The REAL truth about Atheism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

There is not much to discuss after that really.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:09am:

The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really.

Evolution versus God makes the incorrect assumption that no theists believe in evolution. Actually, most do. I stopped watching after that.

Just like all the ones in the video funny that. ;D

Nothing like making stuff up about the video is there.

No surprises you stopped watching it was hard to accept logic.

The best argument for a creationist non-evolving life form is the fact that the human race is just as stupid as it has always been.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:08am:

The best argument for a creationist non-evolving life form is the fact that the human race is just as stupid as it has always been.

Thats still a fairly pissweak argument.

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:27pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. Evolution versus God makes the incorrect assumption that no theists believe in evolution. Actually, most do. I stopped watching after that.

I second this statement. Its possible to have spiritual beliefs which allow you to accept scientific method.
Its not possible to be a fundamentalist christian and believe in evolution.
Fortunately most people are not christian fundamentalists.

I personally think that the more you learn about the universe the easier it is to see "gods" fingerprints on everything.  Quantum entanglement, DNA helix, even the universal constant are all things that make me think that we may not be the highest form of consciousness in the universe.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:08am:

The best argument for a creationist non-evolving life form is the fact that the human race is just as stupid as it has always been.

Reading Plato's republic you could mount a convincing argument we have gone backwards over the last couple of millennia. Of course, this would still demonstrate evolution...... 

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 12:47pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 21st, 2015 at 7:27pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. Evolution versus God makes the incorrect assumption that no theists believe in evolution. Actually, most do. I stopped watching after that. I second this statement. Its possible to have spiritual beliefs which allow you to accept scientific method. Its not possible to be a fundamentalist christian and believe in evolution. Fortunately most people are not christian fundamentalists. I personally think that the more you learn about the universe the easier it is to see "gods" fingerprints on everything.  Quantum entanglement, DNA helix, even the universal constant are all things that make me think that we may not be the highest form of consciousness in the universe.

Of course these fingerprints are metaphoric, unless one thinks of God as an old man in the sky. Further, I have never thought that we are the highest form of consciousness in the universe. If so, its a pretty crumby universe. And I do not ridicule suggested theories on how reality works, unless they are patently childish as in the dogma of established religions. Phew!

If I may speak for you, it seems the order and detail you observe give you the sense that they are the work or intensions of  . . . I don't want to put too many words in your mouth here, but it sound like the Intelligent Design concept.

I ridicule those who say they have the answer, not because I am an atheist or an agnostic, I am neither, but I ridicule their small-mindedness.

The only way humans actually see anything is through the laws of physics. Human beings strictly conform to those laws. You could say Physics is God, but that would not satisfy anyone. If God exists outside the laws of physics then the Intelligently Designed bits don't support anything other than conjecture. That conjecture is conceived in the mind of Humans limited by physics. I see the God concept as way too small and human to explain anything.

Its like that old conundrum, try to think of nothing. Of course it cannot be done because the mind works on concepts which are things.

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 12:47pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 21st, 2015 at 7:27pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. Evolution versus God makes the incorrect assumption that no theists believe in evolution. Actually, most do. I stopped watching after that. I second this statement. Its possible to have spiritual beliefs which allow you to accept scientific method. Its not possible to be a fundamentalist christian and believe in evolution. Fortunately most people are not christian fundamentalists. I personally think that the more you learn about the universe the easier it is to see "gods" fingerprints on everything.  Quantum entanglement, DNA helix, even the universal constant are all things that make me think that we may not be the highest form of consciousness in the universe.

The title is Evolution vs God - Shaking the foundations of faith.

As you imply, that only applies to fundamentalist Born Again type Christians who would have a problem with Evolution.

Fortunately in Australia we have mostly Catholics, C of E, Lutherans and other moderate Christians. Evolution doesn't shake the foundations of their faith in any way shape or form.

In the US however, they have many more froth at the mouth commercial evangelical types.  The video applies to the US almost exclusively.

There is a church near here that has banners. Some are funny but some are distasteful.

The ones that target Atheists are disgraceful. An example is "Can Atheist claim insurance on Acts of God?"

That is culturally insensitive, and possibly illegal. Can you imagine if they put a Muslim or Jewish joke on there?

If all they can do is post jokes about people who don't have the same religion, it sends the message that they are not too interested in posting information about their religion.

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 23rd, 2015 at 12:47pm: John_Taverner wrote on Sep 21st, 2015 at 7:27pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. Evolution versus God makes the incorrect assumption that no theists believe in evolution. Actually, most do. I stopped watching after that. I second this statement. Its possible to have spiritual beliefs which allow you to accept scientific method. Its not possible to be a fundamentalist christian and believe in evolution. Fortunately most people are not christian fundamentalists. I personally think that the more you learn about the universe the easier it is to see "gods" fingerprints on everything.  Quantum entanglement, DNA helix, even the universal constant are all things that make me think that we may not be the highest form of consciousness in the universe. The title is Evolution vs God - Shaking the foundations of faith. As you imply, that only applies to fundamentalist Born Again type Christians who would have a problem with Evolution. Fortunately in Australia we have mostly Catholics, C of E, Lutherans and other moderate Christians. Evolution doesn't shake the foundations of their faith in any way shape or form. In the US however, they have many more froth at the mouth commercial evangelical types.  The video applies to the US almost exclusively. There is a church near here that has banners. Some are funny but some are distasteful. The ones that target Atheists are disgraceful. An example is "Can Atheist claim insurance on Acts of God?" That is culturally insensitive, and possibly illegal. Can you imagine if they put a Muslim or Jewish joke on there? If all they can do is post jokes about people who don't have the same religion, it sends the message that they are not too interested in posting information about their religion.

It reads as if they were being ironic. Either way, the legal answer is "Yes, they can."

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

"Can Atheist claim insurance on Acts of God?"

Yes, seeing as it a legal definition which does not require the existence of any deities.

I also scandalously use the word "good" without believing in and gods.

Stratos wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 24th, 2015 at 7:32am: "Can Atheist claim insurance on Acts of God?" Yes, seeing as it a legal definition which does not require the existence of any deities. I also scandalously use the word "good" without believing in and gods.

Is atheism a non-prophet organisation?

Raven wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:

Stratos wrote on Sep 24th, 2015 at 11:55am: John_Taverner wrote on Sep 24th, 2015 at 7:32am: "Can Atheist claim insurance on Acts of God?" Yes, seeing as it a legal definition which does not require the existence of any deities. I also scandalously use the word "good" without believing in and gods. Is atheism a non-prophet organisation?

lol.

There is a church around the corner from me with a big sign saying "OMG" which i think is pretty funny:).


issuevoter wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 4:30pm:

se these fingerprints are metaphoric, unless one thinks of God as an old man in the sky. Further, I have never thought that we are the highest form of consciousness in the universe. If so, its a pretty crumby universe. And I do not ridicule suggested theories on how reality works, unless they are patently childish as in the dogma of established religions. Phew! If I may speak for you, it seems the order and detail you observe give you the sense that they are the work or intensions of  . . . I don't want to put too many words in your mouth here, but it sound like the Intelligent Design concept. I ridicule those who say they have the answer, not because I am an atheist or an agnostic, I am neither, but I ridicule their small-mindedness. The only way humans actually see anything is through the laws of physics. Human beings strictly conform to those laws. You could say Physics is God, but that would not satisfy anyone. If God exists outside the laws of physics then the Intelligently Designed bits don't support anything other than conjecture. That conjecture is conceived in the mind of Humans limited by physics. I see the God concept as way too small and human to explain anything. Its like that old conundrum, try to think of nothing. Of course it cannot be done because the mind works on concepts which are things.

I appreciate your phrasing those are indeed metaphorical fingerprints.
Rather than intelligent design i'm more of a holographic theory man(I wish the experiment testing it had been more conclusive) though the two theories do share many similarities. 

I agree that the conventional vision of God in the clouds, the reason for all mysteries has passed(at least for those avoiding willfull ignorance).

I think its unfortunate that religion is so binary for many people. I myself am probably classified as an agnostic, but it shard to shake off twenty years of indoctrination. I never regretted learning the bible, its a great way to irritate those of excessive faith. 

I would restate"physics is God" to "physics is a description of predictable behavior which may or may not be an intended aspect of creation".

Three word slogan that unwieldy mess!

If you believe that a higher power/intellect/being exists, but you reject conventional religious doctrine what would that classify you as? a spiritualist?

And what if you believe such a entity was non-interventionist and removed from us-you cease to be a spiritualist and sort of become undefinable.

That's what people should aim for- Undefinable religious beliefs. Keep everyone on their toes and thinking!

Raven likes the idea that after he died and it all fades to black there is some big writing that says

LEVEL 2

Raven wrote on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

Raven likes the idea that after he died and it all fades to black there is some big writing that says LEVEL 2

You just end Raven.

double plus good wrote on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 25th, 2015 at 8:58pm: Raven likes the idea that after he died and it all fades to black there is some big writing that says LEVEL 2 You just end Raven.

Yes Raven agrees

Although... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy that powers our body could conceivably be transferred elsewhere, another plain of existence perhaps.

Not heaven of course, Raven doubts your consciousness is transferred, simply the energy.

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 7:39pm:

I appreciate your phrasing those are indeed metaphorical fingerprints. Rather than intelligent design i'm more of a holographic theory man(I wish the experiment testing it had been more conclusive) though the two theories do share many similarities.  I agree that the conventional vision of God in the clouds, the reason for all mysteries has passed(at least for those avoiding willfull ignorance). I think its unfortunate that religion is so binary for many people. I myself am probably classified as an agnostic, but it shard to shake off twenty years of indoctrination. I never regretted learning the bible, its a great way to irritate those of excessive faith.  I would restate"physics is God" to "physics is a description of predictable behavior which may or may not be an intended aspect of creation". Three word slogan that unwieldy mess! If you believe that a higher power/intellect/being exists, but you reject conventional religious doctrine what would that classify you as? a spiritualist? And what if you believe such a entity was non-interventionist and removed from us-you cease to be a spiritualist and sort of become undefinable. That's what people should aim for- Undefinable religious beliefs. Keep everyone on their toes and thinking!

I think in very similar terms. The term "God" is probably not a very useful one for me, but I respect traditional religions and can see some of their wisdom when it is expressed in entirely naturalistic (non supernatural) terms).  You say that  God is Physics, but I'd add chemistry, the phenomenon of existence, the collective sentience and influence of humanity (there goes the interventionist bit). I'd also add ecology. If you "sin" against nature, there will be real negative implications. (another interventionist bit). Then I'd add the  humanities and the arts. 

There is a term for this kind of belief. It's called Religious Naturalism. 

http://religiousnaturalism.org/

We're a mixed bunch. There is no dogma.  Some of us don't even use the term "God". 

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 25th, 2015 at 7:39pm: I appreciate your phrasing those are indeed metaphorical fingerprints. Rather than intelligent design i'm more of a holographic theory man(I wish the experiment testing it had been more conclusive) though the two theories do share many similarities.  I agree that the conventional vision of God in the clouds, the reason for all mysteries has passed(at least for those avoiding willfull ignorance). I think its unfortunate that religion is so binary for many people. I myself am probably classified as an agnostic, but it shard to shake off twenty years of indoctrination. I never regretted learning the bible, its a great way to irritate those of excessive faith.  I would restate"physics is God" to "physics is a description of predictable behavior which may or may not be an intended aspect of creation". Three word slogan that unwieldy mess! If you believe that a higher power/intellect/being exists, but you reject conventional religious doctrine what would that classify you as? a spiritualist? And what if you believe such a entity was non-interventionist and removed from us-you cease to be a spiritualist and sort of become undefinable. That's what people should aim for- Undefinable religious beliefs. Keep everyone on their toes and thinking! I think in very similar terms. The term "God" is probably not a very useful one for me, but I respect traditional religions and can see some of their wisdom when it is expressed in entirely naturalistic (non supernatural) terms).  You say that  God is Physics, but I'd add chemistry, the phenomenon of existence, the collective sentience and influence of humanity (there goes the interventionist bit). I'd also add ecology. If you "sin" against nature, there will be real negative implications. (another interventionist bit). Then I'd add the  humanities and the arts.  There is a term for this kind of belief. It's called Religious Naturalism.  http://religiousnaturalism.org/ We're a mixed bunch. There is no dogma.  Some of us don't even use the term "God".

I hope I didn't give the impression that I believe God is physics. I suggested you could look at it that way. I would say that all these other parts you mention are regulated by physics. It was just a thought.

The word religion is so often mis-used to imply the worship of a God. It can mean anything one follows as a way of life. For example, I am very religious on Sunday morning regarding my "Bloody Mary" with extra horseradish, tabasco, and a stick of celery.

Whichever way you look at it, life, the diversity of life, the phenomenon of sentience are pretty awesome.

It goes beyond physics. We're talking about the human experience here. Physics might be at the basement level, but it's a very small part of the whole experience. 

We can't make life at this stage.  Maybe that will change. Who knows?

OK, just for argument's sake, why isn't human experience part of physics?

For the same reason that (say) the Mona Lisa can't be defined in terms of a chemical analysis of its pigments mapped on a pixel grid. It's a brain thing. We can talk about the brain as just being a neural network, but that doesn't adequately explain the depth of human feelings and perceptions.

There is no useful language in physics that explains art.  Why does this colour match that colour, but not this other colour?  - and that's just a trivial example.

You don't relate to your family in terms of physics.

In any case, physics is mostly an observational science. Theories are considered valid (not false if you prefer) on the basis of how well they match reality.  For example, we don't have a single theory that can apply to all scales of reality from the subatomic up to the scale of galaxies. Relativistic mechanics is a useful approximation that works well enough for certain well defined set of circumstances.  Even Newtonian mechanics works well enough for most things that move around on the surface of this planet, but they are both approximate.

Science is an imperfect model of the common human perception of reality, imperfect, but as good as we can get.   Its strength lies in the fact that it can be revised in the light of new data.


Physics is not an absolute. Perception is the nearest thing we have to an absolute, and even that is skewed by human experience.

You perceive two colours to be exactly the same on an emission spectrum, but there is a large number of combinations of spectral lines that will lead to the same perceived colour.

I'm not justifying the supernatural by the way.  I believe that it is not necessary to talk in terms of the supernatural. Human experience is awesome enough on its own.

Thanks for the reply, John. It seems you do some thinking. No one can disagree with the perception that human awareness is more than just complex. I don’t feel that this phenomenon is something that would exist beyond the laws of physics. My responses are not an attempt to prove you wrong; that would be infantile. They are my current reactions, and I remain open to change.

Taking your paragraphs one at a time:
(1.) For the same reason that (say) the Mona Lisa can't be defined in terms of a chemical analysis of its pigments mapped on a pixel grid. It's a brain thing. We can talk about the brain as just being a neural network, but that doesn't adequately explain the depth of human feelings and perceptions.

(1.Response) I might attribute the Mona Lisa’s appeal to the elements of survival that include the attachment to the physical appearance. We believe we know what the artist was trying to say. Was he successful, or did he simply abandon it as someone once said of art? We do not know. It seems to me, that beneath what we see in the Mona Lisa may be logical reactions to our own mortality.

(2.) There is no useful language in physics that explains art.  Why does this colour match that colour, but not this other colour?  - and that's just a trivial example.

(2. Response) You could go a little further and say there is no explanation of art. Why should physics have to explain art to provide its possibility? An aboriginal rock painting is only pigment on stone. It may conger up all kinds of images in the viewer, but it ends up being dust.

(3.) You don't relate to your family in terms of physics.
(3. Response) Well adjusted people are gregarious. But, I do relate to them in physics, when I am able to get past, the genetic imperative, shared experience, sentimentality, and something we learn at our mother’s knee. Of course, I find that close to impossible, but I can see it in terms of physics. When Human life and its self-awareness come to an end as other things do, I dare say it will due to the laws of physics.

(4.) In any case, physics is mostly an observational science. Theories are considered valid (not false if you prefer) on the basis of how well they match reality.  For example, we don't have a single theory that can apply to all scales of reality from the subatomic up to the scale of galaxies. Relativistic mechanics is a useful approximation that works well enough for certain well defined set of circumstances.  Even Newtonian mechanics works well enough for most things that move around on the surface of this planet, but they are both approximate.

(4a.) Science is an imperfect model of the common human perception of reality, imperfect, but as good as we can get.   Its strength lies in the fact that it can be revised in the light of new data.

(4a. Response) I like this subparagraph. Physics is by no means a complete science or philosophy. I don’t believe it ever will be. It is a work in progress, but here is a stock standard definition that seems to support your overall position. “Physics: The science dealing with natural laws and processes, and states and properties of matter and energy, other than those restricted to living matter and chemical changes.” Well, that would seem to be the end of the discussion, but I still don’t see how living matter and chemical changes can be dismissed as not part of physics, anymore than thought.

(5.) Physics is not an absolute. Perception is the nearest thing we have to an absolute, and even that is skewed by human experience.
You perceive two colours to be exactly the same on an emission spectrum, but there is a large number of combinations of spectral lines that will lead to the same perceived colour.

(5. Response) I suppose part of what I am saying is that physics would be absolute if we understood it better. Your “perception” may seem absolute. I cannot say that about mine. (5a.) Different interpretations of phenomena like the spectrum do not discount their overall circumstances in physical reality.

(6.) I'm not justifying the supernatural by the way.  I believe that it is not necessary to talk in terms of the supernatural. Human experience is awesome enough on its own.

(6. Response) Agreed. The majesty of what we are able to perceive is beyond supernatural.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:09am:

The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really.

Good watch.

I have to reiterate, I am not an atheist, and I reject the God-freak, Agnostic, Atheist trichotomy as the only perception of reality.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

I have to reiterate, I am not an atheist, and I reject the God-freak, Agnostic, Atheist trichotomy as the only perception of reality.

Why

issuevoter wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:08am:

The best argument for a creationist non-evolving life form is the fact that the human race is just as stupid as it has always been.

That's just an argument if you don't understand evolution.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:09am:

The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really.

That was terrible. It shows a lack of understanding of evidence in a scientific sense.

Kytro wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 10:06am:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 22nd, 2015 at 7:08am: The best argument for a creationist non-evolving life form is the fact that the human race is just as stupid as it has always been. That's just an argument if you don't understand evolution.

No its not. Its a joke. Maybe I should have put one of those even stupider emoticons after it.

i thought the very first comment says it all really ...

I don't think Ray knows what evolution is. Evolution is a change in a population's genepool. So birds to different birds is in fact evolution if the genepools differ. If these small evolutionary changes build up evenuatally the resulting organism will be drastically different from the original. If you keep adding 1 to 5 you will evenuatlly get 5 million.


he's asking for an observable change of 'kind'  ... that's not how evolution works

Kytro wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 10:11am:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. That was terrible. It shows a lack of understanding of evidence in a scientific sense.

You clearly do not understand the terms used in the video. The understanding in scientific terms was spot on. Science was used to show the ignorance. Maybe they employed scientific actors ::) .

LEARN

I don't get why the argument always has to default to God or evolution. It show an incredibly dull bias in favour of Middle Eastern Abrahamic twaddle. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. The test of an atheist is not whether they believe in evolution.

He Man wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 10:11am: LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 2:09am: The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really. That was terrible. It shows a lack of understanding of evidence in a scientific sense. You clearly do not understand the terms used in the video. The understanding in scientific terms was spot on. Science was used to show the ignorance. Maybe they employed scientific actors ::) . LEARN

The misappropriated scientific observation for one thing by effectively claiming that you to "see a change happen" rather than draw conclusions from collective observation of many different things (series of fossils, natural selection etc).

LifeOrDeath wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:09am:

The REAL truth about Atheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ There is not much to discuss after that really.

I watched that YT today.

I liked it.    !!!

It was pretty good, imo.

All along, the interviewer, tried to explore the beliefs of those that he interacted with.

He ALLOWED THOSE PERSONS, to set/disclose the basis of their worldview and belief.

Then he simply asked questions,  ....questions which forced them to challenge [or at least re-examine] their own assumptions, about their own existence and their 'place' in this reality.

And we all make assumptions [about all kinds of things!].



But coming to the issue, of the divergent choice which we are presented with, to believe in either Evolution, Or, Creation.....

Evolution in itself [if it is 'chosen' as a 'belief'], does not posit any real answer about [our] reality.

We still do not know where all of the 'stuff' came from.

Myself, i favour Creation, and a creator.

But again, faith [belief in a creator] does not posit any real answer about [our] reality.

Because if we believe in a creator, and if the creator created all of the 'stuff' which we can see and observe, we must still ask the question; Where did the creator come from ?



The only sure thing we know [can be reasonably certain about], is that we [mankind] seem to be [individual] self-aware beings.

Unless that is, i am just imagining all of you guys [and the world that i live in  ....and the that world i believe that i live in]!!!!!!

Perhaps you guys are all just a part of my fantasy/illusion, and part of the delusion that i have,    .....the belief, that i am a self-aware being.

;D



ANYWAY;

For me, this -------- >,  is the only thing that makes any sense, for me, of my existence 'here'.

-------- >


We, are 'seeds' [the 'seeds' which have been 'sown', within this 'construct'/creation/planet],     ...and, that we are the 'fish' that will be drawn up in the 'net' of the 'harvest'.

And;

We, are the harvest.

Are we a 'fruit' of any worth ?



QUESTION;
Doesn't your existence here, 'make any sense' to you ???


Matthew 13:47
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48  Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49  So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50  And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Luke 3:8
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9  And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.




.




Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.



We are all free, to believe whatever we will.




.




Deuteronomy 30:18
I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20  That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Yadda wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:04am:

, Evolution in itself [if it is 'chosen' as a 'belief'], does not posit any real answer about [our] reality. We still do not know where all of the 'stuff' came from. Myself, i favour Creation, and a creator.

See this is the problem many creationists have. Evolutionary theory states nothing about how life started on Earth. It only states how that initial spark then led to the variety of life we see on Earth.

Yadda: QUESTION;
Doesn't your existence here, 'make any sense' to you ???

Yes. Though trying to explain that to another person is futile. That is where the proselytizing religions fail. They state that everyone is or should be of one mind.

I have never seen any explanation or description of "God" that was not even more boring than football. Creator, father, judge, omnipresent one. All petty human concepts and needs.

No person can see into the mind of another. So when one person says "God," you can say "of course; more tea vicar?" But really, no one knows what the bugger anyone else is talking about.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

Yadda: QUESTION; Doesn't your existence here, 'make any sense' to you ??? Yes. Though trying to explain that to another person is futile. That is where the proselytizing religions fail. They state that everyone is or should be of one mind. I have never seen any explanation or description of "God" that was not even more boring than football. Creator, father, judge, omnipresent one. All petty human concepts and needs. No person can see into the mind of another. So when one person says "God," you can say "of course; more tea vicar?" But really, no one knows what the bugger anyone else is talking about.

I don't know what God 'is'.

And i am a person who believes that i have been in his presence, in a waking state, in a vision.



The Bible states that God is a spirit entity, and that he is unknowable [i.e. incomprehensible] to man's carnal mind.

'The Bible states that God is a spirit entity';       But i still do not understand, what that term describes.


1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.



The OT too, speaks of a time when God will reveal himself to all men [to men's understanding ?].

Isaiah 40:5
And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.




issue,

Because it is too hard, or because it is too difficult for us to comprehend [what 'reality' is], should we simply not even try to seek it [or him] ?

Lots a men 'go native', here.

They are totally absorbed by the cares of this life.

Again; They 'go native', here !


But God's promise [in scripture], is that those who 'seek him' in righteousness, he 'will be found of them'.



Amos 5:4
For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live:
5  But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought.
6  Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel.
7  Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth,
8  Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:



.



Isaiah 1:16
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.


Jeremiah 22:3
Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.


1 Samuel 16:6
And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
7  But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.


Jeremiah 9:23
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
25  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
26  Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

Yadda, I occasionally read your comments. I don't read your quotes from the Bible. Ancient scripture is of no interest to me. Perhaps others think it worthwhile.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.