The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[Kade]

Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who aren't 100% certain of your position on anything that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong? I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?

A study showed that people who were more certain about information were often more likely to commit errors in recollection and memory tests. It also showed that the information they were certain about was more often then not, false. Those that were genuinely confident, made up the "most correct".

I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma." But I will not allow people who believe such things as non-living materials produced living organisms to be the final standard of how I should think or what I should believe.

You explain everything with something that is unknowable.

Do you see your assumption in your statement?! You're already assuming your position is correct, just as the theist does. The fact of the matter is theists can give innumerable examples of why "atheists" are wrong in their assumptions and beliefs, but you still won't except it if it goes against your already accepted presuppositions. You need to understand that there's a difference between "proof" and "persuasion." I, as a theist, can give you many proofs for my theistic beliefs, but those proofs still have to persuade you, as an "atheist." It works the other way, too. The problem is, once again, theists and "atheists" have very different presuppositions about nature, reality, origins, etc. that they both bring to the table when they engage in debate. Ultimately, the only way the "atheist" can be persuaded of the proofs of God is by an internal change of his nature, which only comes by God's power through His revelation.

I was raised and baptized Catholic, became born again at New Salem Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia. I spent effort and time extolling theological philosophy, becoming well read on all subjects of the faith, including the great fathers of the religion. I spent time organizing youth groups and camps, and going door to door to preach and evangelize. I was good at it...

To this day I can never forgive myself... I created at least four ministers, and hundreds of devout believers...

No Theocrat, you are wrong. I don't assume I am right, but the evidence is overwhelming, anyone with any respect for reason and rational inquiry would see that... it took awhile, but I came out clean in the end. I survived it. I will spend the rest of my life undoing the damage I've caused in other people's lives... I believe with every bone in my body that Extremist Christianity is a dangerous, dangerous religion. That is harms people. That is creates intolerant people, and dangerous people. You are no exception. Your clarity and pure ignorance is the likes of which I have no seen in a long time, but I have seen it before. You are mentally sick, and I would encourage you to consider that before continuing on the road you appear to be marching down.

 

[Kade]

Theists and atheists are both wrong. Nobody knows, just admit it!

You can be agnostic atheist, btw... I don't believe in any god, but I don't claim to know with 100% certainty. I'm fairly certain the the Christian God has been thoroughly explained to my satisfaction...

So, I suppose when it comes to a personal god, I am about as certain as one could get, there isn't one.

 

[beachmaster]

Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who aren't 100% certain of your position on anything that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong?

No chance you are being deceived huh?

I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?

How can you possibly know that you are right?

I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma."

Oh, now you say you BELIEVE in absolute truth and a sovereign God... I thought you KNEW it. Flip flopper, lol.

Agreed. "Atheism" is one of those "factions of the religious branch" of humanism, which is a potential danger to the well-being of other humans. Just ask Hitler. Oh, wait. He's in hell right now. I'm sorry.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. And how do you KNOW he is in hell? Are you sure he didn't have a deathbed conversion? Or for some other reason your merciful God didn't spare him from hell? You seem to know everything about everyone... except when you flip to saying you merely BELIEVE. Which is it man? You are cornfusing me!

 

[beachmaster]

Theists and atheists are both wrong. Nobody knows, just admit it!

I did... for the past 5 years. Most people are too damned arrogant to admit that.

 

[Cinnaboo]

The point that I was making is that without an absolute truth, or a divine standard each man may decide for himself what is moral or immoral. We could all do what is "right in our own eyes" and who would you be to tell me that my actions were immoral.

Jeffrey had no problem murdering those boys and eating them. Here it is straight from him:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..."

In an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC (29 November 1994)

Hitler carried out his maniacal killings with religious fervor.... motivated by evolution. (See previous posts.)

Charles Manson compared himself to Jesus Christ. He believed that he was Christ, and the world had made him suffer, just as Christ did two thousand years ago. He said in an interview, when, asked how he got his followers to believe that he was Jesus, "I was just being myslf ... all men is Jesus Christ." If he is his own God, he sets his own standards. Later he had a swastika tattooed on his forehead. Here is what he said about it:

"It’s not easy to find out what right is – all the wrong keeps it hidden and they teach lies so that even your own thoughts are not always as they once were ... in forever, so back to forever in Swastika."

"I believe it’s a symbol of honor."

"It’s a symbol of the people who have never been beaten. They have lost but never has it ever been beaten because you can’t beat what’s right. Right just goes on, on another level. I guess the sun symbol – the Buddha used it like two Swastikas … two of them as one. Hindus use it, the Indians and it’s been used by just about everyone- people put it on Hitler but Hitler put himself on it –"

Ted Bundy was another serial killer who had not remorse. His line of reasoning was that because we all are animals, why shouldn't we kill. That is what we see in nature. He said essentially that there is no difference between a man stalking and killing a woman or a man stalking and killing a deer. (See previous posts.)

People should indeed be encouraged to develop their own perspective of the world, including matters of morality and philosophy, and I find the spectrum of conclusions resulting from independent human quandary to be a beautiful thing. Being an atheist doesn't make me morally superior to you, nor does it really give much away in regards to my character/hobbies. An atheist can be a racist, a philanthropist, a swindler, an athlete, a farmer, a pederast, an entrepreneur, a doting father and/or serial killer. The only thing you know about me is that I take water polo very seriously (earlier post..).

Dahmer

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..."

In regards to Dahmer's worldview, lack of belief in the afterlife might very well have played a role in whatever theorem concluded that murder rape, in that order, was the answer. However, I think we can agree -- or maybe not, considering your beliefs about mental illness -- that he would likely have arrived at this conclusion eventually. Perhaps a customer service girl would be a little too snooty when Jeffrey presented his shrunken reindeer sweater -- the cacophony of the embroidered jingle bells in his rattling, furious hands providing musical accompaniment to his brain.

"Sir," she says, smacking her gum while teasing her pink hair "for the hundredth time, you cut the tag off."
"I don't even need the money, just look at the God damned tag. Ma-chine Wash-a-ble!"
She raises a pierced eyebrow. "Smack.."
"Just look at the GOD DAMNED tag! Machine Washable 30° so THAT's what I did, and LOOK what happened."
"Smack.."
"Just ACKNOWLEDGE that it's not my fault."
"Smack. Smack..."
He tries to return her stare and in the process realizes the futility of all things.
"You'll be sorry!" he snaps, turning theatrically to the checkout lines. "Remember the name Jeffrey Dahmer!"

So which came first: the desire to kill for an embarrassingly stupid reason (perhaps too embarrassing to reveal in an interview), or the philosophy to justify it? I doubt even Dahmer would know.

As a tangent, atheists don't consider lack of afterlife to necessarily make life meaningless. Some want to live the best life possible for that very reason. Either outlook is a reasonable one. For me personally, those opposing perspectives have reached a delicate counter-balance in my beautiful brain, resulting in absinthe regulated bliss.

Mmm... did you wake me?

Hitler

Hitler was a man ahead of his time.

Manson

Manson was the rapture and it was halted by jury. Omnipotent indeed.

Would you allow them to do this at the local elementary school? If not, why not?

How about the local university?

In general, K-12 schools are aware enough to enforce their 'no trespassing' policies, however, I recognize the need for absolute security. After all, the children are our future *cough* workforce. So please vote me into local office (Fayetteville, GA) and I'll erect rifle towers outside every elementary school, volunteer manned, stocked with hopefully nonlethal doses of shark tranquilizer. Anyone carrying pamphlets, Chinese take-out slips, or fewer than five conflicting holy books toward the school will be felled.

As for the university, we are in a marketplace of ideas.

 

[sophocles07]

..................

This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07. I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....NOT because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude. You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.

At least I don’t think the Bible should be the fucking law, bitch.

Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me).... Ron Paul seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely. He is a gentleman extraordinaire.

Ron Paul is in a public format, running for president, and 72 yrs old. Would you suggest he expressed his views in an aggressive manner?

Neither would I; was I running for president. But I’m not; I’m talking to a few psychopaths about theocracy.

You obviously do not understand what a theocracy is if your think it destroys a constitution. It does not. A theocracy recognizes that since there are jurisdictional limits amongst family government, church government, and civil government, the powers granted to each by God are limited. Therefore, a constitution does just that for a civil government. It limits its jurisdiction over the family and the church in its enumerated powers.

I do not, nor have I advocated in these forums the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. You're just mistaken or lying when you say that, sophocles07. So, please get your facts straight about my notions of a theocracy in relation to constitutional government.

Bleh...more crap from the monstar.

I suppose I’ll let the theocratic government come to power and then see how well they respect these “limited government” restrictions.

I don’t even understand how you could operate a theocratic society with Ron Paul’s views (i.e. constitutionalist views). How would you handle “immoral” art? Would a large government bureaucracy enforce all of the laws in the Bible within the society?

How else could you work this out? The court system would be completely absorbed with various “blasphemies,” “immoralities,” etc etc. You’d spend yourself to death attempting to “follow God’s words literally.”

Also, I don’t know what text you’re working from that says theocratic governments recognize these limitations, as they quite blatantly do not in many societies that have “theocratic” governments.

I had to laugh when I read this because I can't believe you actually thought you got away with this. You said "you assume logic and morality because they obviously exist," but when I say I assume God's existence because He's revealed Himself to me in the Bible, you say I'm wrong? Listen to yourself! "Logic exists because it exists. Morality exists because it exists." You hypocrite. You are now just being prejudicially arbitrary, sophocles07. And what, pray tell, is so obvious about logic and morality in their existence they exist which does not equally apply to God?

God damn, man, this is just ridiculous.

Here, let me be more clear about what I say earlier about logic so you so you can understand the point I was driving at. I'll just ask you a question. Can you prove the existence of logic without using logic itself? Come on. I dare you.

No, because the concept of proof is implicit in the process of logic.

Logic is not a choice. IT HAPPENS. The nomenclature we’ve attached to it in philosophy is just a descriptive term.

What you’re asking is like saying “Can you walk without legs, sophocles?”

It’s absurd.

 

[Macon GA]

Kade said:

I was raised and baptized Catholic, became born again at New Salem Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia. I spent effort and time extolling theological philosophy, becoming well read on all subjects of the faith, including the great fathers of the religion. I spent time organizing youth groups and camps, and going door to door to preach and evangelize. I was good at it...

How did you become "born again?" Did you recite the sinner's prayer? Walk an aisle? Ask Jesus into your heart? I see a lot of "good works" listed, but nothing about what you believed...or how the Lord changed your heart. Was there ever a "heart change?"

To this day I can never forgive myself... I created at least four ministers, and hundreds of devout believers...

Rest assured Kade, you did not create four ministers and hundreds of devout believers.

 

[hypnagogue]

Let this thread die.

 

[beachmaster]

Let this thread die.

It sure is a lot of pages, all proving nothing and changing nothing in the end. But it's been fun.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

sohistry07

You are living proof that Darwinian survival of the fittest is a crock. The gene pool is obviously stained. I pray you don't breed.

 

[sophocles07]

sohistry07

You are living proof that Darwinian survival of the fittest is a crock. The gene pool is obviously stained. I pray you don't breed.

Hmm, well. Good thing prayer don't work, bubba.

 

[Theocrat]

Let Me "Enlighten" You

No chance you are being deceived huh?

How can you possibly know that you are right?

No, not at all, because I believe in God's word, and His word is truth. God declares,

Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. (John 14:6)

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31, 32)

And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you. (John 14:16, 17)

Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come. (John 16:13)

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, Who cannot lie, promised before the world began, but hath in due times manifested His word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour (Titus 1:1-3)

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (1 John 2:21-23)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6)

How can I be deceived when I'm abiding in God's truth?

Oh, now you say you BELIEVE in absolute truth and a sovereign God... I thought you KNEW it. Flip flopper, lol.

Yes, I know God's truth by loving Him first and loving my neighbor as myself. These are the products of living by faith (or belief) in God's promises, and when a person does these things, God reveals Himself to that person, indeed. Here's what God has to say about this:

He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him...Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him and make Our abode with him. He that loveth Me not keepeth not My sayings, and the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's which sent Me. (John 14:21, 23, 24)

Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

As a Christian continues to walk by faith, God continues to reveal Himself to that Christian so that he or she knows surely that God is true. This may sound unusual to the unbeliever, but that's one of the wonders and mysteries of God. God's existence becomes more real to the believer as he or she obeys God's commandments as revealed in His word through love.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. And how do you KNOW he is in hell? Are you sure he didn't have a deathbed conversion? Or for some other reason your merciful God didn't spare him from hell? You seem to know everything about everyone... except when you flip to saying you merely BELIEVE. Which is it man? You are cornfusing me!

Hitler's reasoning and philosophy for what he did to the Jews was based in naturalistic principles of "atheism," for sure. Just read this excerpt here from his book Mein Kampf, and judge for yourself.

Hitler never had a deathbed conversion because he committed suicide in the Führerbunker in Berlin, Germany in 1945. By the way, I think I've already explained my comparison of "know" and "belief" in a previous response.

 

[Theocrat]

Kade Faded

A study showed that people who were more certain about information were often more likely to commit errors in recollection and memory tests. It also showed that the information they were certain about was more often then not, false. Those that were genuinely confident, made up the "most correct".

And that proves I have to be uncertain about my claims of absolute surety for God's existence? Try harder, Kade, because I think that's just silly as a proof against my total certainty of God. "A study says so, therefore, it means I'm in error." Yeah, right. You act as if researchers don't have their own biases by which they exclude contrary evidence that doesn't fit their own personal presuppositions of what the facts should be. Your problem is you believe in the myth of neutrality too much. You also underestimate the nature of man.

You explain everything with something that is unknowable.

Now, who's making an absolute claim here? Do you know absolutely that God is unknowable, Kade? You refute yourself each time you make universal claims like this. You should know better.

By the way, just because you claim God is unknowable to you doesn't make it true (That's what your implicit assumption is.). There are billions of Christians worldwide who have a genuine relationship with God that would simply prove you wrong that God is unknowable. What audacity you have in your arrogance to make such a claim.

Your clarity and pure ignorance is the likes of which I have no seen in a long time, but I have seen it before. You are mentally sick, and I would encourage you to consider that before continuing on the road you appear to be marching down.

Insults and personal attacks against me still do not prove your case for "atheism," Kade. Once again, we have an "atheist" on this forum thread who cannot respectfully and intelligently engage in civil debate and disagreement about this issue without indulging himself in attempts of degrading his opponent. You are a classic example of one who chooses to attack the messenger rather than the message itself. You and sophocles07 should start a club.

 

[Theocrat]

For Your Eyes, Macon, GA

I thought I'd post what "Mr. Agnostic Rationalist" (oxymoron) sophocles07 has responded to you from your last post. Don't be offended, though. He can't help what those "electrochemical processes" in his brain tell him to type because he's just the evolutionary product of random chemicals and biological stuff in his body which cause him to act that way. His "Mother Earth" must be ashamed of him right now...

..................

Quote:
This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07. I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....NOT because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude. You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.

At least I don’t think the Bible should be the fucking law, bitch.

Quote:
Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me).... Ron Paul seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely. He is a gentleman extraordinaire.

Ron Paul is in a public format, running for president, and 72 yrs old. Would you suggest he expressed his views in an aggressive manner?

Neither would I; was I running for president. But I’m not; I’m talking to a few psychopaths about theocracy.

No, because the concept of proof is implicit in the process of logic.

Logic is not a choice. IT HAPPENS. The nomenclature we’ve attached to it in philosophy is just a descriptive term.

What you’re asking is like saying “Can you walk without legs, sophocles?”

It’s absurd.

Right, because logic and legs are the same kinds of things, sophocles07... You must be a monist. And where do the laws of logic come from again?

 

[sophocles07]

Right, because logic and legs are the same kinds of things, sophocles07... You must be a monist. And where do the laws of logic come from again?

Yes, logic and legs (and any other function of the human anatomy) are "the same kinds of things." As I've said, language, organ functions, the way in which blood circulates in the body, the way in which vision operates, the way hearing occurs, the nature of the human sense of smell, and, yes, the faculties which allow for logical deduction, abstract thought, and moral judgment, can all be thought of in the same sense of being wholly material. They, of course, just have different ways of working. No one disputes the fact that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable (I mean how they work and how they formed to work that way); why question the function of logic? I don't really understand the argument here; you would be physically, literally unable to respond and type if logic did not exist. You are thinking your way through concepts and ideas in order to respond, that's abstract thought; you are deducing and inferring, which is logic; what's the argument here? This is why I said I know logic exists because it is evident implicitly in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence; in the same way, morality can be said to exist implicitly in repulsion at murder or disgust at theivery of public funds or whatever basic human action. Really, I fail to see what we're actually talking about here when you question logic and morality. You've said that your religion, beliefs, and god are all true and rational, but then you ask me why logic is "obvious"; I don't comprehend the dilemma here. I also fail to see how you cannot agree that logic is a) a function of the human brain, and that it b) relates by analogy to the fact that the legs are implicitly "obvious" in the fact of walking (that they are the "same kinds of things").

The above is about as mild-mannered as I can be, and as clear as I can be. I would request you give something that explains your positions to each of these points without evading questions or merely quoting scripture. If there are points you cannot argue, admit this and say it comes down to "having faith," which I don't have. You can then tell me I am lost; but at least admit that you are working on faith here, which is indefensible on the grounds we are speaking in (logic, rationality, etc.).

 

[Macon GA]

Man.... I am sure that I have been called much worse than that, especially during my pre-conversion days..... It has been a while though.

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Sophocles is no agnostic. He is a full fledged "God-hater."

Do you not know this of old, since man was placed on earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment? Though his haughtiness mounts up to the heavens, and his head reaches to the clouds, yet he will perish forever like his own refuse; those who have seen him will say, 'Where is he?' He will fly away like a dream and not be found; yes, he will be chased away like a vision of the night. The eye that saw him will see him no more, nor will his place behold him anymore... The heavens will reveal his iniquity, and the earth will rise up against him. The increase of his house will depart, and his goods will flow away in the day of His wrath. This is the portion from God for a wicked man, the heritage appointed to him by God.



Quum se putarent sapientes, stulti facti sunt.

 

[A rope leash]

"I don't have a problem with god...

...it's his fan club that worries me!" - Micheal Rivero.



That sophocles07, he is a full fledged "God-hater."

Yeah, and I'm a full fledged tank-paratrooper.

Given that the religious side of this argument has yet to actually produce a god, or any empirical evidence a god or a kingdom of god, if sophocles hates god he hates nothing tangible. He hates a fantasy other people have. William F. Buckley called us "god killers". Well, you can't kill what isn't, you can only kill the idea.

The religious on this thread have fallen back on preaching from the traditional sources, ancient lore describing impossible scenarios. That's one of the reasons I've said that denying god to the faithful is such an awful pursuit...heartbreaking is not a bad word for it. It's a sad thing to watch as the religious flock to the same old testaments as proof of something actual, and how they insist that what is in their hearts and minds exists in the real world. Apparently, only a god has the power to show itself to the world. That must be really frustrating for the believer.

Of course, we atheists have all sorts of plot lines demonstrating the impossibility of a god, which always gives us victory in these debates, but never a win. An argument not based on reason cannot be fought with reason, though we do try. It is exceptionally easy to pick a fun point with this subject...and all so easy for the atheist to poke directly on the religious...

...like this...

Jesus is dead. He died on the cross for our sins, remember? Everyone alive during that period of time in which he existed is dead. Everyone dies. He's dead.

What's that? Too rude? You say Jesus his up in heaven with his god-father? I thought that god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Gave him to who? Himself? Jesus is up there in heaven with Dad after absorbing our sins? He is "sacrificed" to live in paradise?

No, Jesus died. If we gave him our sins, he might be in Hell. But more likely, he's just dead.

Way more likely.

Out of line? Perhaps, but as long as I'm making some sort of sense, it's hard to shut me up, right? It's exactly the same with religion...you have to take much of it on faith, but it makes sense on its own terms in its own world.

Only a god could ever end this argument. So far, it hasn't shown.

 

[Kade]

Kade said:



How did you become "born again?" Did you recite the sinner's prayer? Walk an aisle? Ask Jesus into your heart? I see a lot of "good works" listed, but nothing about what you believed...or how the Lord changed your heart. Was there ever a "heart change?"



Rest assured Kade, you did not create four ministers and hundreds of devout believers.

I'm ashamed of what I believed... and yes, growing up in such a vivid environment as the youth leader gave me an opportunity to bring leaders to your faith...

If you want their names personally, PM me.

 

[beachmaster]

What's that? Too rude? You say Jesus his up in heaven with his god-father? I thought that god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Gave him to who? Himself? Jesus is up there in heaven with Dad after absorbing our sins? He is "sacrificed" to live in paradise?

No, Jesus died. If we gave him our sins, he might be in Hell. But more likely, he's just dead.

Way more likely.

Yes I agree, way more likely that IF there even was a real man named Jesus, a man basically described as a religious/political revolutionary in the first century CE, he is now dead.

As to Jesus paying the price for sin, assuming the price for sin is an eternity in hell, then logically, Jesus would be in hell for eternity. If not, then he really isn't taking the full penalty for sin upon himself is he?

Besides, why should anyone with a conscience want an innocent party to pay the penalty for his/her own crimes or sins? That's not very responsible is it?

Out of line? Perhaps, but as long as I'm making some sort of sense, it's hard to shut me up, right? It's exactly the same with religion...you have to take much of it on faith, but it makes sense on its own terms in its own world.

Only a god could ever end this argument. So far, it hasn't shown.

Not to me anyway. I even asked "him" to show me. "His" own supposed "word" said to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I tried to prove the bible and it's version of the god idea to be true. It didn't work for me. The bible's god apparently rejected me out of hand. He doesn't want me I guess, and that's fine with me. So be it. I'll find me another god. My higher self works fine for me at this time, for it is the true Holy Spirit which comforts me.

 

[Theocrat]

Logic and Morality

Yes, logic and legs (and any other function of the human anatomy) are "the same kinds of things."

Logic and legs are not the same kind of things. Logic is conceptual in nature, and therefore, it's not tangible. You can't see logic physically, nor can you taste it or smell it. Logic is not a material entity. Legs, on the other hand, are material or physical in nature. You can see them, touch them, and I will just stop there, but you get the point. They take up space in the natural world. So, I would disagree with you that logic and legs are the same kinds of things.

As I've said, language, organ functions, the way in which blood circulates in the body, the way in which vision operates, the way hearing occurs, the nature of the human sense of smell, and, yes, the faculties which allow for logical deduction, abstract thought, and moral judgment, can all be thought of in the same sense of being wholly material.

I think you've made the same mistake as you have in your previous statement in assuming that immaterial entities, such as language and the mind, and material entities, such as organs and blood, are the same kind of things. Once again, language is a concept to describe a system of communication between two or more communicants. You can't buy language at a supermarket, nor can you eat it on a dinner plate. It just doesn't have tangible properties.

They, of course, just have different ways of working.

I agree with this, and I would say it's because, metaphysically, they are different in their own natures; one is immaterial, while the other is material. Organs aren't mere abstractions in nature; they are made of organic matter and take up space. The way organs operate in nature is limited compared to logic because the latter is a universal standard used to make sound judgments and choices, while the former is particular to a specific function within an organism.

No one disputes the fact that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable (I mean how they work and how they formed to work that way); why question the function of logic?

Uh, excuse me, but I do dispute the claim that organs, language, and the senses are materially explainable. As I've postulated previously, language is conceptual in nature (not taking up space, nor composed of matter), so it cannot be explained "materially." I would say it's in a different realm of knowledge and experience than organs, the senses, etc., similar to the laws of logic, being immaterial entities.

I don't really understand the argument here; you would be physically, literally unable to respond and type if logic did not exist. You are thinking your way through concepts and ideas in order to respond, that's abstract thought; you are deducing and inferring, which is logic; what's the argument here?

I actually agree with you on the points you've made here, for the most part. There's no argument on these points.

This is why I said I know logic exists because it is evident implicitly in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence; in the same way, morality can be said to exist implicitly in repulsion at murder or disgust at theivery of public funds or whatever basic human action. Really, I fail to see what we're actually talking about here when you question logic and morality.

Do you believe that immaterial or supernatural entities exist, such as logic and morality? I know that you use logic in the act of typing, doing math, or writing a sentence, but I just want to know how do you account for them in your naturalistic worldview (Where did they come from? Did they evolve before humans developed their minds or afterwards? Etc., etc.), and why should anyone be obligated to use logic in your worldview?

By the way, I would say that the reason you get repulsed by murder and disgusted at thievery is because you have a soul which tells you that these things are wrong. One of the facilities in your soul is the conscience, and this is where God has preprogrammed you to know right from wrong. I also do not question logic and morality because I believe these are real, immaterial entities (like the soul) created by God, and they reflect His character. As transcendentals, they are to be inculcated by all of His creatures in their thinking and behavior in order to bring glory to God and bring blessings to their neighbor. They are also necessary in knowing who God is, how His world operates, and how to live in peace (as much as lies in us) with both Him and other human beings, through love.

You've said that your religion, beliefs, and god are all true and rational, but then you ask me why logic is "obvious"; I don't comprehend the dilemma here. I also fail to see how you cannot agree that logic is a) a function of the human brain, and that it b) relates by analogy to the fact that the legs are implicitly "obvious" in the fact of walking (that they are the "same kinds of things").

I do believe logic is "obvious," in some sense, but it does not justify itself. There needs to be a system in place by which logic can be used and applied properly, a realm preconditioned for intelligibility, if you will. After all, it takes information to create information. I don't believe there was ever a time when logic was just "floating around in space." That's why God is necessary as the first Cause for everything in the universe, for I believe He is that "original Information" or "Totality of reason, logic, morality, science, and truth" in order to explain the true purpose of life and our existence in the natural world.

I don't believe that logic is a function of the human brain because I see the human brain and logic as being two separate things in nature. The human brain is composed of chemicals, biological matter, and electrical impulses, but each of these are incapable of forming logic or even knowing what logic is because they inherently don't function in that way according to their separate, inorganic properties. In other words, chemicals, on their own, do not make rational decisions. Electrical forces do not, of themselves, write poetic verses. How could they? Just think about what is necessary for any organism to formulate a constitution, or compose an orchestral concerto, or create a cathedral. Electricity and chemicals simply cannot do these things by their own nature as nonliving entities. You can put a cake mix in a bowl and stir it, but no matter how long you do it, you will never get the cake mix to cry, or come up with a mathematical formula, or write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Why? Because the things composed of in a cake mix aren't necessary for crying, mathematical formulations, or award-winning novels. Yet, you seem to apply this understanding when you conclude that logic comes from our brains. If this is the case, then what do we conclude of those who may not be well-versed in logic as you and I are? Do we say that their brains are inferior to ours or less evolved than ours because they lack logical knowledge or the ability to apply it fully?

The above is about as mild-mannered as I can be, and as clear as I can be. I would request you give something that explains your positions to each of these points without evading questions or merely quoting scripture. If there are points you cannot argue, admit this and say it comes down to "having faith," which I don't have. You can then tell me I am lost; but at least admit that you are working on faith here, which is indefensible on the grounds we are speaking in (logic, rationality, etc.).

I really appreciate the spirit of debate and respectfulness you've maintained in this post, sophocles07. It helps aid in the free and cogent expression of ideas and disagreements we share towards each other. Your mild-manneredness is to be applauded. Thanks.