Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.
God has the power to heal them.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You mean, like, to heal a banana?
I thought you were saying something else. Veggies are grown in Heaven, but meat is gathered in hell so we only eat evil critters.
Well, doubt anyone can argue with that.
I know God loves the herb, and I feel righteous eating my cannabis-infused coconut (oil) shrimp. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And eat them like the loaves and fishes
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is an oversimplification of faith. There are two types of faith; blind faith and grounded faith.
An example of blind faith is stating that life MUST exist somewhere else in the universe. An agnostic would say, There is not enough evidence to state with any conviction or certainty that life does or does not exsist somewhere else in the universe.
An example of grounded faith is when JFK said that we will land humans safely on the Moon and bring them home safely. An agnostic would say, We have the technology, knowledge, money and will to do something never attempted before so yes, I do think that is possible.
No assumptions needed.
Everything you just stated here are the answers to questions you asked me in the very post I am replying to. Be careful how you throw the assumption word around.
I think you are projecting theology onto philosophy. I myself tend to project philosophy onto theology. See my above examples of faith. I'll say it again because it seems like you are having a hard time understanding the difference between an atheist and agnosticism. Theists say, with conviction, that God exsist (higher power, call it what you like). Atheists say, with conviction, that there is no such thing as god period. Agnostics say, I have no reason to say one way or the other if a God/gods or whatever exsists.
The distinction is fairly plain to see.
For the record, the questions I tried asking were to get a better sense of what you build your faith on and why? I'm not sure why you are being deliberately vague but I'm slightly disappointed. I stated my fascination with people of faith to you. Instead of sharing why and what you base your faith in you decided to try and cut my chosen guiding philosophy down.
I'm not sure how that tact will inspire others like me to embrace a theist philosophy. I'll keep searching for the base/grounding in your faith but I don't think I'll find it here.
Thank you for your time.
Enjoy your trip.
And to the op.
It seems to me the clear difference between the theist and the atheist can be found in the desire to embrace knowledge.
The theist is clearly restricted to using a filter of their belief and use this filter to include or exclude information. Anything that may seem a threat to the theist pre existing belief is avoided whereas the atheist looks at anything and everything that is available.
Jan will not in fact can not look at the video I posted as he suspects its content is a mortal threat to his world view.
He can not even look at it and argue against it as he knows it will be disconcerting to him.
I look at everything I can find to investgate the matter for against...whatever..but imagine the approach Jan must follow where he will not and can not even look at something he suspects may alter his view.
That is so very sad.
I got over no Santa as all kids must but I guess in Jans case he is not going to let anyone take away his new Santa.
These have been the same arguments against Christianity for around two thousand years now.
Those tactics didn't work then and they will not work now.....
These same arguments have been used against Christianity for about two thousand years now....
Those tactics didn't work then and they will not work now...... Just saying
There are many more ancient documents that share your views. Yet, after doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ..... the results are still the same.
oops ... double post ... sry
I guess the difficulty is sorting thru primarily the vast amount of twaddle written on these myths.
The myth of the JC mo is clear however.
The general story has been told and retold however it is clear all the myths have been constructed from an astrological basis.
There are many many humans claiming god status and all seek authority by claiming a relationship to the stars.
What I say is not a secret but mere history.
The more one looks the more human gods present all sharing the virgin birth and resurrection...and etc.
Telling is it not?
The commonality between these myths reveal a clear influence from astrology which really is no more than humans who want to pretend they are god relating to the stars.
If christians did not choose ignorance over history they would realise they have been conned.
The three kings (stars in Orion) following the Jurusalm star (Sirius) to link to a date, namely 25/12, that says it all but it goes on if you look.
All mothers names start with M ...do you have any idea why...the virgin...check the constalations...
I have been imaging Orion over the last two nights and I can understand the facination of the ancients but cant fathom why they had the need to personify the stars other than an attempt to legitimise their superstitious notions that all could be revealled by the stars.
Moreover linking to the stars established the claim of their godness...as it would have done for superstitious uneducated bronze age folk...being co fined to one village would deprive them from knowing that the JC type story wad told tetold and retold...nothing original either... The JC story is a myth constructed to claim a link to the heavens and such an attempt tells us that anything that is presented as an account of the supposed times of JC was merely a construct based on astrology and therefore erroding the credibilty of the whole story that we know to be the myth of JC.
Why do you think we have three days for the death and resurrection...well look at the Sun as it appears to die and after three days starts its travel back to spring and summer...if you look you can work it out.
So just like the Sun JC and his various same same human god pretenders all have this death and resurrection thing..so predictable...so so so.
Lame but idiots buy it.
It matters little how long the discussion has been around as all that matters is firstly the JC story was one of many stories seeking to establish a human as a god and the persitent parallel in these cult stories that rely entirely on astrology to somehow establish the various pretenders as human gods.
The crock that is christianity is clearly a repeated myth and although the arguement continues it only continues because believers ignore the fundamental that there are many JC stories each of which are based on astrology.
Confining their reading to only one book excludes all information that shows they are victims of a con...
And they pay ..ots not just about belief but a tool the propogators of the myth use to extract cash...dont forget all these churches are not built by god but by the resourses of yhose conned to contribute.
The repetition of these stories suggest strongly the JC story is just another myth and the only claim to fame the JC story enjoys is that it was adopted by the Roman empire as a tool to manage the masses...and today the role of christianity is no different as it keeps the mob from thinking or questioning those who run the game.
You claim to be agnostic and I say that is merely a cop out...is there not enough information available to get you off the fence?...well of course there is..an agnostic is in my view a theist who claims a nuetral positition only to slide in support for one side or the other....usually the god proposition.
A theist who cant accept the scripture but still enjoys a personal belief that there must be something...get off the fence.
If you cant decide look at the vid I posted.
But perhaps you choose to sit on the fence because you are not brave enough to say what it is you really believe...and in that aspect you are similar to Jan ..you hint at whatever but here we still have yet to hear what you believe.
And as to your claim you have been around long enough not to be a plant so as you know...I dont buy that logic...Jan has been around for a long long time and given his methods that show a determination to win irrespective of sacrificing honesty I see no reason why you could not be a sleeper.
In fact the probablities are as much for yhat proposition as against.
Sorry about the mistakes..i type one finger on my phone..tiresome but i would be more specific if I used a keyboard but hopefully you understand where I am coming from...get off the fence and gain respect from those on both sides...come on toss a coin..believe or not☺
Myth most likely, but it had real world implications. This is the 1st non proto Christian source of their faith and my personal favorite of all a ancient sources.
Your assessment is .... misguided at best. You are looking through the eyes of a 21 centery atheist. I am looking at facts, history and knowledge.
Agnosticism is a cop out? Listen, before gravity waves were detected in 2015 I thought there was a good chance they existed but I could not say that the definitely existed before then. Red Sprites that is lightning that shoot up into space, they where myth until a few decades ago. Why, because "atheists" refused to believe, "theist" believed on hear say and Agnostics kept an open mind. The same goes for rough ocean waves.
Those are just a few examples of the "cop out" stance of agnosticism. There is circumstantial evidence for alien life on other worlds but no empirical evidence. Do you believe that life MUST exist in the Universe besides Earth?
I use my phone too, no worries from me. I completely understand heh
I should hope so otherwise I would be using someone elses eyes.
That is what I do in a critical manner free of bias.
I did answer that question before you asked but to be clear yes.
If you study the facts, the history and the knowledge I suggest there is only one conclusion that eliminates holding a position of agnostic.
I would point out that with the agnostic position relative to analysing the theist myth there is no parrallel to concluding that a testable prediction made by the Theory of General Relativity is likely or unlikely...in fact if you wish to stick to that comparrison name one aspect of religion that makes a testable prediction.
The fact you try to attach credibility by a cheap attempt to associate the rigors of physics with religion tells everyone your bias must be to theism if you were agnostic you would never consider offering the two notions in the one breath.
Not only do you fail to make your point but indeed display your lack of the main quality of the agnostic ..that of sitting squarely on the fence.
If you doubted that gravity waves could be discovered that can only mean you held a silient belief GR was wrong as failure to deliver on prediction can only mean the theory would have to be rejected.
A theory fails if its testable predictions fail and that is in absolute contrast to all teligions who make wild claims that are always untestable...ever biblical prophesy fails to make a prediction that is well defined and capable of being described as clear enough to be meaningful.
Religion makes no testable predictions which tells us everything.
I thought Red Sprites were discovered by observation via high speed photography and I was unaware they were predicted...so I will look into that.
I am most interested in Sprites and associated electrical matters.
I doubt your examples are valid but I understand the point you are trying to make.
However a short study of the facts history and knowledge relaing to teligion if viewed rationally leaves no room for an agnostic position in my view.
And you wont win...if there is a God he will know your position is a cop out☺
Perhaps you should have been more selective as you have not made a plausible case for the agnostic.
I think you will find there is no evidence at all.
Life is probable simply because chemistry suggests it could be everywhere but to date we only speculate.
I see no agnostic position available if any statement as to the probability of life is made which includes recognition that it may be but also that we have zero evidence from other worlds. It is not a matter of being undecided as the position can be stated clearly without ambiguity.
Given the incomprehensible number of objects (trillions) in the universe I believe it is highly possible...we cant say probable because we have not found life other than on Earth so there is no basis to work out numbers for any probability.
Have a great day its been very nice having a chat with you.
If you have any reference to predictions re Red Sprites perhaps you could let me have a link.
I have found a spot where I think I can photograph them and I have some loose plans to do so but not with a high speed camera...only because those cameras are very expensive..I think a slower camera at high iso may work...anyways thats but one of many plans.
Absolutely, but as an atheist myself, I feel that the weight of the argument should favor atheism, in view of lack of evidence for an extraordinary and supernatural phenomenon of a motivated intelligent creator or designer, whereas all discovered evidence consist of natural deterministic and probabilistic phenomena....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How can you watch the magnificent sunset on Kuta beach
listening to music
via Bluetooth to the speaker AND
connecting to the world with my personal WiFi modem
in good company and say there is no god?
Easy I'm doing it now
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I often sit on my porch and look up into the diamond studded Idaho skies and play Ives';
The Unanswered Question.
Depends on the context the word ''must'' is used.
To state there is no evidence is a knowledge claim. You assume there is no evidence because you haven't seen, or understood, any.
And you don't think it is possible that life does not exist somewhere else in the universe?
''Exactly'' nothing. You claimed that there is as much evidence for God, as there is for no God.
There is evidence for God, you only have to check out William Craig Lane. Where is the evidence for no God?
I don't care if you accept WLC's evidence, or not.
Everything you posted there are assumptions.
Can you show otherwise?
For example, can you explain why God needs to be proven to show that God exists?
Wrong! Theists believe in God. Existence is an aspect of God. No conviction is necessary.
People who are religious may assert that God exists. But this is in relation to there religion.
This type of conviction is not necessarily theistic.
Some atheists may say God does not exist, not all. What is common to each and every atheist is, there is no God.
''There is no God'' could mean God does not exist. But it could also mean ''I can't see God, so for all intent and purpose God may not exist.
If a person (agnostic) asserts he has no reason, either way, to say if there is a God, then we can assume that for that person ''there is(currently) no God''.
The practical position of said agnostic is atheist. The intellectual position of said agnostic, is agnostic.
Just because you cannot intellectually commit to a position, doesn't mean you don't live by either one of those positions.
You don't have a good intellectual understanding of faith. You see it from the pov of an atheist, one for whom there is no God.
My responses only appear vague to you because they do not coincide with your contrived views. Because of this, you are unable to form your contrived conclusion.
Because of that you will eventually begin to use ad hominems, in an effort to maintain your atheism.
I don't care about your ''chosen guiding philosophy'', and will cut it down, where it needs cutting.
I would say, do not worry about ''theist philosophy'', because you cannot comprehend that from an atheist perspective.
Either remain atheist, or seek out God for yourself. Don't try, initially, to be inspired by anyone, that will come later on. Try to suspend what you think you know, and approach it with an open mind.
You won't find it anywhere, because your intellectual understanding, of what is faith, is a misunderstanding, at best.
Thank you for your time.
Separate names with a comma.