On another blog, a fellow JoeUser asked the following questions and made the following comments:
I am irritated with the closed-mindedness of organizations with causes. If there is only one way (YOUR way) to reach God … why are there so many divergent paths and religions making the same claim? What makes you think it is even conceivable that a paper trail in excess of 2000 years could contain much resemblance to the original fictions?
I am sure you have heard of the test that goes like this: Get a group of 10 people in a circle and whisper a statement to one person. Then they whisper it to the next and so on. There has never been a valid documented case where the original statement bore much resemblance to the 10th person’s statement. This is simply explained with the fact that people are different and they think ‘differently’. Organizations do not like this concept which they classify as ‘self-serving individualism’.
I must be a fool (as you are want to tell me) because I do not believe that the concepts of lying, deceit and conspiracy, power struggles, suppressing the masses, limiting real knowledge, murder, deception and intrigue are new to this century or any other for that matter. But of course, religious theology was not susceptible to human contamination … of course. I believe these concepts were in existence long before recorded time. Why would this befouling of the truth affecting all of human history, exclude ONLY Christian Doctrine? Only mind dead robots could believe this absurdity.
Nothing = nothing … no proof at all is needed to prove it. Therefore, when you are asking me to prove god doesn’t exist (nothing?) … you are in effect asking me to first prove for you that god exists, in order to afford me the chance to disprove it, which of course couldn’t be done then because I would have already proved his existence. Simply put, I can support those things I believe in and I cannot those things that I don’t believe in (self-explanatory?) or that someone else believes in. I don’t know about you, but I just do not have the time or inclination to try and justify nothing when I have so much trouble just trying to justify what I do believe in??? Sorry Lula, turned nothing around here. They still teach logic in religious schools don’t they?
Lula, it is not a matter of understanding ... it is just a matter of acknowledging and accepting the facts such as they are. You know that there is nothing I can say to you unless it comes from your archives ... because you will believe nothing else, so if there is some point here, I do not see it, sorry
BoobzTwo post #11
#26
Saying "nothing equals nothing" does not satisfy nor end the question of proving your belief that denies the existence of Almighty God. Sorry, it just doesn't.
......
Let's be clear, contemporary technology has provided no such thing. Contemporary man, such as Robert Gilman, who believe in pseudo scientific evolution theory, has however.
In another blog you explained:
Whenever I reference ‘The Human Story’, all reference point to the factual evolution of humanity....... Things like this Robert Gilman - The Human Story - Our bodies contain ancient hydrogen formed in the first moments of the universe. Our carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and all the other heavy elements in our bodies, are the gift of supernova stars. Our cells have been perfected by the patient workings of countless bacteria through billions of years, and our organs are the gift of thousands of species that evolved during the past billion years. Our bodies are, in a sense, simply a regrouping of very ancient materials …Etc.
Evolutionists have provided a genealogy evolutionary formula for making the universe: Stellar evolution which is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce the universe.
Nothing + nothing = 2 elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
@Boobztwo: What I mean by faith is the 100% certainty that it is the truth. Atheists have so far failed to explain questions like the big bang but have 100% certainty of faith in Atheism and that these will likely be explained in the future without the higher intelligence element behind it all. Even if it is not explained, it won't matter because they have faith in Atheism being right. Agnosticism on the other hand is not 100% certain, does not try to be 100% certain until proven and is the only unbiased neutral view of the three.
What I don't understand is how you claim to at one time be an Agnostic. Then decide you can't take such a grand matter on faith but then convert to a faith based ideology called Atheism over a non-faith based one called Agnosticism. I am confused on on the logic of your decision making. Why would you move from a non-faith based ideology to a faith based one if you are trying to escape faith based ideologies because of the grandness of the matter and past failures to settle it one way or another? That's hypocritical, it simply does not compute.
You see, through my own personal studies I've found all these ridiculous hypocritical flaw holes in the most outspoken people's logic that are so big it's the Grand Canyon. Here is an example, side A believes there is a gay gene but also believes in evolutionary Darwinism. When questioned on how the gay gene makes sense according to evolutionary Darwinism, they usually can't answer or end the argument with name calling and a few tell me it is actually superior for reproduction which makes zero sense. Point is until Atheists openly admit Atheism is faith based they are living under an arrogant delusion which ironically is what many hypocritically accuse the theists. The truth would shatter their egos.
@lulapilgrim: I'll have to PM you later. You need to read more T. Aquinas if you plan on quoting him.
Lula posts:
BT posts:
No, it wasn't contention on my part. The point is that in all discussions words and their meanings matter and it was interesting to me that you think of lying and murder as "concepts". That's all!
..........................
[quote who="BoobzTwo" reply="27" id="2932477"] I would like to understand more on how you quantify “this disordered nature on man” without theology, hehehe.
Without theology eh? Ha,ha ha.
We understand our disordered nature through reason and our use of free will. Reason can detect man's disordered nature and through freedom of will, we commit evil actions (sins) or good actions. Free will gives us the power of self chosen good actions, also carries with it the the risk of self chosen bad actions.
I didn't actually quote St. Thomas Aquinas, rather I just tried to express his thought. If I did not succeed the fault is all mine.
I am familiar with St. Thomas' classic formulation in what are called "The Five Ways"....the argument from motion, from effecient cause, from possibility and necessity, from graduation to be found in things, and from governance of the world.
RogueCaptain - Word it any way you want to, this semantics thing is getting old. I never set out to prove god didn’t exist, I tried to prove he does … and couldn’t. Now, if I was unable to prove his existence, how in the world am I supposed to prove he doesn’t? There is no other way for me to word it besides god doesn’t exist in my mind anyway. Now how this requires some kind of faith from me, well you got me there too. I do not know where your definitions come from but as I am a nonbeliever, I use things like my generic dictionary (nobody on JU appreciates it) and this is what it tells me-
Agnostic - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists Atheist - somebody who does not believe in God or deities
Whatever it is you folks read and study (?) … your bible is yours guiding light and the dictionary is mine … it is that simple. It doesn’t tell me that I need any faith to disbelieve in gods existence, but it does tell me that I have to have it in order to believe. The way I see it, faith and god are synonymous … I would go so far as to say that as far as humans are concerned … faith had to come first. The only possible way a thinking and reasoning human being can believe in something (anything) they cannot understand, comprehend, prove or in any way be interface with ... can only be accomplished on faith (or stupidity). My dictionary tells me that faith is a belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. I live in a logical world and I need proof to believe. And I have no more use for faith than I do for magic.
If it makes you happy, then I agree … atheism is a faith based religion … I give up ok. Can we put a rest on this NOW please?
If proof is necessary, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the believers … not the unbelievers??? You know I do not like to do religion … Brainwashing in my dictionary … to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs … sounds like anything besides free will ... but it does sound like religion.
I'm not sure I follow you here. How could anyone not allow you your power of reason and free will?
Free will implies a choice between motives. When 2 alternative courses of action lie before us, we can freely deliberate which to choose.
To believe or not believe in God in the choice before us. You choose Atheism.
That's becasue Christians believe that in sharing their faith they are giving a priceless gift. Think about it this way. If you found a cure for cancer, you'd communicate this far and wide so that people could be saved. You would be negligent not to do so right?
Well, Christians believe they have received something much more than the remedy for cancer; they believe thay have received an eternal truth which is we are created by God, for God. God loves us and sent Jesus Christ to be our Redeemer. Christ established His religion and a Church to guide us to salvation. We would be negligent not to pass on that truth.
First by religion, I mean the acknowledgment of the created to His Creator and all that acknowledgment involves as the worship of God that is His due, acceptance of the truths He has revealed, and obedience to the laws He has set forth. This religion can only be Catholicism.
Look around at the world ....it's in turmoil...individuals, families, society, nations are all in turmoil. It's a sick world bent in destruction. Why? I'd say because so much of humanity created by God and for Himself has disowned Him and gone over into materialism and irreligion.
Fr. Dudley writes in his book, "A world without religion is a world without God and a world without God is a world without God's moral law and a world without God's moral law is a rudderless ship drifting helplessly toward the rocks and its doom.....".
Yet, when there is a catastrophe, they appeal to God and to religion. This is when they admit that only religion can reprieve the world from the catastrophe of materialism's making.
Okay we'll give it a rest. Please understand the argument really wasn't about religious belief but about hypocrites and hypocritical thinking accepted as the dominant in our society. I don't like that, it bothers me. Especially having someone who really doesn't know try to convince someone else buy stating it in the form of pure fact 100% absolute certainty and getting away with it on a daily basis with the only argument that since the alternative has not been proven it must be true and will never be proven in the future because I am completely sure it is truth.
I think that's wrong and it should be well known through exposure. If you believe there is no higher power, intelligence, order but fail to prove it then explain rather than going around stating it like it is an unarguable fact. It is just so arrogant to go around and make a possible false claim you can't prove concerning the greatest question of all that has not been physically proven and not mention that you are basing it on faith. If we followed that line of thought we would not have any scientific progress.
I really don't care what you personally believe in God beyond reasons of the salvation for your soul concerning the afterlife but only because the chances are it is in your best interests.
Edit: Atheists really don't know any more than Theists and should admit it but they don't.
RogueCaptain – I agree wholeheartedly, your choice – my choice. I do not like to discuss religious matters and I do not do theology because … well it seems self-explanatory to me, go figure? "…the chances are it is in your best interests", humm … I do not gamble for a reason and the word chance is a big part of it.
Lula, god has to bless you … but you sure are persistent. You seem to be a paragon of theological wonderment and biblical knowledge ... I commend you on your faith and fortitude … but how much fortitude, can a mere mortal tolerate, I wonder. I am getting to enjoy our little patty-cake sessions even if I do not understand their purpose??? Have you ever convinced me of anything of substance … and vice versa, of course not? How could it be otherwise, humm? Common sense alone dictates that this condition is not going to change in the foreseeable future … so you got me here???
First of all, by materialism I mean the philosophy of atheistic humanism that denies the existence of God and we can know nothing but matter. In its practical application, materialism makes excessive material development and comfort the first consideration in life. Materialism is incompatible with Christ's Christianity.
When I said "look around the world...it's in turmoil..humanity has disowned God and gone over into materialism and irreligion", I was thinking of modern times, say since the 1900's and the centuries when materialism and irreligion became the explicit political and cultural forces throughout the world.
"They" would be the people, the converts after 9/11, in Haiti and Japan after the earthquake.
Me too.
My dictionary defines Theism as a system of those who admit the existence of the One God and at least the possibility of a Divine revelation; it is therefore distinct from Deism. The Theist admits a religion and a public cult, whereas the Deist to all intents and purposes admits no more than and acts like the Atheist.
A-theism is the error of those who deny the existence of the One God. Practical Atheism consists in living as if the One God were not.
Speculative or theoretical Atheism consists in the assertion that there is no One God. It is provable that no one can in fact be a speculative atheist. The negation of God is rather in the heart than in the mind. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 13:1.
I cite this Biblical quotation because it was written concerning the general corruption of man before our redemption by Christ.
Egads! I just saw this and cannot let it pass by without further comment.
BT posts #34
The so called believers have provided proof of the existence of the One God and our certainity of His existence comes by the natural light of reason. I listed 5 proofs in #19 but they are not necessarily the result of scientific proof so you reject them out of hand.
Well, here I go again because it's worth repeating.
The Church teaches that God can be known from created things. The mind of man rises from nature to nature's Origin and Source or Cause. The Universe points clearly to a One God as the First Cause, the Designer, Supreme Lawgiver, Origin of life and Ultimate Good.
The belief in the existence of God comes from universal reasoning...that is the general consent of all peoples from the beginning of the world. Believing in God seems to be the natural condition or intuition. The truth is in possession. People do not have to persuade themselves that there is a ONe God. They have to try to persuade themselves there is no God. ANd yet, no one yet who has attained to such a temporary persuasion has been able to find a valid reason for it. In short, men do not grow into the idea of a One God, rather they endeavor to grow out of it.
Then there is proof from conscience and what is conscience? It is the human mind making a practical judgment upon the morality of our every thought, word and deed. It commands us with decision: This is right; do it. This is wrong; avoid it. And we feel at once an imperative call upon our obedience. There exists within us a strange, mysterious power which is constantly comparing all our actions with an absolute standard of right and wrong, and condemning them without appeal when they go counter to its ordering. Conscience speaks of a necessary duty that we owe. It brings us face to face with an obligatory law whose commands are authoritative, and whose dictates are final and unquestioned.
Law implies a lawgiver. A command always implies a superior who issues the command. Who can this final, absolute, supreme Authority be, save Almighty God, the original Source of all morality, the ONe Perfect Arbiter of right and wrong? Conscience is merely His voice written in our heart.
How does contemporary technology or Atheism explain our conscience?
lulapilgrim - ... haven’t forgot you ... was trying to write an article about politics in our daily life ... but just not happy with the article as is so time out. So here I am for some civility for a while before I throw myself into the political grinder anew, whew.
lulapilgrim – We both know what materialism is but I think you would sway more if you wore a brown robe and sat on your ass (hehehe) and preach the evils of materialism down the hills and vales of DC.
I presume you have some guide telling you how practical, practical can be and when excessive material developments, are developed enough …? I would agree that there is no use for materialism in your mythological theological utopia … last I checked we both live and breathe in the physical material world. The only problem I see is materialistic advancement to a degree where biblical anomalies (among many other things we thought we understood) can actually be properly investigated … not my problem.
I didn’t know about any mass religious conversions so I will have to pass here. I guess I could just say that it is amazing what fear can make people do … it is how the USG controls its restless populace, to sway direction. But, people eventually crawl out from under their fear and start thinking rationally again.
A-Political … A-Theist … I get it … so why is it so easy (believe me it isn’t, really) to accept that one has no interest in or association with politics … then find it so difficult (believe me it is, really) to accept that one has no interest in or association with religion? It just seems so straight forward to me is all? By your definition, I guess that makes me a practical atheist as “living as if the One God were not.” Is correct … so what?
I am empathic with your frustrations, but you are your own worst enemy. I do not think many even have a fundamental grasp of the all-encompassing restrictions “FAITH” places on the human spirit.
For sure. In one way or another, I have been politically active almost all my adult life. I know who my congressmen are and they know who I am.
Since I'm Catholic my main guide is the Church. I like to read the works of Catholic thinkers. One such is Fr. Dudley whom I mentioned on your Farenheit blog after you made this comment:
#130
I replied: This is true however, it's not only politics that bespeaks of strife, criminality, lies, deceit. etc.
Fr. Owen Francis Dudley's (1882-1952) book, "YOU and thousands like you" is a very good and profitable read. He looks at life in the atomic era and sees the world bent on destruction. The following are his ideas and I have to agree.
The present ordering of the world is materialistic and the supreme acheivement of materialsim is the nuclear bomb. We are sliding toward a suicidal end and no government, no policy or military power, in fact there is nothing in the present materialistic ordering to avert final catastrophe.
People aren't made just to exist but to live, truly live to what the US Constitution calls pursuit of happiness. To me, this happiness is in the end eternal happiness.
Exactly. We do both live in the physical, materialistic world.......a world that Fr. Dudley sees as bent on destruction and I quite agree.
And why? Because we are passing into a stage where atheistic humanism is dangerously close to becoming our de facto state religion. More and more people are essentially conducting themselves as if God doesn't exist. And history shows us that when God is forgotten, the dignity of the human person and the common good is forgotten too.
This atheism manifests itself in practical conduct. In the 60s, prayer was taken out of government schools. Michale Newdow wants "Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and our coins, crosses are taken out of public view, and then the war against Christmas.
Through abortion on demand, we are "choosing" ourselves to death and through acceptance of homosexuality as normal sexual behavior, we are tolerating ourselves to death.
You see a homosexual and you place them into that circle then pretend they are attacking the church, even though you know that homosexuality persist in the ranks of the church leaders. I do not think many see homosexuality as anything beyond some perversion or another … they are not a threat to you except you want everyone on one side of the fence or the other and this is not in your best interests. Everyone is not attacking the church … they mostly want to go their own way. But you perceive this as some dastardly scheme or other. It is no different than politics, the neocons control the right and the neolibs control the left … but most Americans fall in the middle and have little control over the extremists. Same with religion I’m sad to say. You move the middle from the middle else you are one of the extremists with zero tolerance for anything else …
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
