Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[shunyadragon]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

I am a Theist and have objections to your use of 'believe in him' and your hostile view of those that believe differently.

I believe in God, not him.

 

[Ella S.]

You are not worthy of my time based on your response. All it took was my noble attempt at truth to reduce you to ad hominems and personal attacks. That speaks to you ignorance and character.

You may think atheism is the truth, but I am 100% aware that it is not. The truth about God is on my side. You atheists are so superficial and petty that you cannot see the light.

None of today's greatest thinkers are atheists.

Peace out. (Or is my expression of goodwill too simplistic for you?)

Alright. If that's how you're going to respond, I have my own response to your post.

BUT LOOK AT THIS:

GOD IS REAL BECAUSE HE WAS PROVEN USING LOGIC.

God genuinely was proven using logic. There are 5 proofs for the existence of God; the teleological argument, the moral argument, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, and the transcendental argument.

All of these arguments have been disproven since they were first made. The most recent one to be disproven was the Argument from Design, which has been irrelevant since the Theory of Evolution. That's why evolution marks the time when serious philosophers began to transfer from Deism to atheism.

AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT LOGIC MIGHT BE REALITY.

No, logic is not reality. It is an abstraction of reality. To treat logic itself as real would be "mistaking the map for the territory," which is an informal fallacy. It's also quite close to magical thinking, which is when we infer an implausible causal relationship between mental contents and the external world. It would be quite illogical to believe that logic is reality.

However, I do think that reality operates according to its own logic. The natural world is rife with mathematical patterns. Also, the natural laws can be conceptualized as computer algorithms so well that we can create virtual simulations of nature to make scientific predictions.

IT WAS ALSO DEMOSTRATED THAT REALITY IS THE SET OF ALL THINGS THAT EXIST.

I disagree with this definition of reality. I think Abraham Lincoln's life is real, even though it no longer exists, for instance.

Instead, I propose that "reality" is another name for the external world. That is, the world which is evident to our sensory perceptions. It contains all things that exist, yes, but it is not the set of all things that exist. That would be a rather improper use of set theory, and it would count as a "persuasive definition," which is another informal fallacy.

THEREFORE QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTIONS HINT AT A REALITY FROM BEYOND WHICH THEY ENTER INTO THIS ONE FROM THE ASTRAL REALM.

How is that?

AGAIN, IT IS ATHEISM AND SOMETIMES THEISM THAT MAKES WILD CLAIMS AND APPEALS TO THE IMAGINARY, NOT THE HARD LOGIC AND EMPIRICISM OF METAPHYSICS (A WELL-ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHICAL BRANCH THAT LENDS CREDENCE TO 21ST CENTURY SCIENCE).

As an epistemic rationalist, I'm inclined to nitpick at how you conflate hard logic and empiricism. Personally, I think it's rationalism that is important, not empiricism, although that does include some "empirical evidence" during the process of a posteriori reasoning. I think there's a difference between rationally analyzing empirical data and being an outright empiricist, though.

Also, if you were an empiricist, I think you would almost certainly be an atheist. Empiricism tends to go hand-in-hand with apistevism; if there is no empirical evidence for the existence of something, then an empiricist would say that it is unreasonable to believe in its existence. Since there's no empirical evidence for gods, and even you are mostly trying to give analytical deductive arguments rather than empirical inductive arguments for a God, the empiricist would have to not believe in the existence of gods. If you are without any belief in gods, then you are an atheist under the common use of that word.

As far as hard logic is concerned, God has been disproven for nearly two centuries now.

ONE THING ABOUT GOD IS HE IS NOT UPTIGHT. HE LIKES OUR MUSIC AND EVEN PLAYS SPECIFICALLY SELECTED SONGS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITUATION WHEN THE OBSERVER OCCASIONALLY ENTERS A HIGHER DIMENSION. FOR EXAMPLE, LET US SAY YOU WERE IN A HOMELESS SHELTER LEANING AGAINST A WALL BECAUSE YOU HAD A BROKEN BONE YET YOU ENTERED "THAT HIGHER DIMENSION". GOD MIGHT PLAY ON A TELEVISION NEARBY ALICIA KEYS' "NO ONE NO ONE NO ONNNNNE, CAN GET IN THE WAY OF WHAT I FEEL FOR YOU... EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIIIIGHT"... AS A WAY OF COMFORTING YOU AND LETTING YOU KNOW THAT HE WILL AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE (EXCEPT NOW YOU'RE INTERACTING WITH HIM).

Depending on how the song was playing, this is more likely to be either apophenia or an auditory hallucination.

Apophenia is very common as far as supernatural beliefs go. It's used to find signs from gods and spirits across many different belief systems. It tends to be closely associated with magical thinking, which I mention earlier.

I am a little concerned here, because you're showing signs of eccentric magical thinking, apophenia, and maybe even hallucinatory experiences. I suspect that your line, "IT WAS ALSO DEMOSTRATED THAT REALITY IS THE SET OF ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. THEREFORE QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTIONS HINT AT A REALITY FROM BEYOND WHICH THEY ENTER INTO THIS ONE FROM THE ASTRAL REALM." may represent a form of non-logical inference beyond what one would expect in an ordinary sample.

Personally, I have found therapy and psychiatry to be extremely helpful when I've felt confused about reality. Have you considered making an appointment with a mental health clinician? You might find it helpful, too.

 

[Secret Chief]

Like I said, maybe you are.

Like the whole of the world's scientists agree: you are too.

 

[Secret Chief]

Post #264 still stands

Do you not understand your own phrase "that's it" ?

 

[Secret Chief]

those not qualified

And what qualification do those people lack?

 

[Secret Chief]

Coming from someone who believes that we came from monkeys - what can you tell us about Satan?

Did you mean apes? We are apes. That's not an opinion, it's simply a fact - albeit one you dismiss. Not sure how monkeys got into this.


"In fact, not only did Darwin never propose that humans are descended from monkeys, but the very idea is erroneous."

- Did We Evolve From Monkeys? Darwin’s Misunderstood Theory | OpenMind

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you mean apes? We are apes. That's not an opinion, it's simply a fact - albeit one you dismiss. Not sure how monkeys got into this.


"In fact, not only did Darwin never propose that humans are descended from monkeys, but the very idea is erroneous."

- Did We Evolve From Monkeys? Darwin’s Misunderstood Theory | OpenMind

Actually by cladistics we did "evolve from monkeys. Have you ever seen a cladogram of human evolution? If one starts with the existence of monkeys they split into two groups. The New World Monkeys and the Old World monkeys. How the New World monkeys got to the New World is still unclear. African and South America were much closer then so it is not unreasonable that monkeys on a tree uprooted by a flood might have survived the journey. At any rate back to evolution. The next split was between Old World monkeys and apes. Then between lesser apes and Great Apes, then the Orangutans split off, and then the Gorillas. and the last split between us and our closest relations was between the lines that led to humans on one branch and chimps and bonobos on the other.

We did not of course evolve from modern monkeys. But if New World and Old World Monkeys are both monkeys, then so are we.

 

[Ella S.]

Actually by cladistics we did "evolve from monkeys. Have you ever seen a cladogram of human evolution? If one starts with the existence of monkeys they split into two groups. The New World Monkeys and the Old World monkeys. How the New World monkeys got to the New World is still unclear. African and South America were much closer then so it is not unreasonable that monkeys on a tree uprooted by a flood might have survived the journey. At any rate back to evolution. The next split was between Old World monkeys and apes. Then between lesser apes and Great Apes, then the Orangutans split off, and then the Gorillas. and the last split between us and our closest relations was between the lines that led to humans on one branch and chimps and bonobos on the other.

View attachment 80495

We did not of course evolve from modern monkeys. But if New World and Old World Monkeys are both monkeys, then so are we.

I think this is outdated now, and we are no longer considered to have descended from old world monkeys. Instead, we're descended from a common simian ancestor, which old world monkeys (Catarrhini), new world monkeys (Platyrrhini), and apes (Hominoidea) all spawned from.

So we were considered to be monkeys at one point, but we aren't now. ...I think.

 

[Secret Chief]

Actually by cladistics we did "evolve from monkeys. Have you ever seen a cladogram of human evolution? If one starts with the existence of monkeys they split into two groups. The New World Monkeys and the Old World monkeys. How the New World monkeys got to the New World is still unclear. African and South America were much closer then so it is not unreasonable that monkeys on a tree uprooted by a flood might have survived the journey. At any rate back to evolution. The next split was between Old World monkeys and apes. Then between lesser apes and Great Apes, then the Orangutans split off, and then the Gorillas. and the last split between us and our closest relations was between the lines that led to humans on one branch and chimps and bonobos on the other.

View attachment 80495

We did not of course evolve from modern monkeys. But if New World and Old World Monkeys are both monkeys, then so are we.

Ok, ultimately we all evolved from single-celled organisms

 

[Mock Turtle]

Man has been seeking God ever since the dawn of history:

To be fair, humans have been seeking all sorts of things since forever, and have believed in God, gods (many still do), all sorts of other similar (many still do), and it probably has only been in the recent tens of thousands of years that most have settled on the one God concept, even if they can't always agree as to anything appertaining to this God (and hence causing conflicts), with many of course not accepting any of this (and such growing). But I suppose you aren't really bothered as to events past ten thousand years or so ago, given that the Bible explains it all to you.

Of course it probably is more sensible to have the one God belief - with economy in mind - but your proof or evidence seems still lacking unless, as you seem to think, evidence simply abounds all around us on appearance alone - whilst also seemingly dismissing much that would contradict such - and particularly your aggressive negative attitude to science or anything coming from science. But such tends to be the defensive mechanism of someone afraid of or incapable of actually looking at any science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this is outdated now, and we are no longer considered to have descended from old world monkeys. Instead, we're descended from a common simian ancestor, which old world monkeys (Catarrhini), new world monkeys (Platyrrhini), and apes (Hominoidea) all spawned from.

So we were considered to be monkeys at one point, but we aren't now. ...I think.

Actually that is old school thought. Scientists can see that names used are merely temporary place holders. But if both Old World Monkeys and New World monkeys are both "monkeys and they share a common ancestor that would be a "monkey" as well. We share that ancestor with them. The split between Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred after the split between New and Old World Monkeys. Just follow the chart.

A more scientific term is "Simiformes". Simians include all of the monkeys and apes. And this problem is an English problem. It may be a problem of other languages as well, but I know it is not a Spanish problem Monkeys and apes are all "monos" in Spanish. So we would be "Monos" in Spanish.

This may help:

Monkey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, ultimately we all evolved from single-celled organisms

Yes, we are all still prokaryotes. I am not sure if the change from eukaryotes to prokaryotes is technically an evolutionary change. If I understand it correctly one eukaryote ate another, but it did not take. Both survived and somehow they worked better together. The mitochondria in our bodies have their own DNA.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes, we are all still prokaryotes. I am not sure if the change from eukaryotes to prokaryotes is technically an evolutionary change. If I understand it correctly one eukaryote ate another, but it did not take. Both survived and somehow they worked better together. The mitochondria in our bodies have their own DNA.

God moves in mysterious ways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, if you were an empiricist, I think you would almost certainly be an atheist.

If that were the case I think there would be even fewer theists among scientists todaym

As far as hard logic is concerned, God has been disproven for nearly two centuries now.

Richard Dawkins doesn't even go as far as to say disproven.

I am a little concerned here, because you're showing signs of eccentric magical thinking, apophenia, and maybe even hallucinatory experiences. I suspect that your line, "IT WAS ALSO DEMOSTRATED THAT REALITY IS THE SET OF ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. THEREFORE QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTIONS HINT AT A REALITY FROM BEYOND WHICH THEY ENTER INTO THIS ONE FROM THE ASTRAL REALM." may represent a form of non-logical inference beyond what one would expect in an ordinary sample.

Personally, I have found therapy and psychiatry to be extremely helpful when I've felt confused about reality. Have you considered making an appointment with a mental health clinician? You might find it helpful, too.

I'm concerned by your behaviors by playing armchair shrink and telling someone to seek psychology help over holding a belief that doesn't inherently indicate a psychological disturbance. Doing that does real damage amd harm, it's unethical, and this is probably one of the worst examples of it I've seen here.
You might as well have told that member to seek help for using all caps.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Did you mean apes? We are apes. That's not an opinion, it's simply a fact..

You are correct according to definition..
..but not in a general sense.

We are human beings, that evolved from a "lower" life form.
Dictionary tells us..

ape: a large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.​

 

[Secret Chief]

You are correct according to definition..
..but not in a general sense.

We are human beings, that evolved from a "lower" life form.
Dictionary tells us..

ape: a large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.​

Is that a dictionary quote, because it is incomplete and misleading. Humans are not just apes, they are termed great apes, together with gorillas, chimpanzees, bobobos and orangutans . The gibbon is not a great ape (ie the Hominidae family), it is of the Hylobatidae family.

- Hominidae - Wikipedia

- Gibbon - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Non-human's do not pray to God, nor can conceive of His existence or character. Non-humans do not discuss morality, conduct funerals or eulogies for their loved ones, protest injustices except for selfish reason. Pets do not love their owners for their character, integrity or decency, but only for how they treat the pet. And, even then, the pet's loyalty is entirely contingent upon his own well-being, and can be diverted to the highest bidder. Every single society and culture throughout history, and throughout the world, has strived to attain to the transcendent, the non secular, the immaterial, and non physical.

I asked you to tell me what being made in God's image means to answer my question of how man is made in God's image. I then listed the many ways they are different physically and experientially. And I anticipated that in the end, the answer would relate to man's intellect. Your answer seems to be that man ponders, seeks god, and the like.

You must think that makes man the image of this god. If so, that's not enough. Give the beasts language and they're the same as man. They have the same moral impulses to protect their young, and one another if social animals. They have as much character, integrity, courage, loyalty, and decency as any human, but they don't conceptualize it or strive for it. Give them symbolic thought, though, and they've caught up. Now they can start thinking and talking about it and congratulate themselves for their curiosity.

I don't have the same regard as you for man's pursuit of "the transcendent" and "spiritual truth." Pursuit of understanding reality around us is what I esteem.

Here are monkey in search of the transcendent. They've found fermented fruit and gotten drunk. Wait until they discover ayahuasca. They'll see monkey gods. And sorry to say, but we were modeled after something closer to its image.

 

[Windwalker]

This assumes they were all presented with that evidence and it was presented in a non-biased way.

While the information you were being presented was skewed, clearly you were aware that there was a conflict between what they believed and what the scientific world was saying? Didn't they openly reject the teachings of science to you and openly tell you their version of creation as the real truth? "Teach the controversy" is a motto that acknowledges they are at odds with mainstream science. So I would think that pretty much any believer in the church is at least aware that science has a different view of their own science, correct?

Yet, do they question what they are being taught until there is a good enough reason to? They don't actively investigate it. And even if directly presented with the actual science, unless they are opened to it, they will deny or evade it. Just look no further than Creationists here on this site.

Yes, evolution was presented to me before and after. Bit when you're educated in a strict bubble that throws away literature just for being of a different denomination you aren't being presented with the same evidence and what you get is heavily biased.

All that is true, but in order to step outside what they were teaching, you had to first be interested to wanting to investing the other side. Enough doubt had to take hold first, before questioning what you were be told, to no longer trust your sources in order to investigate it.

But when presented with evidence in history that is less biased and science without an agenda then, yes, it is logic and reason is what assured me it's not real and is what let me feel safe leaving it

I think my point still stands here though, that in order for you to trust science as less biased and having less of an agenda, you began to doubt your sources first. You sensed, or felt something was off. Something wasn't working for you at the trust level. And then, when you felt justified enough to look outside that bubble, you found rational justification to support your reasons for doubt.

All I'm trying to say is that willingness has to be there first, before the data can do anything to convince. It's the horse the comes before the cart. "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

and not look back or doubt myself once I dropped Christianity (many exs are tormented with fears of Hell after they leave).
And I know I'm not the only one who's went through this.

Of course you are not alone in this. I know personally what sort of a fear-based system it was in order to keep you from looking behind that curtain. "Doubt is the devil trying to steal your faith so he can take you to hell", was something I had to fight against in order to brave enough to face my doubts head on. My atheism quite literally was an act of faith over fear.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually, now that you mention it, I was walking through a forest one time and began to hear singing even though I was the only around for miles. Look at that, it must've been the trees.
Next time that I'm scuba diving, I'll try to keep an ear open for all the fish singing a tune, also.

That's all we can ask. Keep your ears and your eyes open, and your mouth shut, and you might be amazed at what you can see and hear. "Let those who have ears to hear, hear."

 

[Windwalker]

Atheism means you don't believe in god(s). You don't have god beliefs.
That's it.
All it takes for someone to be an atheist is not having a belief in god(s).

Would you ever see a cow as an atheist though? Would you ever say that perch you caught while fishing is an atheist? My whole point is, that label seems to only have any meaning whatsoever applied to those who have actually thought about the question of God and said of themselves, "I don't believe that". Otherwise, the term is meaningless.

Every atom is an atheist,
and we're all made up of atoms,
so everyone and everything are atheists,
hurrah!

Okay then.