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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God exists, as does His son Jesus Christ.

As best we can tell, Jesus and "God" exist only as concepts in the minds of some human beings.

The Big Bang theory is creationism masquerading as science.

You've got it backwards. Each version of creationism has its own creation myth which masqueraded as science for as long as it could. Odin and his brothers did not create the world. Neither did Tiamat nor Jehovah.

The more closely we look at science the more religious we become. Because it instills a sense of awe and mystery that is logically inescapable.

Religious as in Abrahamic religion? Science refutes much of it. What such religions do is co-opt that sense of the sacred by stripping t from nature and exporting it to imaginary agents in imaginary spaces outside of nature, and then has this agent giving commands. Authentic spirituality with its awe, mystery, euphoria, connection, belonging, and a sense of gratitude is directed at nature.

These religions do violence to that connection. You've seen our most vocal Abrahamist here expressing his feelings about animal life. That's what these religions teach, and it is the very opposite of connectivity and belonging. It alienates believers from this world, many behaving as if life has no value or meaning without a god belief and an afterlife, the world is expendable and inferior, and living as if they are waiting at a cosmic bus stop for something to take them away from this material, carnal world for something better.

Please don't insult me.

Fortunately, you've avoided that, except for "I was able to follow most of his thesis, so it shouldn't be a problem for you" and "That is your flawed perspective from a biased and might I add, imperfect reasoning."

You should read Christopher Langan

Why? You need to provide your own argument in summary form and provide a quote or two to whet the modern reader's appetite, who is flooded with clickbait and specious, tendentious argumentation. My default position is that most such people are crackpots, so I need a reason to look at Langan.

Rest assured that Langan and I have proven using logic that a God is real.

I'm pretty sure that you haven't. Change my mind. To do that, you'll need an argument of your own, not a link. It needn't be original, but you need to make it in summary form with enough substance to support the idea that he might be worth reading.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wow, look Aupmanyav, a picture of your ancestor - according to you.
Such love on their faces.
By the way, did you know that tigers typically kill and eat monkeys?

Cousin, not ancestor. Again, I am sorry for your ignorance. You should not have skipped Biology classes in school.

Yeah, I know, though I have seen a video with chimps trying to free a snared leopard. Now, here is a story of a pregnant tigress, who plays with a fawn and in the end, lets it go. There is a video too of this episode, more beautiful, but I could not find that. In the video, another tiger tries to attack the fawn, but the tigress saves it.

Giant pregnant tiger plays with tiny fawn before letting it go

These photos show two unlikely friends running and playing together for around half an hour in the trees and long grass in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, central India.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DNB]

Do you not see the similarity in your thinking with that of the Church, insisting the earth was the center of the universe? That is my very point. It's the same idea that sees humanity as the apple of God's eye. It's man's view of himself as God's favorite creation. Nothing suspicious about the hubris there, right?

Point being, if you're okay with the earth just being the 3rd rock from the sun, adrift in a vast cosmos and not at its center, would you be okay with viewing yourself as just one of the many brilliant creations of God, and not its very heart and center, that all of this, the countless vast worlds that are out there, was not just for you or us humans?

What would that do to your faith to imagine yourself not at the pinnacle or the very centerpiece of creation? I'm genuinely curious to know. Would you feel less special?

Only man has the capacity, cognizance, heart, and endowment to be capable of both recognizing and revering God.
*Man is the grounds behind all creation.

 

[DNB]

Says you.

Never seen a parliament work huh? Or a Democratic Republic?

I can't believe that I have to answer this question:
Are any members of parliament all powerful (rhetorical)?

 

[DNB]

Then why are so many animals who aren't humans known problem solvers? Like birds of the Corvidae family. They tend to be observant, shrewd, highly intelligent problem solvers of various degrees of socialization and cooperation among individual species, like crows who members of groups or scrub jays who, much like us, can be observed cooperating with each other (esoecially communicating messages across a distamce) but can also be so aggressive as to eat eachother's eggs and babies. And like us amd elephants scrub jays also have funerals for each other.

.001% of the non human species, that appear on the surface to be showing signs of love and remorse, does not constitutive the grounds to claim that non humans are either spiritual, reverent, pious, contrite, contemplative, shameful, capable of adoration, malevolent, etc..

 

[Secret Chief]

So you're saying it's not the atheists fault they are spiritually blinded. It is because God has not let them see because he would rather they suffer in blindness. Correct? So is this a game then with God manipulating people for some master plan or something? You don't see a moral problem here?

Moral problem? Some are not permitted to see and then as a consequence of this are consigned to hell. Tricky thing, morality.

 

[Secret Chief]

Animals do not have all the emotions, desires, contemplations or cognizance that humans have - they eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate, and that's it!

The higher non-human species assuredly do have a variety of such mental activities. This is an established scientific fact, higher mammals have a complex CNS, obviously. They don't need that just to eat and poo.

Do you (or have you) live with any non-human companions, such as a dog or a cat? If you have and you think that they are so simplistic the two of you must have (or have had) a very impoverished relationship.

 

[F1fan]

Only man has the capacity, cognizance, heart, and endowment to be capable of both recognizing and revering God.
*Man is the grounds behind all creation.

Does this include humans with cognitive impairment?

And what of humans who understand that gods are a tradition of ancient civilizations and have no basis in fact? How many humans would assume gods exist if they weren’t living in a society that promotes religious belief?

 

[DNB]

Not just anatomical differences. Experiential differences. Gods like the Christian god and man have none in common.

God can be angry at sin - man displays indignation towards sin.
God was 'ashamed' to have made man, he brought about the flood - Paul was ashamed of his former Pharisaical attitude towards Christians
We can go on where applicable in regards to the existential comparisons, but the rest of your points were either biological or secular related

I already addressed that, assuming that you might bring up the moral and intellectual faculties as the way that man is made in God's image. OK, but I mentioned the flood story as an illustration of both a moral and intellectual failure of this deity by humanist standards. I'd say that this god was formed in our image and reflects our self-image when it was created in preliterate antiquity. Man has evolved intellectually and morally since then, and this god is no longer an adequate symbol or guide for man.

God created man, and has the entire prerogative to annihilate them when they rebel against Him. This is an elementary principle that relates to any such hierarchy - Creator vs creature.
It's a shame that you don't appreciate the fact that we all should've been destroyed by now, including both you and I.

I guess that Christianity had to settle for that once science showed them that man didn't live in the literal, physical center of reality. But the same damage is done by the remnant - a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism relative to the beasts that still leaves man the opposite relative to his god, where he is seen as utterly dependent, as wretched, and unworthy of the gift of grace.

If you consider the Roman Catholic church to be the archetype for Christian theology, then your logic will be replete with errors.
i.e. is there a protestant who doesn't denounce Council of Trent, Vatican I & II?

...I'm Biblical Unitarian by the way, as opposed to UU, and am vehemently opposed to any deification of Christ, or any other being or entity other than the Father.

So, to be specific, Jesus, the 200% man, is the sole grounds for God creating the universe - man was made for Christ, and all other creatures and objects within the universe serve the same purpose - to fulfill God's mandate in Christ.

 

[DNB]

Chimps are relatives, not an ancestor. You should have paid attention in 7th grade science class.

Just as your God created, according to your version of toxic religion. Why would your God create such a violent nature that kills so readily? Tigers kill humans. Cancer kills humans, including children. Bacterial infections kill humans. If humans are so special why did creation get designed as such a threat to us?

Try and stick to the point.
@Aupmanyav was attempting to display love between two non humans, I was undermining that point alone

 

[DNB]

Cousin, not ancestor. Again, I am sorry for your ignorance. You should not have skipped Biology classes in school.

Yeah, I know, though I have seen a video with chimps trying to free a snared leopard. Now, here is a story of a pregnant tigress, who plays with a fawn and in the end, lets it go. There is a video too of this episode, more beautiful, but I could not find that. In the video, another tiger tries to attack the fawn, but the tigress saves it.

Giant pregnant tiger plays with tiny fawn before letting it go

These photos show two unlikely friends running and playing together for around half an hour in the trees and long grass in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, central India.

www.dailymail.co.uk

You're attempting to make the exceptions the rule????
Who missed what primary education?

 

[DNB]

The higher non-human species assuredly do have a variety of such mental activities. This is an established scientific fact, higher mammals have a complex CNS, obviously. They don't need that just to eat and poo.

Do you (or have you) live with any non-human companions, such as a dog or a cat? If you have and you think that they are so simplistic the two of you must have (or have had) a very impoverished relationship.

And you, have an entirely impoverished comprehension of the dynamic that takes place between a master and a dependent/subordinate.

I assure that your pet who you believe loves you, will deviate his loyalty from you to the one who treats him better.
Your pet does not love you because you're a fair, just, compassionate, altruistic person, as love should only be derived from. But, rather, because you treat the animal well.
You could be a dead-beat dad, a cheat, a liar, an abusive person to others, an egotist, etc.., but as long as you give the animal what it wants, they will appear affectionate and loyal.

Maybe you should consider having goldfish as pets, and then you can come and tell us all how much they love you? And, if you get that far, the reasons why that they love you (facetious)?

 

[DNB]

Does this include humans with cognitive impairment?

And what of humans who understand that gods are a tradition of ancient civilizations and have no basis in fact? How many humans would assume gods exist if they weren’t living in a society that promotes religious belief?

There's not a single culture or society, no matter how remote or isolated, that didn't have their transcendent or spiritual entities within their culture.

 

[F1fan]

Try and stick to the point.
@Aupmanyav was attempting to display love between two non humans, I was undermining that point alone

And you failed.

It’s not as if all humans are compassionate and loving. Many are irrational, cruel, greedy, selfish, and any number of vices that your religion warns against. But even vices are too tempting to your fellow Christians, which tells us they are not too far removed from our primal instincts. Evolution resulted in a neocortex, but not all humans are able to use it to manage their emotions.

 

[Secret Chief]

And you, have an entirely impoverished comprehension of the dynamic that takes place between a master and a dependent/subordinate.

I assure that your pet who you believe loves you, will deviate his loyalty from you to the one who treats him better.
Your pet does not love you because you're a fair, just, compassionate, altruistic person, as love should only be derived from. But, rather, because you treat the animal well.
You could be a dead-beat dad, a cheat, a liar, an abusive person to others, an egotist, etc.., but as long as you give the animal what it wants, they will appear affectionate and loyal.

Maybe you should consider having goldfish as pets, and then you can come and tell us all how much they love you? And, if you get that far, the reasons why that they love you (facetious)?

I was referring to the like of cats and dogs. So do you have any? Have you had any?

 

[F1fan]

There's not a single culture or society, no matter how remote or isolated, that didn't have their transcendent or spiritual entities within their culture.

And that is the best primitive people could do. Today we have knowledge that tells us we evolved with a brain that is tempted to believe in non-factual ideas, but not all have learned the discipline to manage this temptation. You are an example of what no discipline results in, and irrational beliefs takes over.

 

[The Hammer]

I can't believe that I have to answer this question:
Are any members of parliament all powerful (rhetorical)?

I can't believe I have to ignore this, but won't.

That was my point.

There is no need for an "all" powerful anything. It's not necessary for things to operate smoothly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God can be angry at sin - man displays indignation towards sin.
God was 'ashamed' to have made man, he brought about the flood - Paul was ashamed of his former Pharisaical attitude towards Christians
We can go on where applicable in regards to the existential comparisons, but the rest of your points were either biological or secular related

So then by being made in god's image, you mean that we can experience anger and shame like God? My dog does both of those as well. Is it also made in God's image?

Anything else that we have in common with your god? Has it ever enjoyed a good meal or told a joke? Has it ever taken a shower? Does it sleep? Does it ever worry or feel threatened? Do things smell bad or good to it? Has it ever felt the warmth of a sun?

God created man, and has the entire prerogative to annihilate them when they rebel against Him. This is an elementary principle that relates to any such hierarchy - Creator vs creature. It's a shame that you don't appreciate the fact that we all should've been destroyed by now, including both you and I.

I reject your might-makes-right ethics. My father used to say something similar: "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" He would have been just as immoral as this god you describe had he followed through.

Creating hell and damning people to it for being human was an act of war (not mere rebellion) against man. By your reasoning, man has the right to destroy this deity for its monstrosity, though not the power. Man has the right if not the power to throw it in its own torture dungeon and lock it in for being willing to do that to man.

 

[F1fan]

So then by being made in god's image, you mean that we can experience anger and shame like God? My dog does both of those as well. Is it also made in God's image?

Anything else that we have in common with your god? Has it ever enjoyed a good meal or told a joke? Has it ever taken a shower? Does it sleep? Does it ever worry or feel threatened? Do things smell bad or good to it? Has it ever felt the warmth of a sun?

We know about God’s sex life, and as Hitchens describes it it is celestial rape. So perhaps many disturbed men are made in God’s image. A former president comes to mind.

 

[Ostronomos]

Eastern philosophies are vastly better at teaching self-awareness than the Abrahamics. There are good and bad in every tradition, but some traditions have a troubled history. It is apparent that wisdom tends to be universal when it favors more cooperative aims rather than personal/selfish aims. Look at what putin is doing, and Trump, and other selfish leaders. Their supporters have motivations that can't be called wisdom. So what went wrong with those folks? If we look at trends it is those who can't reason well, and are eager to believe in some sort of truth that lacks evidence. Brains are not uniform, and it is a crap shoot what anyone ends up with. Born with Down's Syndrome? You may never be aware of it.

Racism and greed are easy beliefs. It takes more sophisticated thinking to be on the side of equality. It also requires emotional intelligence.

I suggest Balance, Tao, Nirvana, etc. are all dependent on reasoning. On analytics. How else can you put experience into use? How else can you predict? Shooting from the hip is sloppy.

Why need a God at all if you are rational, moral, and decent? I suggest most atheists are experienced at life without a need to believe ina God as an external authority.

We need a God because He was proven using logic. That is the extent to which we are willing to apply it to our daily lives. When I go to the grocery store, I do not imagine myself as needing a God. But it will certainly become necessary and obvious when you awaken in the form of your spiritual, astral self. It is otherwise not necessary when you are alive and well. Subconsciously, we all know God is reality. This I know for a fact.

But that is what the 9-11 hijackers said. And don't forget they died, so had to have been very confident. Authentic is a matter of opinion where it comes to non-factual beliefs. We both have moral objections, but my point is how unreliable faith can be for making decisions. Which God is authentic, and which ones aren't, and how can anyone know except it just being a matter of belief? Eye of the beholder. When you mention your version of God it is no different than any other version by any other believer, even those who die in service to it. None are based in fact, there is no test in reality.

So do you consider God a provisional idea? If so, you need an alternative any time you rely on your belief in God, just in case you are wrong. Or just take your chances.

But believers do have experiences, albeit mimicked and invented. What experiences offer truth as a concept? We all set the stage for what we experience. If someone wants to find truth, use facts, data, and a reliable methodology. Reason offers tests in reality, and that is a good experience.

Garbage in, garbage out. So if you want truth at the end of your experience, use a reliable method. Faith isn't reliable.

No, faith is not reliable, that is why Langan and I use logic.

What makes what exists "ultimate"? Isn't reality sufficient? And wouldn't "ultimate reality" be a collective object? Of course we just call it matter.

Matter is only a subset of reality. God is not apparent in the objects you see around you. That is why you must use a reliable means of looking beyond.

Infinite Absolute? What is that? I'm always wary of these exaggerated references, as it seems to overcompensate for a lack of evidence. And 18 is pretty young and impressionable.

It's subjective. It's notable that atheists don't miraculously have such experiences. Is it possible you created the experience?

There have been many studies on brain states, and even alternate states of consciousness. The brain does a lot of funky things, and it is not a reliable sensing aparatus when under straess, drugs, or some other types of influence. My big experience was on the bike one hot August afternoon some 30 years ago on Old K-10 highway between Eudora and Desoto Kansas. I was so bonked out, severe glucose deprevation, that was hallucinating. I had some pretty weird thoughts and visions. This was much like a sweat lodge experience, by accident. I have no memory of making it home, which was about another 30 miles. But that opened the door to me looking more into thinking and having a more deliberate meaning in life.

Words mean something, and to be comprehensible to others we need to use recognized definitions. I see many believers use words to in essence build a God from the collective of wrods, as if that proves something. It tells me that they are trying to force God into existence with words. It's not good enough.

Language tricks can mean something, like koans. But we see a lot of fraud.

This is vague. "Ultimate concern"? That sounds exaggerated. I don't see any factual and coherent explanation of religious faith.

I'm not going to bother with this. I will simply end by saying that I am very familiar with altered states of consciousness and spiritual planes. You however are not. Otherwise you would not be spewing ignorant atheistic garbage on a public forum.