kx000
Valued Senior Member
Do all vegetables go to heaven -not having a central nervous system means their thoughts and cares are totally 0, neutral- they are neither righteous nor evil?
God has the power to heal them.
Do all vegetables go to heaven -not having a central nervous system means their thoughts and cares are totally 0, neutral- they are neither righteous nor evil?
You mean, like, to heal a banana?God has the power to heal them.
You mean, like, to heal a banana?
Well, doubt anyone can argue with that.I thought you were saying something else. Veggies are grown in Heaven, but meat is gathered in hell so we only eat evil critters.
And eat them like the loaves and fishesGod has the power to heal them.
That is an oversimplification of faith. There are two types of faith; blind faith and grounded faith.How else can they assume there is no evidence of God, and even go as far as stating something is NOT evidence of God?
That's not how one would use faith.
You can't decide to have faith. You find yourself in a position, where you have no choice but to have faith.
A theist does not display faith in God's existence.
They may display faith in God, for whatever reason. But it will not be about believing something with no evidence.
That is a misunderstanding.
Exactly .....What proof is there of no God?
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.You already have done. You assume that proof is needed to believe God exists? That mean you don't accept that theism is correct.
You assume that all notions of God, are man-made, including scriptures.
You assume that the standard of proof required has to be scientific (in the popular modern sense).
You assume that theists don't have proof of God's existence, or that there isn't any empirical data, where God is the best explanation.
You assume that as an agnostic, you are on neither side of the equation, because you have not yet, made up you mind.
You assume that God is separate to yourself, and if God existed there would external, physical evidence.
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.All this, is non different to atheism.
''Agnostic'' is merely a designation you give yourself, because you think you comprehension of God, is the God that theists believe in.
Essentially, you are an atheist.
Enjoy your trip.And eat them like the loaves and fishes
![]()
These have been the same arguments against Christianity for around two thousand years now.Jan presents this way but he perhaps does not see that his approach is seen by others as dishonest which shows he can be selective in what he takes on board.
Jan probably does not see what others see and believes he is the fountain of truth.
However his avoidance of looking at the facts of what evolution says and his reluctance to consider the implications contained in the video I posted suggest he is determined not to consider the material available... thinking perhaps that if he does not look all will go on as his contrived normal such that reality is framed in his selective context.
I can understand why he choses such an approach as to do otherwise would bring his house of cards down. In fact would cause the cards themselves to disappear.
Jan needs his world to be defined within his input else it produce a result inconsistent with his belief.
I understand he needs his approach else his world is destroyed and all he supports is shown to be false.
His avoidance is therefore somewhat understandable.
Jan must believe the bronze age authors had a clue but sadly they were just superstitious folk grasping at vaugue interpretations that have now been shown to be made up and false.
Jan is to be be forgiven as he is not the only human trapped in superstition and magic.
We must continue to guide him to the path of enlightement and knowledge....we must help those who are trapped within their prison of ignorance to escape by offerring them reason, clear facts and a view of history that shows clearly they have, through little fault on their part, been victims of a manipulation which had its roots in populace control and not some pathway to a spiritual interpretation of things ...that the adoption by Rome of JC was a mere political tool to consolidate a crumbling empire in a less positive form.
It survives today through the decipe enlisted so long ago.
I pity folk like Jan that their indoctrination has destroyed that part of their mind that is able to sort fact from fiction.
What a shame Jan must fit all incoming information into a predetermined world view...one that will not change, nor can it change, else the whole construction will colapse, leaving him and them with no other explanation than they have been conned over and over.
They lose their reason and usually a large part of their income and do not ever realise they have been conned.
It is so sad really to see someone like Jan, a reasonable well educated person with a desire to be decent, corrupted to indulge dishonesty and avoidance of available knowledge such that the myth hides the reality he should be free to discover.
I like Jan and respect his ability but unfortunately it is his ability to side track those who seek to help him that prevents him embracing the truth that the universe is eternal and the myths of a creator are no more than sad attempts by superstitious bronze age verbal story tellers to explain a world far more complex than their understanding and education allowed them to do corrupted to merely control the masses and extract their meager resourses.
But we are not in the bronze age and the benefit of our accumulated knowledge is available to those who take the time to review it...all has been worked out via science and available to all and so the challenge for Jan is no more than to read something from the modern era..something ...anything...but at least something...and that something should produce a realisation that bronze age ramblings are simply and no more than bronze age ramblings.
I sincerely hope that Jan can be saved.
Alex
I guess the difficulty is sorting thru primarily the vast amount of twaddle written on these myths.Those tactics didn't work then and they will not work now...... Just saying
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.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.
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.
The three kings (stars in Orion) following the Jurusalm star to link to a date, namely 25/12, says it all but it goes on if you look.
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 personofy the stars other than an attempt to legitimise their superstitious notions that all could be revealled by the stars. 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.
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 partallel in thise 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.
The repetition of these stories suggest the JC story is just another 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 thete 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.
Of 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.
Alex
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☺
Alex
I should hope so otherwise I would be using someone elses eyes.You are looking through the eyes of a 21 centery atheist.
That is what I do in a critical manner free of bias.I am looking at facts, history and knowledge.
I did answer that question before you asked but to be clear yes.Agnosticism is a cop out?
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.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.
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.Red Sprites that is lightning that shoot up into space, they where myth until a few decades ago.
I doubt your examples are valid but I understand the point you are trying to make.Why, because "atheists" refused to believe, "theist" believed on hear say and Agnostics kept an open mind. The same goes for rough ocean waves.
Perhaps you should have been more selective as you have not made a plausible case for the agnostic.Those are just a few examples of the "cop out" stance of agnosticism.
I think you will find there is no evidence at all.There is circumstantial evidence for alien life on other worlds but no empirical evidence.
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.Do you believe that life MUST exist in the Universe besides Earth?
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....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.
How can you watch the magnificent sunset on Kuta beachEnjoy your trip.
Alex
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.
Exactly .....
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.
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