I am an atheist

[look3467]

I am not sure why you are quoting poetry, but if this was meant to be a description of love, I am afraid you have failed to describe it any better than the quote ‘I am love’. (might be good for poetry, but useless in describing it)

Just what it says, which is a simple truth. A truth that science can not explain, because it is a spiritual element of humanity.

The most ardent unbeliever of the existence of God can demonstrate that quality of love.

Love give regardless of who it is, perhaps not to a neighbor, but to ones own kin.
The same goes for forgiveness.

That spiritual element is the life of our souls. That everybody has.

Now as far a concerning the belief in a god, or gods or no gods at all, in relation to what I believe to be the true God, these folks are spiritually dead, yet though alive.

You love your wife, your son, daughter, mother or father? Than you have that spiritual quality that is of God.

That you will never get away from, for love is of God.

Void of any love is an impossibility IMO, because there is always self.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[_A]

Love give regardless of who it is, perhaps not to a neighbor, but to ones own kin.
The same goes for forgiveness.

This doesn’t really make sense. People give, and you still have not demonstrated that love exists, or that it has qualities that we can agree on.

That spiritual element is the life of our souls. That everybody has.

I have no reason to believe in this ‘soul’ either. If you can describe it clearly, we can look for it, but I think this is another imagining of the faithful.

Now as far a concerning the belief in a god, or gods or no gods at all, in relation to what I believe to be the true God, these folks are spiritually dead, yet though alive.

You cannot demonstrate the difference, so I say that YOU are spiritually dead. (if that seems insulting to you, remember that you said it first)

You love your wife, your son, daughter, mother or father? Than you have that spiritual quality that is of God.

All I can say about my feelings is that you could not possibly know what you are talking about.

That you will never get away from, for love is of God.

More nonsense. I could as easily say ‘love is of me’. I would not, because I think such language is intentionally misleading, but you could not prove me wrong, so it is as meaningful as your statement.

Void of any love is an impossibility IMO, because there is always self.

Peace>>>AJ

You are tossing out poetry, a literary critic could give you a valuable opinion on that. I can only say that you aren’t saying anything clear…

 

[_A]

Can you find for me today the twin towers of the World Trade Center of New York City?

Yup.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
What’s your point?

 

[_A]

My sympathy for your loss.

Thanks, notself. I think about it a lot. He was not a very good friend (or I wasn’t) since we didn’t spend much time together. We did share tea, jokes and pals though.
My sympathy is reserved for his wife. If you want to make efforts such as prayer and the like, think of her. I am fine, I will drink to him tonight, and perhaps many nights after. His wife, I think, can’t be taking it that easily.

 

[_A]

The article states that the place where the city was found, not the the city itself.

Perhaps an example might help:

A political prisoner is released after 10 years in prison in North Korea and put on a boat to Taiwan. He has no knowledge of the events that transpired in the last decade. In Taiwan he gets on a plane to Hawaii, then on a plane to Los Angeles, then on a plan to New York City. In NYC he gets in a cab and tells the cab driver that he has always wanted to climb to the top of one of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The cab driver tries to explain that the twin towers do not exist any more. The man tries to argue with him, angrily insisting that he had been waiting for this moment all his life and was going to find the twin towers.

The cabbie replies, “Look, pal, I’ll take you to the place where the twin towers once was, but I can’t take you to the place where they now is, because they ain’t.”

Who is telling the truth? The one who insists he will find the twin towers or the cab driver who claims they will never be found by him?

If the city of Tyre has never been found, how is it that you presume that someone scraped it into the sea?
Has the rubble in the sea been found? Has it been identified as the ruins of Tyre?

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

Welcome back! I hope your project at work is going well

I’m glad you’re here again, nobody else has responded to me in a couple of days!

“Is it possible for you to find for me today the twin towers of the World Trade Center that once stood in New York City?”

I would say probably, until all the pieces of the rubble are recycled into something else, it is technically possible to find most of the twin towers.

However, I think I see the parallel you are attempting to draw here, but I’ve already discussed this in regards to Tyre. Either it was found, in which case the prophecy was flat out wrong. Or, if you consider that the city cannot be found just due to definition of what it now is, then the information given was superfluous, uneccesary, irrelevant and not what a rational person could reasonably expect of a God who is trying to communicate important things to us humans in only a limited space. In addition, RELEVANT information for a prophecy was left out in favour of what just boils down to what looks like a simple letter of intimidation to the enemy or inspiration for the ‘good guys.’ I mean, hasn’t every single army had ‘god’ on their side? According to them anyway?

Regarding your Benjamin Franklin hypothetical, I’d need to know more before I can tell you how I’d react to it. Such as the exact wording, and just how many predictions Old Ben made. I note you mention that Old Ben’s claim has 3 unprecidented parts to it (flying machines, buildings into the clouds and the crashing of one into the other), whereas Ezekiel only has the part where the city gets scraped into the ocean, so it’s probably a ‘better’ prophecy already, lol. Did you ever read that Nostradamus prophecy that people tried to shoehorn into fitting with the 9/11 attacks? Imagine how much easier that is to do in the process of translations.

Let’s worry about Isaiah and Cyrus after we’re done with this one!

I’ve asked you before if you’ve read any books on cold reading, but the question has been lost admidst everything else, so I put it to you again here.

@Others

I think the questions “do you believe in love?” and “what is the evidence for love?” might be almost as trivial to me as “can god make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” must be to you.

I understand love in terms of the chemical reactions within our bodies, I see no evidence that it is anything more than that. Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I can’t feel it to its fullest extent either, same goes for fear, humour, anger, happiness, etc. Just because you may not understand it doesn’t mean you somehow feel it more, or feel an entirely different level of it. There’s no evidence that there’s some mystical immaterial element to love that you are trying to accuse A (or his sweetheart) of believing in. You can’t even come to a consensus about what that immaterial part might be, which is what I think A was alluding to when he said you could go to 100 different people and get 100 different definitions.

 

[phooney]

@A

Sorry about your friend as well, I’m glad you are coping, and my best wishes go out to all those who will miss him.

Futile as it might be from an anonymous person on the internet, I still mean it.

 

[_A]

@A

Sorry about your friend as well, I’m glad you are coping, and my best wishes go out to all those who will miss him.

Futile as it might be from an anonymous person on the internet, I still mean it.

If you mean it (and I am fairly sure you do!) then remember this stranger happily, and if I can presume on his memory, I would ask that you read the article, and learn what cautions you can from it.

Thanks, phooney.
Several times.

 

[Pax]

But they have been in editorial control for hundreds of years. Not at all unwarranted, in my opinion.

This is weird. We have more ancient copies of the bible in multiple languages than all of the copies of equally ancient writings combined. They all corroborate one another with amazing consistency. To suggest that the Church is some way editing them is a serious error. Likewise, your complaint that the Church would be in control of the bible for hundreds of years is very odd. The bible is a Catholic book. Who else should be in control of it?

Should it have been turned over to Mohammed or Bhudda?

 

[Pax]

Let’s make up names to simplify. Your martyr, Jake, believes he witnessed Jesus do a bunch of impossible things. The Jihadist, Ali, believes he witnessed Allah directly telling him to kill infidels. Those beliefs are equally valid.
Your fellows believe that they saw things. Is it more reasonable to believe that a man actually performed miracles, or that he convinced everyone present that they witnessed miracles? I say, since we know that humans love to trick people, and are quite capable of doing so, that it is much more likely that they were tricked - all of them, Jake and Ali alike. You are making claims that these extraordinary events happened, the burden of proof is not on everyone else, it is on you.

I do not believe that you are incapable of making distinctions although you have been having difficulty doing so on this thread. Please be advised that our modern day jihadists do not claim that Allah directly tells them to kill infidels. They are not receiving visions or witnessing anything and they do not make any such claims. Instead, they simply follow what their teachers tell them is in the Koran. They read the Koran from an extreme fundamentalist point of view and let it feed into their socially cultivated hatred for the west. This is nothing like the eye witnesses that followed Jesus and saw his miracles.

Contrary to your contentions, I do not have to go any further to prove the events. I have historical figures that are eye witnesses and some of them recorded the events. You have the burden of proof to show that their testimony is bogus and that what they recorded did not happen. Your only evidence is your disbelief, and that is not a refutation.

 

[_A]

This is weird. We have more ancient copies of the bible in multiple languages than all of the copies of equally ancient writings combined. They all corroborate one another with amazing consistency. To suggest that the Church is some way editing them is a serious error. Likewise, your complaint that the Church would be in control of the bible for hundreds of years is very odd. The bible is a Catholic book. Who else should be in control of it?

Should it have been turned over to Mohammed or Bhudda?

I know there are several versions. Many different versions, actually. How did that happen?

 

[Pax]

Lack of belief doesn’t require an hallucination.

Maybe and maybe not…we could be magnanimous in the same fashion you are and just say that it is a delusion.

Maybe, but they have not asked me to believe anything. They offer better theories, in general, than religion.

You have properly stated your “opinion.”

Independent verification.

Independent of what? Please give me a break…If you really believe that atheists and even scientists are without bias you need to look again.

Nice eh? It means that the answers that science has gained access to are available to anyone who wants to acquire the knowledge to understand them. You yourself have told me that I am not reading the bible correctly, mainly because I am not drawing the same conclusion as you. Also, there is a reward in science for disproving a theory. When someone does such a thing for the church, well, think about Galileo and the way he was treated for looking up the answers to some questions.
Atheism has no beliefs, so there is little to trick people about anyway.

The more you discuss things with us the clearer it becomes that your claims about having no beliefs are simply a sham. You have deeply held beliefs and they are betrayed by your biases and sarcasm toward religion. I mean no offense by this, but I think it to be a fair and reasonable observation. Moreover, atheism has plenty to trick people about. All that atheism denies is a great deal indeed.

As far as Galileo is concerned I have only one thing to say. Search the threads on this forum for Galileo and read the vaious debates. You will get a great education on the situation with Galileo which I think is a far cry from what you think it is.

 

[Pax]

OK, I read it with my eyes, and an understanding of the english language. Where did I go wrong?

Go back to the posts in question and look at my explanations and reasoning. You did not respond to me then. If you wish to do so now, be my guest.

 

[Pax]

A,

I too am sorry to hear about your friend. Several years ago I lost one of my dearest friends to cancer. I still miss the guy. We shared many laughs and we were kindred spirits. I will pray for your friend’s wife; and even though you are fine and don’t need it or believe in prayer, I 'll say one on your behalf as well.

 

[_A]

Your only evidence is your disbelief, and that is not a refutation.

Your only evidence is your belief. The same evidence is available to any faith, which means that you have no advantage over them. Your Jake believes something (the miracles you claim) and your Ali believes something. Niether of them has any proof, just their conviction and belief. If you are going to say that Jake was more ‘right’, you can’t do it by saying he believed harder. Remember that our fiction Jake and Ali both believed hard enough to die for.

 

[_A]

_A_:

They offer better theories, in general, than religion.

You have properly stated your “opinion.”

This is not an opinion unless you stretch the ‘better’ to mean some spiritual stuff. If you use any reasonable measure, you will quickly see that the theories science have offered make more accurate predictions which are more useful in dealing with the real world. My guess is that the ‘better’ theories religion offers in your “opinion” are all going to reward you but not in any tangible way, and likely only after you are dead.
If I am wrong, you have a real rational reason why religions offered theories are better.

Independent of what? Please give me a break…If you really believe that atheists and even scientists are without bias you need to look again.

With science, if you can demonstrate that some theory is incorrect, it is discarded in favour of a better one.

The more you discuss things with us the clearer it becomes that your claims about having no beliefs are simply a sham.

Are you listing my beliefs, and backing up your claims, or are you just making vague accusations?

Moreover, atheism has plenty to trick people about. All that atheism denies is a great deal indeed.

Atheism is a term that applies to one who hasn’t been tricked by one belief or another.

As far as Galileo is concerned I have only one thing to say. Search the threads on this forum for Galileo and read the vaious debates. You will get a great education on the situation with Galileo which I think is a far cry from what you think it is.

So you are going to try to tell me his newly discovered truths were accepted? I am not off to read those threads. I think it is pretty clear that he was mistreated for bringing important knowledge to the world.
Eppur si muove.

 

[_A]

Go back to the posts in question and look at my explanations and reasoning. You did not respond to me then. If you wish to do so now, be my guest.

I read the bible in english and critically. If you are reluctant to restate your clear and unambiguous instructions, that’s OK with me.

 

[Pax]

Aleii,

Okay…let’s get into the discussion of Noah and the deluge as it pertains to God’s justice, power, dominion, or whatever. I’ll lay out a few things that I think are important and see what your take happens to be.

Your concerns swirled around moral standards and judgements as they pertain to God’s actions. One of your major areas of discontent was how God might punish masses of people including children/infants by death. This became even more serious from your point of view when there was a possibility that some, particularly children and infants, would be innocent yet suffer a painful death. You suggested that this is wrong and that God would have many other options that would presumably be better alternatives.

So why would God destroy the world[read localized flood if you wish] with the deluge?

In Genesis we read about the predecessors of Noah living extraordinarily long lives. In Genesis 6:3 God says, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” Then two verses later it says, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” These two verses are tied closely together. The extraordinary longevity of Noah and his predecessors is tied to their closeness to God. Likewise, the shortening of man’s life span is an indication of man’s drifting away from God and his favor. Furthermore, God sees the wickedness of man in its full magnitude and that all of man’s thoughts were evil continuously. This is an indication that God’s patience and mercy would not go on indefinitely. Justice would be forthcoming.

The scripture does not indicate that anyone was acting justly except for Noah and his family. In fact the scripture goes on to say in verse 11 and 12 that, “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for **all flesh **had corrupted their way upon the earth.” From the perspective of the Supreme Being it is clear that everyone is corrupt except for Noah and his family. God’s punishment is apparently “just” in that everyone lost in the flood were evil and corrupt. The narrative does not indicate that God punished by death any innocent people.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

God used a natural disaster as the direct cause of punishing the evil doers and it is also a symbol of cleansing. We can recall any and all historical instances that we are aware of in regards to man’s most barbaric acts. A good example is that of the Aztec/Mayan civilizations of Mexico. The following is an excerpt of something I recently read on the subject:

"No one will ever know exactly how many men, women and even children were sacrificed across the lands ruled by the Aztecs and the other Mayan-tribes for centuries before that. The law of the Aztecs required a thousand to their god Huitzilopochtli, the god of death, sun and war, in every temple every year. Historians tell us there were 371 temples when Cortés arrived. There were other ritual sacrifices as well to other gods. One Mexican historian estimated that one out of five children were sacrificed. Sometimes entire tribes were exterminated by sacrifice.

Month after month, year after year, in temple after temple, sacrificial victims came down the long roads leading to the pyramids, climbed the steep steps to the top of the platforms, and were bent backwards over convex slabs of stones. An immense knife with a blade of midnight black volcanic glass rose and fell, gutting the victim open. His or her heart was torn out while still beating and held up for all to see, while the ravaged body was kicked over the edge of the temple where it bounced down the steps a hundred feet below. The Aztecs priests who performed these sacrifices then consumed the blood that was collected, especially enjoying the consumption of the victim’s heart. Other body parts were saved for other rituals, the dried blood saved to garnish at special ceremonial meal times."

It is not unreasonable to think that at the time of Noah man was perhaps equally evil and debased. The evils would have been inculcated into children both directly and indirectly by their parents and society. Even infants may not have been free of this influence. Ineutero influences can be substantial. When man is this debased he is like a feral animal and his off spring are likewise similarly feral.

In your view the solution may seem extreme, but knowing just how evil man can be would lead me to a different conclusion. Naturally, I would hope that man would never be this evil but history says otherwise. Likewise, I would hope that man would not deserve such punishment as death or such a thing as the flood but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

On the flip side we do notice from the narrative in Genesis that God did spare those that were just and He took measures through Noah to restore both the living creatures and mankind to the earth after the flood. Likewise, God makes a covenant with man through Noah in which He promises never to destroy the earth by way of a flood again. All in all this seems both just and appropriate to me.

 

[Pax]

Your only evidence is your belief. The same evidence is available to any faith, which means that you have no advantage over them. Your Jake believes something (the miracles you claim) and your Ali believes something. Niether of them has any proof, just their conviction and belief. If you are going to say that Jake was more ‘right’, you can’t do it by saying he believed harder. Remember that our fiction Jake and Ali both believed hard enough to die for.

Please return to the original elements as presented…that is the eye witnesses to Jesus. There is a difference between Jake or Ali having “faith” in something and the actual eye witness knowledge of what I happen to believe. The eye witnesses and their testimony is data that you simply dismiss.