are too lazy to think, morality is nothing more than conventional belief. Take homosexuality for example, convention says its wrong, even though I can't find a single argument that justifies that claim. Even C. S. Lewis questioned that particular morality.
Bruce ,,as for Morals,,,Did ya know that atheist have beter Morals than Christians ? The Barna Study ( domne by Evagelical Christian George Barna PHD ) Found that Atheist had lowere divorce rates and lower incarceration rates per capita.
When I used to visit the atheist chat rooms that were invaded by Christians, I also got that strong impression that the standards of atheists are higher, and so is the intelligence.
I am witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. When His Spirit lives within you it becomes a matter of reality, but one who has not experienced it does not understand this gift, and so continues to deny. To those that know Him, all the "logical" arguments against His existence become as weak as a wet paper bag.
I guess it does sound a bit like "Well then, I'm right you're wrong and you wouldn't understand it anyway, so good day!" But really, is it possible to experience something that's "more" real than logic?Logic is something we rarely question because we've had it since the beginning, same with our ears and eyes.History and old age have proven all these to be unreliable.Are there other senses we are not aware of that reach beyond the impersonal laws of science and reason?I hope so; we all disagree.
Bitterchew; Aren`t you lucky that you were chosen worthy to receive this "gift". What does that say about all the others ?. You reduce religion to a biased god who favors some and neglects others. Thank you, I think you are right.
I apologize in advance if I would sound rude,this is merely what I know.Some choose to believe others do not.We all are given a choice.My advice would be is just try to look at it without judgment or criticism.You can't say something isn't real unless you carefully analyze it.You can't say the Bible isn't real without reading it.You can't say prayer isn't real without trying it.The same applies to the reality of Jesus Christ.You will never know for sure unless you look at this with fair judgment
And one thing, Christians don't believe that we are ever worthy of a Gospel..try asking a real Christian you knew..and ask him..We never thought that we are more worthy of salvation than others..
An I am witness to the divine power of Odin, and his sons. May Huginn and Muninn eat your eyes when you lay dead on the field of battle. No valkyrie rides to Valhalla for you, my unbeliever. You won't get the chance to fight at Ragnarock!
no rational reason! you've never read the bible so you make your claim you'd be surprised how many rational people believed in christianity it's irrational to be atheist and ignorant to be agnostic.
On the contrary, the reason most people become atheists or agnostics is BECAUSE they have read the Bible. Surely, you can derive moral lessons from it just as you can from Aesop's Fables. Lewis has failed to answer questions satisfactorily that agnostics have posed for a long time. He may be an "ex-agnostic", but I am an ex-Christian. No regrets.
A Christian calling an agnostic "ignorant" is like a Klansman telling "nigga lovers" that they are ignorant. I've seen it done!
many question agnostics ask are answered it's just not what they want to hear, no one wants to hear you have to answer to a judge when you die, no one wants to hear that they are sinners and they are bad people. I'm glad to hear you read the entire bible and understood it your a even greater man than i because i read a vast majority of the bible and came to understand it's reason and logic, agnostic refuse to pick a side remaining ignorant, ignorance is the downfall of humanity.
We agree on one point, that ignorance is the downfall of man. Now the question is, which one of us is ignorant? Lewis is cleverly specious, but he never address various points that Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll were not afraid of taking on.
MERE CHRISTIANITY is an unsatisfying book to inquisitive minds. Blame the author, not agnostics. Lewis is TOO EAGER to justify his position in the first quarter of his book. The rest of it is telling people how they should behave.
i'm not saying either of us is ignorant just saying agnostic ways of thinking is ignorant they go back and forth then say well i really don't care, i'll read into these other authors and get back to you.
Agnostics are simply stating that there has not been any evidence convincing them that man has discovered a means of communicating with a metaphysical being. Just because you believe in some chosen ideology does not make you less ignorant than you were before. Picking a side does not make you a better person, especially when that side ignores the vasy majority of scientific facts that are somehow being debated despite convincing evidence. Since when is reason and logic assoicated with belief.
moral lessons! hmm.. well now let's just pick and choose what we want, right. Selective reading right. ( I'll believe in this part but not this part) any one who reads the life of christ will understand he was either a MADMAN or The Son of God. there is no other options he's not a great moral teacher making the claims he made makes him a maniac, or the truth b/c sometimes the truth sounds obscure.
Cherry picking? That is why agnostics and atheists so often hold Christians in contempt. Those on the liberal side of the fence cherry pick to meet the demands of the changing times (Homosexuality is a good example.) Those at the conservative end cherry pick to suit their prejudices and appease their fears.
As for Jesus, he is fictional, albeit wise. However, there are serious defects in his teachings and in his moral character that I cannot accept.
.. i don't see how a fictional char. could have impacted the world for 2000 years you'd think the person who wrote it saying to the people "you've seen jesus with your own eyes" b/c it says that in the bible you'd think these people would say jesus? what jesus? who was crucified by the romans? when did that happen? a fictional char changed the entire world.. now that seems ludacris to me, some one during the time the book was written would have said this guy was never around!
That's because the true founder of Christianity was not Jesus, it was Paul. Without Paul, the "memory" of Jesus would have faded into obscurity. World events can indeed be wrapped around myths if people sincerely believe them. Just take a look at Jerusalem today and what a mess it is.
ok. i can agree that the 1 of the main founders of christianity is paul. though that doesn't change the fact that, that is how god works it's his 'way' he never wrote anything in the old testament he wrote through man, that's his 'way' Jesus (if he were god) would have done the same. he never baptized anyone let his followers do that, and never wrote anything down, that would follow the personality of god from the old testament if it were true. which it is. still he's not fictional.
Accounts of the Resurrection all conflict with each other, two separate deaths of Judas, two incompatible geneologies of Jesus. There are more, but three examples are enough.
ah! i know these answers but my words are not clear enough to explain them i'm not as learned and some of the christian scholars i will send you vids with someone explaining them :) i think that would serve you better
The phrase "according to" did not have the connotation of "it's just one man's version". It's simple attribution. Actually, I have always found it a rather strong point of the NT that different versions are offered to the reader. Obvious discrepancies are not smoothed out, which is what would be expected if it were all carefully controlled propaganda.
I recently heard a priest on EWTN say that the Bible's contradictions, and it's lack of clarity, is what gives the Bible strenght. When these defects are applied to any other texts, scientific or otherwise, then the texts are readily dismissed. What you have given me is the customary specious apologetics. It simply shows me how far you Christians will go in your determination to hang on to your patently absurd superstitions.
(contd) Maybe you get my point if I turn it around. If there were 4 'gospels', attributed to 4 different authors, which were in perfect accordance with each other and without discrepancies, a historian would most likely conclude that the texts were heavily doctored to make them perfecty consistent or that the supposed quadruple source was really just one source made into 4 to give them 'the authority' of 4 different mutually supporting accounts.
At the end of the day no one can make you believe, that is a decision that only you can finally make(or have already made). Faith is a gift that is given once it is asked for, it is not knowing or evidence to confirm belief, it is hope,love and strength, it does not make life easier (infact it is a challenge to live life not doing our will but His will). Maybe one day you will ask???
like believing in your own mind's reason and order which emerged out of a meaningless, blind nothingness? That is just as blind in its faith. every argument is circular, including yours, some circles are just larger than others.
Reason ALWAYS has primacy over faith. Faith never did a thing for mankind except retard progress. Man advances through reason. There is nothing blind about atheism. When people become atheists, it's because they put some careful thought into it. But knowing how intellectually dishonest Christians are, you will only accept negatives about atheism, no matter how absurd or ill-founded they are.
wrong again, buddy. your belief in the mind's rationality is an act of unfounded faith (i.e., irrational) if you are an atheist. you are right to trust it, but in spite of your weak philosophy, not ecause of it. andlove still means nothing for you, neither does truth, if you are an atheist. a sad worldview my friend
And those of us who are atheists hold that there is something pathetic, and even contemptible, about those who can't face the perils of life without the aid of comfortable myths. You're the sad one, and delusional. Faith is not a virtue; it's a vice.
you cannot speak of virtue and vice as an athiest. be logical about it. there is no good or bad in your system, just stuff that you prefer for your own selfishness. and to say that communism's atheistic stance had nothing to do with the millions and millions who died under it is amazingly silly and an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I can say that they are wrong, because i beleive in a right and wrong b ehind the universe, you can only say, "not my preferance". admit it.
and you still have not admited that scientism is an act of faith. it totally is. if you read the devil's delusion, not written by a theist, btw, you will have a brief lesson in the arrogance and illogic of atheism, which wants it both ways. it doesn't hold water on the level of first principles at all. never has, never will. illogical.
Faith can be defined as a belief in something without being sure you're right. This brand of faith is brought on by experience and familiarity. This is not the case with Christianity, which demands you accept this or that lest you burn in hell. It commands you to belief what you know isn't true.
I'm not against the concept of God. I just don't see any reason to accept the existence of the supernatural, whether it's protestant, Catholic, or Aztec.
"I just don't see any reason to accept the existence of the supernatural"
I agree there is no reason, hence all the emphasis on 'faith' in Christian doctrine.
So if you cannot "see" any reason than faith is the only avenue to seeing anything; if indeed there is something there to see. Dismissing 'faith' as a medium to sight, based on reason is actually unreasonable since it is known, enough, how little we know of reality & therefore variables that allow a real faith to be.
Faith is popular because people hunger for a protector, a big brother to watch over them. This need, however, does not prove there is a God, it merely conveys a wish. Just talk to the average person on the possibility that no god exists, and you can see the fear in their eyes.
nope, 'faith' is necessary for trust, which is (amongst other things) an essential ingredient in a person to person relationship. If we were created to have relationship with our source than faith would be needed as part of the *reason* we were created. Your (oft heard) arguments depend on presuppositions that God does not exist, just as mine do. Yet your arguments never seem to consider this presumptive phenomena as having any value which is intellectually dishonest.
There is a secular definition of faith; it's called intuition. Intuition is the ability to sense something as true. It's the result of familiarity and experience. I can believe, for example, that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because there is life here on earth. Belief in God is not the same, since he's not the product of intuition, but the product of wishful thinking. There is no evidence for a God, therefore, the idea of faith becomes ludicrous. Plus, reason cancels the idea out.
First off, the idea that there is no evidence for God is ludicrous; look around. Have you heard this quote "The Christian has to account for pain in the universe, the atheist has to account for everything else."
Also, you are forgetting that by presupposing God does not exist, you shape your arguments as if incontrovertible. Yet they are only incontestable if your original presupposition is correct, which is a matter of faith on both sides.
Atheism is not a presupposition; it's a non-belief from absence of evidence. You can say that this magnificent universe needed a creator, but since something so mangificent cannot come into being on its own, then that creator would need a creator, then a creator for the creator of the creator, ad infinitum. The logic extends to infinite regress. Then you could ask what God did with himself these countless aeons before he created the universe, play solitaire under a lamp shade?
I never meant atheism is the presupposition, but the belief in, or not, of a heart or will to center of reality. The source of all existence would include time, therefore this source/cause would somehow exist outside of time. So your thinking about what did God do before everything doesn't make sense. The real presupposition comes down to this; and for both of us it is still a matter of faith. Is the heart of the universe love and will, or death and nothingness. That is the question.
You're trying to justify your illogic. Asking what your God did before he decided to create the universe makes a whole lot of sense. No theists have been able to answer the question. Prior to the creation, that means God just existed and floated around in complete nothingness.
It's atheists who see reality most clearly. In fact, that's why they're atheists.
Doesn't your statement here immediately reveal that you aren't getting my idea of *being* outside of time, since also being the source of it? If anyone only, for a moment, glimpses what it is to think outside of linear time, I believe this must have an eternal impact. (perhaps, in some way this is what they mean by being 'saved' or not?
I don't agree with that at all. Time depends on the existence of a cosmos. Even when there is no cosmons, God had to come up with idea of a universe before he created it.
where is your evidence for claiming there is no evidence for God? where is your evidence for believing in life on other planets? you really do have real faith dont you!
Life on other planets can only remain a belief until actually proof is shown. The chances are good when you consider the billions of galaxies with billions of stars. After all, if life can develope here, it can develope elsewhere.
The burden is on you to prove God exists. If I told you there were pink cockroaches living on Nepture, it would be my burden to show the evidence. Since you can't disprove it, they must exists, right? Catch my drift?
Wow, wow. I haven't read Lewis' biography, but this account is SO STUPID.
So, um, he likes stories, so the fact that he can accept one of those stories as true, make it true? What??
There is nothing contradictory about a true story - it's a story told about something that happened. Whether it's true is still in question, though.
twooffour 10 months ago
Even such superb minds as Newton and Descartes were devout christians. I don't think it has all that much to do with intelligence. it's rather about human need for mystisicm and believing in something greater than themselves. I don't really know. I'm a scientifically trained person myself, but I don't think we should look down at religious people (I did, for a while). I actually think we may have lost something significant when we decided to go world-weary and cynical. Are we any happier?
achantus1 10 months ago 5
@achantus1
It depends on what kind of God you reject.
I'm certainly happier without a violent dictator god sending people to Hell, for example. Some sort of "greater than myself" being wouldn't be Yawweh anymore, though.
Being as skeptical as I hope it gets, I still tend to somewhat believe in things like "synchronicity" or possible effects of my mind on reality, but I realize that those are mere speculative options and probably just a refuge for my psyche.
twooffour 10 months ago
@achantus1 Personally, I was much happier when I came to my senses and realized there was no god. But I get your point.
OutlawedSaviour 7 months ago
While C.S Lewis was converted to Chrsitianity, apparently Tolkien (a Roman Catholic) was distraught that he converted to Anglicanism instead. Ah well, it's all for the literal love of God. Would've been nice to have one more epic novel written by one more epic Catholic, though ;)
TwilightMemoirs 1 year ago
why would such two supremely intelligent men fall for the lies of christianity?
Nat3skiz 1 year ago
@Nat3skiz
In other words: Why would such two supremely intelligent men not believe what you believe? Why indeed?
Jim1905 11 months ago 3
@Nat3skiz
Is that a rhetorical question?
Komnenos1234 10 months ago
@Nat3skiz Go figure.
ruthamyallan1 6 months ago
Narnia is the children's Bible :P
EdgarMirjamsdotter 1 year ago
jack c.s lewis once converted to anglican decade later when he wrote narnia books his old asatru norse pagan religion is symbolizied by jadis white witch queen of narnia...the norse goddess holla or hella of endless winter!...(she is in command of werewoves and dwarves...and uses runes)
ufogelfling1 1 year ago
both men had been wounded as british infantry officers in ww-1...both men were in the inklings writers group....jack c.s. lewis was asatru norse pagan (until age 30 or 40) understood "death of solar god balder" jrr tolkien was roman catholic...jack c.s. lewis eventually became anglican protestant....
ufogelfling1 1 year ago
Paganism everywhere. The point is that ALL of those Christians that have experimented a REAL conversion, we all got the same expression of the officers: "No one ever spoke like this man!" Jn 7:46
Chihuas0001 2 years ago
@Chihuas0001
MrBingo9er 1 year ago
Death & resurrection rituals were common like in Freemason's, Rosicrucian's & most Eurasian cults so any type of ritual like that at the spring equinox which afterwards nature resurrects & blooms would have been important in occult logic. The Old Testament & the New completely conflict, the religious ideas are different, so later it became harmonized & a linear story created of original sin & prophets awaiting modern Messiah for Jews, Mese/Mose/Moses means old man or old men (Romanian),
asherasator 2 years ago
The 'sacrifice' elements were devised for those who followed the Pharisee barbecue cults, the Solar elements from the original Roman/Saturnian imperial traditions. & Pythagorean numerical geometrical element for the Pythagoreans based societies, all this is what the NT was striving for, but from that it evolved into the modern lunacy what ALL modern franchises/churches/synagogues interpret. Roman/Ahriman/Armenian, the Greeks came from The Southern Caucasus & they evolved into the Romans.
asherasator 2 years ago
The whole idea of God needing a sacrifice for himself to pay for sins etc. is completely ridiculous, nor is it based in original elements from the religions it evolved from, it was created as an anecdote to harmonize several cults throughout the Roman empire. Jesus the man never 'died'. The story of Barabbas (Bar=Son, Abbas=Father) clearly states he was let go. The NT then goes into the Cruci-Fiction of the Sun/son in the constellation Aries/The Lamb on the zodical cross at the spring equinox.
asherasator 2 years ago
The Lord of the Rings is an essential book for anyone who has a real interest in understanding Christianism (the Catholic Church in particular).
The Catholic Catechism is an essential book for anyone who really wants to understand Tolkien's works (The Lord of the Rings in particular).
Because TLOR is no kind of allegory in the very same degree as the Catholic Faith is no kind of phantasy.
C2209w 2 years ago
This is somewhat inflammatory, to say the least. Didn't C. S. Lewis try other faiths first? I seem to remember reading he even considered Asatru (though maybe by a differing name at that time) - either way Christianity seems to swamp any discussion about any aspect of C. S. Lewis' life nowadays.
Almuric7 2 years ago
Very insightful! C.S. Lewis was an athiest for a while --- it was his friendship with Tolkier that reconverted him ot Christianity.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
They were both crowleyites. Holy ignorants batman! OTO, anyone heard of it?
hotstuffsmartass 2 years ago
both of them are great writers and they have a place among homer and sexpir because they great two big epics worthy of iliad and odusia of homer
gimli1995 2 years ago 2
"If you have seen me , you have seen the Father"...
Boeing747fourhundred 2 years ago
Who is the "me"? Is it Jesus or the Christ? This mistake is the fundamental problem of those who dont distinguish or understand the difference between Jesus and the Christ.
When you understand the difference between Jesus and the Christ, you can reply.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
Jesus IS the Christ . the savior..one God . There is no mistake.
Boeing747fourhundred 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jesus is the sun. Christianity is corrupted astrotheology.
asherasator 2 years ago
And finally, Jesus' own testimony adds to this:
12 The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God,
edualym 2 years ago
You are overlooking something very important in the trinity. They are said to beof ONE ousia. Ousia in Greek means essentially "the very same substance." Jesus is of the very same substance as God, therefore He and God are one. Jesus told His disciples that "I emanated out from the Father and I am going back into Him." God creates by extending Himself, so all of God's creations are like Him, . Fully divine and fully like the Father.
MaestroJosephShore 2 years ago
Wow... Tolkien used a very strong argument to convince Lewis of the veracity of the Bible (even if it was a bit altered by speaking of Jesus as God - Jesus is God's Son, not God Himself.
Still, we are all in debt to Tolkien for having managed that transformation so subtly and yet so strong.
edualym 2 years ago
Obviously it's not strong enough for everyone. Certainly not strong enough for me.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Hey... I respect that! But still, you gotta hand it to JRR for having done so WIHTOUT offending CS Lewis.
edualym 2 years ago 2
It doesn't have to be strong enough is part of the beauty of it. Unless God draws you then you cannot see so you represent yourself with integrity, I think. I have no doubt that you are comfortable in your own skin and I agree that you should be.
God was drawing Lewis during this time and used Tolkien's clever approach. Both can take full credit or no credit.
rlmayhan 2 years ago
It's beautiful in how well it can be explained, but you could just as easily say that it was simply a weak argument that is effective at reeling in people that already want to believe.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I agree with you. God draws you into a personal relationship and because of that you view things differently, that is, you want to believe.
It's like we're on two sides of a river describing a canoe on it. I accurately say it's moving from right to left and it has a name on the front and you from left to right and see no markings.
rlmayhan 2 years ago
Except I'm the one seeing the markings : D
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
edualym, Jesus Christ is both the son of God and God. This statement is known as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is a person, Christ is God, Jesus Christ is both true man and true God.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
Christ is the Greek word that means "ANNOINTED" the same as the Hebrew word Messiah.
Before coming to earth Jesus lived in heaven with his Father, YHWH. Then he came to earth and gave his life as a ransom; after the resurrection he went back to heaven.
He never was, is or will be GOD himself.
John 17:3- And eternal life is this, that they know you the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom YOU sent.
John 20:17- Say to them, "I go to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and your God."
edualym 2 years ago
"I am the Father are one in the same." John 10:30
Jesus never existed before he was conceived, as with all people.
Also look at John 14, where Christ unites himself with the Father.
Also look at the Creed. Christ was begotton by the Father and Jesus by the holy Spirit.
This concept is basic and you've missed it.
Also the ransom theology is lame. It consists of: Unhappy God, Christ dies, Happy God -- hence humanity is unchanged. It doesn't work.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
Also look at John 1:
In the beginning was the word
And the word was with God
And the word was God
And the world became flesh.
John's theology is that Christ and the Father of the same divince substance. They are the same. Get it?
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
They are not... Jesus is always referred as the Son of God, never God the Son.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 2 COR 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" EPH 1:3
"We thank God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" COL 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 1 PETER 1:3
"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him" REV 1:1
edualym 2 years ago
You reasoning makes no sense. John's theology established the identity of the Father and the Son. Just because you find no "God the Son," reference doesn't mean the theology doesn't contain it. Look at John 14, for example.
Also you references 2Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3 support my statement that the Father and Son are the same.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
HA... that is the first. How do these texts suppor that statement when its being clearly stated that Jesus has both a God and Father over him?
edualym 2 years ago
The first what? Learn how to write. 1Cor 1:3 state that God is the Father of Jesus Christ and does not state that Christ is not God. The other verses are copies of 1Cor 1:3.
Futhermore, Paul had no theology of the divinity of Christ. The theology is devleoped in the Gospel which all occur after the Pauline Letters.
Get a little education and open you mind.
Read John 10:30 and Mat 28.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
As for the RANSOM, this doctrine is central to Bible understanding. Denial of this doctrine constitutes a denial of God's Justice and rejection of the valid/legal value of Christ's death. PSALM 49:7, 8 - Under the Fall, none of us could give GOD a ransom for our lives. Only God could provide one unto Adam to cover the price of what the first man threw away. JOHN 3:16 GOD so loved the world that He gave himself? NO He gave His only begotten Son. Jesus' death paid the price to cover what Adam lost
edualym 2 years ago
Paid the price to whom? Whomever you select leads to a contradiction. Furthermore, RANSOM is not a doctrine and is not central to the Bible. For example it does not occur in the OT. The NT concept appears here and there, and has many theological problems. The basic idea is: 1) You have an unhappy God, 2) Jesus dies, 3) You have a happy God AND 4) Humanity is NOT changed.
DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM AND ANSWER IT!!!
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
It was paid to GOD (Psalm 49:7,8). Why? Adam's sin condemned us to death. By the death of the "Second Adam" the price is paid. Of course, if you have Jesus being both God/Man which the Bible NEVER states then the price was OVER-PAID, not being equal in value what was lost. God was the only one who could provide a Second Adam in the person of His Son. Did you expect Mankind to be free of Sin and Death the moment Jesus expired? Wait, if he is God then he never died, for God cannot die.
edualym 2 years ago
PS 49:7-8 never says it was paid to God.
"No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him-- The ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough--"
And if it's paid to God, then God is pleasured by the brutalizing and bludgening of his only Son? Right?
The bible state that Jesus Christ, not Jesus, is God/Man (John 10:30).
I never said it was overpaid.
Why can't God die? That's the whole point you moron: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
Christ/Messiah mean the same thing: ANNOINTED for a special purpose or mission, it never means GOD!!!!!
God cannot be annointed for anything... but HE alone has the power and authority to annoint others.
GOD cannot die because he is immutable: that is he never changes. Jesus Christ DIED a perfect, obedient man and paid the price.
God WAS NOT/IS NOT/ WILL NOT pleased with the death of others. He stuck to his own principles of justice and made the biggest sacrifice: the life of his own Son.
edualym 2 years ago
Christ is the Greek of Meshia which is Hebrew meaning anointed. But Christ in Christian terms is a reference to the second person of the Trinity. That is why when Paul talks about Jesus (alone), he is always referring to the HISTORICAL Jesus, not the Christ. The first references to Christ are to Christ Jesus, not to Jesus Christ. Then comes Jesus, the Christ. It is a reference to the Son, the second person of the Trinity, and all persons of the Trinity are God.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
Secondly, Jesus Christ in John 14 says: If you know me you would know the Father. This is because the Christ is the Son which is the Father. This teaching is basic Christianity which you are so stupid, that you don't get.
Mary is known as the Mother of God, because she gave birth to Christ (God).
God can do anything God wants and the moment you restrict God, it is your idea of God, not God. [Deal with that one, moron].
God is not immutable, since God changes God's mind, as in Gen 18
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
So God CAN die and that is the central belief of Christianity. Deal with that one! As in Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again. In fact the dead and resurrected god is a universal theme found in many religions, for example: Dumuzi and Quetzalcoatl.
Finally if the debt (ransom) was paid to God, and God accepted the ransom, then God was PLEASED by the ransom, which includes the death. SO BY YOUR OWN WORDS: GOD WAS PLEASED BY THE DEATH OF JESUS.
Please grow up.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
@PointsofOriginII The Bible says that right out. It was always God's plan, even from eternity, to send Jesus to die and be raised up, in order that he might reconcile all things unto to Himself.
DrEinstein100 1 year ago
@DrEinstein100
DrEinstein100 1 year ago
The word 'Christ' is a variation of the Egyptian 'Horus', in Romanian Christ is 'Hristos' The 'Ch' & 'H' are interchangable is regional spellings. Modern Christianity is a corrupted pagan religion.
asherasator 2 years ago
The word 'Christ' is simply a Greek word that means 'chosen one'. It is not even a proper name for any person. It was just an ordinary, common, dictionary word - that's all! The followers of Jesus then started using this word as a title for their leader.
Jesrael1986M 2 years ago
It was also used by Roman Emperors, Horus was also known as Kryst. the letters HR (CHR) represent Horus-rising sun, ST-setting sun. The name JeShua (Jesus) represents the sun/son, in Cabala the sound 'SH' represents fire, the name is a combination of the tetragramaton 'JHWH' with SH in the middle. Je-sh-ua cults have been around for a long time, ISUS (Romanian Jesus) is the same as ISIS (Greek) for Aegyptian AST. Dion-Ysus means "God-Jesus" which became Adonis & the Jewish Adoni
asherasator 2 years ago
The funniest thing that most Christians globally still call God by their local Pagan names in bibles: Romanian "DumneZeu", Dumne=Lord Zeu=Zeus/Zu, Slavonic Bog, Every biblical interpretation uses a local ancient pagan name for God. Even the word God/Good/Got is from "Gad" a pagan god of fortune. Bible=Local pagan Gods in different story settings. Every day the local pagan gods are still invoked in Christian churches & homes!
asherasator 2 years ago
The Latin catholic mass calls Jesus "Satvr" Sator=Savior. A cross was called "STUR" Star/Sator etc. (same word regional spellings). Rome was called "Saturnia". No Roman called themselves Roman they were Saturnians, later 'experts' used the the word Roman & became academically standardized. X-mas was called "Saturnalia" around the winter solstice (Dec 22-25) with trees & gift giving. SAT=SET, UR=LIGHT, Sat-ur means "Light of Set" or "Set's Light". They should teach that in Sunday school.
asherasator 2 years ago
SunDay: Sun=Son, Day=Dei/Deo "God". The Day is God. God isn't worshiped, God is experienced.
asherasator 2 years ago
Its the hypostatic union.
Boeing747fourhundred 2 years ago
I just love how the Trinitarians always go back to Plato's greek to try and define what they call the "CENTRAL BIBLE DOGMA" which the Bible never contains and therefore we must run with haste back to the pagans...
edualym 2 years ago
The Bible has no central dogma because its a collection of books. The New testament does, and certainly themes can be found throughout. I do agree many Christian's used Plato as if he himself was christian, when his works point toward his being pagan.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 2 years ago
The Trinity is central to Christs teaching and is and always has been part of the Tradition since the beginning, just as the New Testatment came out of tradition.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
The most important message in all of 1984 was that truth is not relative. You can change what people believe to be truth by changing their perception, but that does not change things that actually happened. Events do not change because someone destroyed the evidence or altered the historical documents, and the people that believe truth is subjective are the people that end up trying to get other people to accept the lie.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago 8
Again, how are your comments relevent to the discussion and the posting?
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
Truth is perception according to 1984, too. Sometimes 2+2=5.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
the novel '1984' is a reflection on comunist society.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
Animal Farm was a reflection on communist society. 1984 is a reflection on communism, fascism, nazism, and every other form of government that attempted to create an oligarchy with other nations in order to dominate its citizens. The messages in 1984 are not exclusive to communist societies; they refer to any society in which certain people attempt to force other people to accept proof by lying, destroying evidence, word manipulation, and outright mind control.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Both 1984 and Animal Farm are reflections on communism and a toltalitarian society. Again this piece has nothing to do with either book. Hence your comment are not germain.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
Have you been apart of the conversation at all? "Truth" as compared to perception of "truth" is the whole point.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
That is an epistemiological question, which is off topic. The topic is the 'path to religion'.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
If I decide to stop watching entire videos or responding to conversations that are already in progress in favor of reading the title of the video and responding to that specifically, I'll let you know.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
That would be a pleasure.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
A story becomes truth when you beleive it is true. Our concept of truth is as much of a beleif system as religion itself. Philosophers sleep well thinking that their work has brought closure to language, the logos, and truth, where in reality it only opens the subject further. These men betray themselves by trying to fulfill truth when the simple fact is signs, symbols, words, language, speech, writing, are all interconnected and essential in discovering truth or at least pursuing the notion.
lunchboxgarcia 3 years ago
So then, by your logic, your statement is true only because you believe it to be true? Yes, then it is totally useless to anyone else.
AstroScorp1 2 years ago
no truth is perception obviously and usually general concensus within a culture makes it true. What I mean is a story becomes true when enough people are convinced it is true regardless of its historical accuracy. Philosophers and theologists are trying to close the book on truth, when truth is something yet to be discovered. Obviously historical accuracy is a flimsy term as most of our historical accounts are written by white dudes who always seem to be the hero.
lunchboxgarcia 2 years ago
So then, if in Nazi Germany a general consensus existed that all the Jews deserve to die, then that is true. If in Rwanda, a general consensus exists that all the tzutzis deserve to die, that is also true. If all the scizophrenics confined to a mental hospital think that aliens sending messages into their heads, that is also true.
If certain kinds of stories impress our minds as being truthful it must be because they somehow correspond to an objective reality beyond ourselves.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
That's not what he said. What he is talking about is clearly different. Atheists like you are all the same, wanting to impose your theocracy on others.
PointsofOriginII 2 years ago
Nice generalizations there, sonny. You win the award for most ridiculous assertion of the week.
I think you need to consult the dictionary and look up theocracy, you clearly don't know what it means.
Doctrinius 2 years ago
It's neither a generalization nor ridiculous, daddy.
I have looked up theocracy, and I know what it means. Get some education and stop pontificating. Also grow and stick to the post.
You atheists are all alike.
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
"A political unit governed by a deity" Please explain how this in any way shape or form applies to atheism, which by definition is godless. (in fact, that's it's only meaning.)
Please explain how saying all atheists are alike is not a generalization.
Better yet, stop trolling, and come back when you have an actual argument. I will not respond back unless you stop intentionally lying and fishing for attention.
Doctrinius 2 years ago
"A political unit governed by a deity" -- is this statement suppose to be a definition? A definition of what? State it, troglite.
I have an actual argument, you sub-troll.
I said: Athiests LIKE YOU, not all Athiests. Learn how to read, not misrepresent, and make a logical argument.
Also, I have not lied, either intentional nor not intentential.
Is seems you are the actual liar. What a puss!
PointsofOriginIII 2 years ago
Did not c.s Lewis witness carnage in ww1 ,i would be the same and question if their was A god or not,after seeing the chaos there .
ILUV74 3 years ago
I think Russell remarks also in his 'Why I Am Not a Christian' that to look at this world, you would not believe it was God's work.
And then omniscience. There is a deep flaw in the theistic line which contends that evil and wickedness emerge out of the free will of humanity. The problem with this is that if God has omniscience, then human free will is logically impossible (and it might be logically impossible even without God).
flamingdog76 3 years ago
To my recollection, Craig's contentions about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ depend mostly on the veracity of the gospels as primary historical sources, which I would have to consider begging the question. To assume the veracity of the gospels is to assume the truth of all of it, and that seems weak philosophically. As I recall, the non-biblical historical sources that Craig referred to were rather less explicit and impressive.
flamingdog76 3 years ago
There are criteria for determining historicity. Multiple, independent accounts, principle of embarrassment (women find the empty tomb, disciples are portrayed as unbelieving and cowardly), irrelevant details (John records that they caught 153 large fish), the accounts don't have any theological or propagandistic twist(bare, dry, matter-of-fact), the documents were written too early for legend to develop...
Just read any mythological story and see if it has the same feel
Jesrael1986M 3 years ago
Craig's principal weakness philosophically is that his entire argument for the existence of the Christian God rests on the historical *fact* of the resurrection of Christ, which is a case I don't think he makes out well at all. As sunergos7 has said, the statement that the universe is contingent is hardly controversial, but it's my contention that simple observation of the world around us is enough to refute the existence of God as we are given to understand him (personal, omniscient, etc).
flamingdog76 3 years ago
Hello flamingdog76 I think you are correct that it is the fact of the resurrection that is central to Craigs theism. Is this because of its uniqueness amongst other proofs that theist use? I am sure you are familiar with them. Perhaps if BeatBuddy has no other constructive comments you would like to develop your contention on the personal & omniscient aspects of what would be the Islamic, Judeo / Christian deity. I am sure Bertrand Russell would prove to be interesting in these aspects.
sunergos7 3 years ago
I personally think it's because most of Craig's arguments only attempt to cast doubt on what we understand about the origins of the universe. There's still a philosophic leap to make between the notion of a disinterested creator God as a first cause and the God of the Bible. The single thread that I have discerned in his reasoning connecting the former to the latter is the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection.
flamingdog76 3 years ago
A belief in the personal nature of God is difficult to sustain I think, faced with the fact of life in this world. Any balanced accounting of God would surely demonstrate him to actually be quite callous and indifferent, rather than loving and constantly interceding on our various behalfs, given the desperate struggles, even for bare, pitiful survival, of many of his beloved subjects. I quite liked Hitchens on this when he said it's as if we are created sick and commanded to be well.
flamingdog76 3 years ago
By the way "philosophicus idiotocus" has invited Richard Dawkins to a debate. If "philosophicus idiotocus." is a "fool" and such a pushover why did Dawkins refuse? He could have advanced the cause of atheism immensely and dealt a severe blow to Christian theism. Perhaps it was below his dignity / position to stoop to conquer!
sunergos7 3 years ago
Lots of atheists and scientists feel it's beneath them to debate certain people because it accords them the recognition and a false credibility they don't deserve. Would Carl Sagan bother to debate with Jethro Bodine? This is why evolutionists rarely argue with creationists and why reparative therapists are ignored by the medical establishment.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
In that case I guess I should be grateful that you have been gracious enough to continue dialoging and grant me credibility. I have heard McGrath and Lennox (neither of which are that proficient debaters) debate Dawkins and he looses hands down I suspect thats why he wont debate Craig. If you want an atheist debater to idolize try Austin Dacey he is really good and gave Craig a real run for his money; but he still lost.
sunergos7 3 years ago
I never heard of Austin Dacey, but I'm always chary of people who inform me that some so&so lost a debate with this or that person. Often people see in debates what they want to see, as when one Christian told me that Lew Wallace won a debate with Robert Ingersoll. That sounded far fetched to me, so when I investigated it, I found that no such victory took place. In other YT videos others claimed victory over me in debating homosexuality because their Bible was held as the final authority.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
But of course, it's the Christian who sees what he wants to see whereas you see the unalloyed objective truth of the matter, rather than what YOU want to see?
flamingdog76 3 years ago
Further to this, I think John Humphrys was quite right in his comment about Dr Craig's debating style when he remarked that he had lots of arguments but not much evidence.
flamingdog76 3 years ago
Whoa! Hold back there! I never made the claim to objective truth, I referred to impartial investigation, which is a different matter altogether, and what I see from Christians repeatedly is the lack of impartiality. What I like about Russell is his tentative tone. Objectivity is an illusion. No matter how objective we try to be, the biases due to our circumstances will seep in somehow. If you want to chastise someone for unalloyed objective truth, go pick on the Objectivists.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Yes, I will agree with the illusory nature of objectivity. I've watched several of these debates in recent months, and it's often my view that the 'victory' could be taken either way, depending on the proclivities of the audience.
flamingdog76 3 years ago
One recent example is the refusal to acknowledge the tactical, maneuvering brilliance of Osama bin Laden on 9-11, an event in which my cousin, a flight attendant, perished. The reigning rhetoric was that bin Laden and his co-conspirators were cowards. Anyone who endeavors to look at the situation impartially will likely come to the conclusion that they were anything but cowards.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I'm so happy that I have God in my life. May you all find him as well.
Jumbojetpresdent 3 years ago 2
I'm so happy I'm an atheist. May you find it as well.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
too bad happiness doesn't mean anything, like love or joy. ah, the glories atheism!
brucefetter 3 years ago
I don't claim that all atheists are happy, but every atheist knows that atheism per se is not an obstacle to happiness. Someday, when your acumen improves, you might see the light and become one.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
nice word bag! you're still totally wrong and illogical.
brucefetter 3 years ago
Saying that atheists have faith is a form of psychological projection. If you don't know what I mean, there's an entry for it in Wikipedia.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
read my previous comments to think about it this way. you have faith in atheism just as much as i have faith in the Christian understanding of God. I am shocked you don't understand this. All uses of the mind are based upon a faith in teh use of logic, which makes sense if you are theistic, but not if you are an atheist, since there is no meaning in anything, even logic. So you are presuming that the mind is to be trusted when you have no basis for it aside from theism. Again, I would read more.
brucefetter 3 years ago
bruce you can not have faith in a negative, it would be like having faith in the non exsistance of a Santa Clause, when you simply do not believe in a Santa. I do not believe in Thousands of gods. The christian god is just one less god I believe in.
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
yes, i agree totally. However, positively, what you do have faith in is reason (usually expressed in scientific materialism), for which you have no basis as an atheist. i would add that morality is a total social construct in your system which undermines all ethics beyind situaltional ethics, which is a fancy way to say, "what i want", and there is nothing brave or noble in that, and detrimental to humanity and the planet.
brucefetter 3 years ago
bruce, Reason, ? Not always, I was born atheist and raised in an all Atheist Family ( even grandparents and Great Grandparents. I did not know any better until I went to school but in the public school system in the 60's there was no prayer, so it was really i College I learned, about Faith and Religion ,,,Son in many cases reason does not aply.Also beling raised in Cocoa Beach ( home of the space Program did help keep the boogie man away)
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
i agree reason isn't everything. many people. like yoursefl, are born into their beleif system only to think about it later. no problem with that. it is natural
brucefetter 3 years ago
bruce, its not a belief system...lol its a lack of belief,,,lol
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
Born with a belief system? Beliefs are inculcated during the formative years. Atheism is simply a nonbelief in everything supernatural. Why? Because there is no evidence.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I agree Beat, its like saying there is a belief system for not believeing in the Loch ness Monster,,,lol
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. In fact, we had sex.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Morality is a social construct in any case, sometimes morality is rational and at other times its irrational. To most people, who are too lazy to think, morality is nothing more than conventional belief. Take homosexuality for example, convention says its wrong, even though I can't find a single argument that justifies that claim. Even C. S. Lewis questioned that particular morality.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
aside from it not furthering our species, i agree
brucefetter 3 years ago
Bruce ,,as for Morals,,,Did ya know that atheist have beter Morals than Christians ? The Barna Study ( domne by Evagelical Christian George Barna PHD ) Found that Atheist had lowere divorce rates and lower incarceration rates per capita.
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
that's funny. i had read that, too.
brucefetter 3 years ago
When I used to visit the atheist chat rooms that were invaded by Christians, I also got that strong impression that the standards of atheists are higher, and so is the intelligence.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I am witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. When His Spirit lives within you it becomes a matter of reality, but one who has not experienced it does not understand this gift, and so continues to deny. To those that know Him, all the "logical" arguments against His existence become as weak as a wet paper bag.
bitterchew 3 years ago 4
Well, that's handy isn't it? Saves you a lot of bother, doesn't it? Well done, old boy! Well done!
joesadick 3 years ago
I guess it does sound a bit like "Well then, I'm right you're wrong and you wouldn't understand it anyway, so good day!" But really, is it possible to experience something that's "more" real than logic?Logic is something we rarely question because we've had it since the beginning, same with our ears and eyes.History and old age have proven all these to be unreliable.Are there other senses we are not aware of that reach beyond the impersonal laws of science and reason?I hope so; we all disagree.
trinnhedy 3 years ago
Bitterchew; Aren`t you lucky that you were chosen worthy to receive this "gift". What does that say about all the others ?. You reduce religion to a biased god who favors some and neglects others. Thank you, I think you are right.
Philos2006 3 years ago
I apologize in advance if I would sound rude,this is merely what I know.Some choose to believe others do not.We all are given a choice.My advice would be is just try to look at it without judgment or criticism.You can't say something isn't real unless you carefully analyze it.You can't say the Bible isn't real without reading it.You can't say prayer isn't real without trying it.The same applies to the reality of Jesus Christ.You will never know for sure unless you look at this with fair judgment
13thfloor7 3 years ago
And one thing, Christians don't believe that we are ever worthy of a Gospel..try asking a real Christian you knew..and ask him..We never thought that we are more worthy of salvation than others..
13thfloor7 3 years ago
An I am witness to the divine power of Odin, and his sons. May Huginn and Muninn eat your eyes when you lay dead on the field of battle. No valkyrie rides to Valhalla for you, my unbeliever. You won't get the chance to fight at Ragnarock!
Swidhelm 3 years ago
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was right; you people are crazy.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Excellent story tellers, but highly superstitious. There is no rational reason to suppose Christianity is true.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
no rational reason! you've never read the bible so you make your claim you'd be surprised how many rational people believed in christianity it's irrational to be atheist and ignorant to be agnostic.
Sanai777 3 years ago
On the contrary, the reason most people become atheists or agnostics is BECAUSE they have read the Bible. Surely, you can derive moral lessons from it just as you can from Aesop's Fables. Lewis has failed to answer questions satisfactorily that agnostics have posed for a long time. He may be an "ex-agnostic", but I am an ex-Christian. No regrets.
A Christian calling an agnostic "ignorant" is like a Klansman telling "nigga lovers" that they are ignorant. I've seen it done!
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
many question agnostics ask are answered it's just not what they want to hear, no one wants to hear you have to answer to a judge when you die, no one wants to hear that they are sinners and they are bad people. I'm glad to hear you read the entire bible and understood it your a even greater man than i because i read a vast majority of the bible and came to understand it's reason and logic, agnostic refuse to pick a side remaining ignorant, ignorance is the downfall of humanity.
Sanai777 3 years ago
We agree on one point, that ignorance is the downfall of man. Now the question is, which one of us is ignorant? Lewis is cleverly specious, but he never address various points that Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll were not afraid of taking on.
MERE CHRISTIANITY is an unsatisfying book to inquisitive minds. Blame the author, not agnostics. Lewis is TOO EAGER to justify his position in the first quarter of his book. The rest of it is telling people how they should behave.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
i'm not saying either of us is ignorant just saying agnostic ways of thinking is ignorant they go back and forth then say well i really don't care, i'll read into these other authors and get back to you.
Sanai777 3 years ago
Agnostics are simply stating that there has not been any evidence convincing them that man has discovered a means of communicating with a metaphysical being. Just because you believe in some chosen ideology does not make you less ignorant than you were before. Picking a side does not make you a better person, especially when that side ignores the vasy majority of scientific facts that are somehow being debated despite convincing evidence. Since when is reason and logic assoicated with belief.
lunchboxgarcia 2 years ago
moral lessons! hmm.. well now let's just pick and choose what we want, right. Selective reading right. ( I'll believe in this part but not this part) any one who reads the life of christ will understand he was either a MADMAN or The Son of God. there is no other options he's not a great moral teacher making the claims he made makes him a maniac, or the truth b/c sometimes the truth sounds obscure.
Sanai777 3 years ago
Cherry picking? That is why agnostics and atheists so often hold Christians in contempt. Those on the liberal side of the fence cherry pick to meet the demands of the changing times (Homosexuality is a good example.) Those at the conservative end cherry pick to suit their prejudices and appease their fears.
As for Jesus, he is fictional, albeit wise. However, there are serious defects in his teachings and in his moral character that I cannot accept.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
.. i don't see how a fictional char. could have impacted the world for 2000 years you'd think the person who wrote it saying to the people "you've seen jesus with your own eyes" b/c it says that in the bible you'd think these people would say jesus? what jesus? who was crucified by the romans? when did that happen? a fictional char changed the entire world.. now that seems ludacris to me, some one during the time the book was written would have said this guy was never around!
Sanai777 3 years ago
That's because the true founder of Christianity was not Jesus, it was Paul. Without Paul, the "memory" of Jesus would have faded into obscurity. World events can indeed be wrapped around myths if people sincerely believe them. Just take a look at Jerusalem today and what a mess it is.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
ok. i can agree that the 1 of the main founders of christianity is paul. though that doesn't change the fact that, that is how god works it's his 'way' he never wrote anything in the old testament he wrote through man, that's his 'way' Jesus (if he were god) would have done the same. he never baptized anyone let his followers do that, and never wrote anything down, that would follow the personality of god from the old testament if it were true. which it is. still he's not fictional.
Sanai777 3 years ago
The Gospels also can't agree about the "facts" about Jesus. The Gospel "according to" implies questionable authority.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
name some please, i know them, but i know their reason and purpose and i know they do agree.
Sanai777 3 years ago
Accounts of the Resurrection all conflict with each other, two separate deaths of Judas, two incompatible geneologies of Jesus. There are more, but three examples are enough.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
ah! i know these answers but my words are not clear enough to explain them i'm not as learned and some of the christian scholars i will send you vids with someone explaining them :) i think that would serve you better
Sanai777 3 years ago
The phrase "according to" did not have the connotation of "it's just one man's version". It's simple attribution. Actually, I have always found it a rather strong point of the NT that different versions are offered to the reader. Obvious discrepancies are not smoothed out, which is what would be expected if it were all carefully controlled propaganda.
IpsaPaphum 3 years ago
I recently heard a priest on EWTN say that the Bible's contradictions, and it's lack of clarity, is what gives the Bible strenght. When these defects are applied to any other texts, scientific or otherwise, then the texts are readily dismissed. What you have given me is the customary specious apologetics. It simply shows me how far you Christians will go in your determination to hang on to your patently absurd superstitions.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
(contd) Maybe you get my point if I turn it around. If there were 4 'gospels', attributed to 4 different authors, which were in perfect accordance with each other and without discrepancies, a historian would most likely conclude that the texts were heavily doctored to make them perfecty consistent or that the supposed quadruple source was really just one source made into 4 to give them 'the authority' of 4 different mutually supporting accounts.
IpsaPaphum 3 years ago
At the end of the day no one can make you believe, that is a decision that only you can finally make(or have already made). Faith is a gift that is given once it is asked for, it is not knowing or evidence to confirm belief, it is hope,love and strength, it does not make life easier (infact it is a challenge to live life not doing our will but His will). Maybe one day you will ask???
bardi7 3 years ago
Thanx for the pie in the sky reply. Faith is belief without evidence. To believe in something for which there's no evidence is idiotic.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
like believing in your own mind's reason and order which emerged out of a meaningless, blind nothingness? That is just as blind in its faith. every argument is circular, including yours, some circles are just larger than others.
brucefetter 3 years ago
Reason ALWAYS has primacy over faith. Faith never did a thing for mankind except retard progress. Man advances through reason. There is nothing blind about atheism. When people become atheists, it's because they put some careful thought into it. But knowing how intellectually dishonest Christians are, you will only accept negatives about atheism, no matter how absurd or ill-founded they are.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
wrong again, buddy. your belief in the mind's rationality is an act of unfounded faith (i.e., irrational) if you are an atheist. you are right to trust it, but in spite of your weak philosophy, not ecause of it. andlove still means nothing for you, neither does truth, if you are an atheist. a sad worldview my friend
brucefetter 3 years ago
To an atheist, the word is intuition.
And those of us who are atheists hold that there is something pathetic, and even contemptible, about those who can't face the perils of life without the aid of comfortable myths. You're the sad one, and delusional. Faith is not a virtue; it's a vice.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
you cannot speak of virtue and vice as an athiest. be logical about it. there is no good or bad in your system, just stuff that you prefer for your own selfishness. and to say that communism's atheistic stance had nothing to do with the millions and millions who died under it is amazingly silly and an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I can say that they are wrong, because i beleive in a right and wrong b ehind the universe, you can only say, "not my preferance". admit it.
brucefetter 3 years ago
and you still have not admited that scientism is an act of faith. it totally is. if you read the devil's delusion, not written by a theist, btw, you will have a brief lesson in the arrogance and illogic of atheism, which wants it both ways. it doesn't hold water on the level of first principles at all. never has, never will. illogical.
brucefetter 3 years ago
Faith can be defined as a belief in something without being sure you're right. This brand of faith is brought on by experience and familiarity. This is not the case with Christianity, which demands you accept this or that lest you burn in hell. It commands you to belief what you know isn't true.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
you ar enot arguing against xpianity, but protestant fundamentalism
brucefetter 3 years ago
I'm not against the concept of God. I just don't see any reason to accept the existence of the supernatural, whether it's protestant, Catholic, or Aztec.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
"I just don't see any reason to accept the existence of the supernatural"
I agree there is no reason, hence all the emphasis on 'faith' in Christian doctrine.
So if you cannot "see" any reason than faith is the only avenue to seeing anything; if indeed there is something there to see. Dismissing 'faith' as a medium to sight, based on reason is actually unreasonable since it is known, enough, how little we know of reality & therefore variables that allow a real faith to be.
itreeye 3 years ago
Faith is popular because people hunger for a protector, a big brother to watch over them. This need, however, does not prove there is a God, it merely conveys a wish. Just talk to the average person on the possibility that no god exists, and you can see the fear in their eyes.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
nope, 'faith' is necessary for trust, which is (amongst other things) an essential ingredient in a person to person relationship. If we were created to have relationship with our source than faith would be needed as part of the *reason* we were created. Your (oft heard) arguments depend on presuppositions that God does not exist, just as mine do. Yet your arguments never seem to consider this presumptive phenomena as having any value which is intellectually dishonest.
itreeye 3 years ago
There is a secular definition of faith; it's called intuition. Intuition is the ability to sense something as true. It's the result of familiarity and experience. I can believe, for example, that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because there is life here on earth. Belief in God is not the same, since he's not the product of intuition, but the product of wishful thinking. There is no evidence for a God, therefore, the idea of faith becomes ludicrous. Plus, reason cancels the idea out.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
"There is no evidence for a God, ..."
First off, the idea that there is no evidence for God is ludicrous; look around. Have you heard this quote "The Christian has to account for pain in the universe, the atheist has to account for everything else."
Also, you are forgetting that by presupposing God does not exist, you shape your arguments as if incontrovertible. Yet they are only incontestable if your original presupposition is correct, which is a matter of faith on both sides.
itreeye 3 years ago
Atheism is not a presupposition; it's a non-belief from absence of evidence. You can say that this magnificent universe needed a creator, but since something so mangificent cannot come into being on its own, then that creator would need a creator, then a creator for the creator of the creator, ad infinitum. The logic extends to infinite regress. Then you could ask what God did with himself these countless aeons before he created the universe, play solitaire under a lamp shade?
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
I never meant atheism is the presupposition, but the belief in, or not, of a heart or will to center of reality. The source of all existence would include time, therefore this source/cause would somehow exist outside of time. So your thinking about what did God do before everything doesn't make sense. The real presupposition comes down to this; and for both of us it is still a matter of faith. Is the heart of the universe love and will, or death and nothingness. That is the question.
itreeye 3 years ago
You're trying to justify your illogic. Asking what your God did before he decided to create the universe makes a whole lot of sense. No theists have been able to answer the question. Prior to the creation, that means God just existed and floated around in complete nothingness.
It's atheists who see reality most clearly. In fact, that's why they're atheists.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
"Prior to the creation,..."
Doesn't your statement here immediately reveal that you aren't getting my idea of *being* outside of time, since also being the source of it? If anyone only, for a moment, glimpses what it is to think outside of linear time, I believe this must have an eternal impact. (perhaps, in some way this is what they mean by being 'saved' or not?
itreeye 3 years ago
I didn't use the word "time" once, nor did I imply it. I used the word "aeons."
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
BeatBuddy:
"I didn't use the word "time" once..."
Yet you did use the word 'prior'. You cannot have a 'prior' without a before and after, and you cannot have a before and after without time.
itreeye 3 years ago
I don't agree with that at all. Time depends on the existence of a cosmos. Even when there is no cosmons, God had to come up with idea of a universe before he created it.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
where is your evidence for claiming there is no evidence for God? where is your evidence for believing in life on other planets? you really do have real faith dont you!
sunergos7 3 years ago
Life on other planets can only remain a belief until actually proof is shown. The chances are good when you consider the billions of galaxies with billions of stars. After all, if life can develope here, it can develope elsewhere.
The burden is on you to prove God exists. If I told you there were pink cockroaches living on Nepture, it would be my burden to show the evidence. Since you can't disprove it, they must exists, right? Catch my drift?
BeatBuddy 3 years ago