Spirituality
03 May 12
06 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudge[b]I hope this answers your question even though I did not, and do not, accept the questions premise.
I figured you wouldn't, but I wanted to be sure before I went any deeper into this discussion. I appreciate your answer and your willingness
to engage the general topic.
I don't mind discussing and dealing with complex or diff ...[text shortened]... and dealing with them to wallowing in a comforting sea of lies.[/b]You say, "But I still prefer knowing these uncomfortable truths and dealing with them to wallowing in a comforting sea of lies."
It appears to me that you are "wallowing in a comforting sea of lies."
06 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe real truth is God. You do not believe in God. Therefore you do not believe in the real truth. Simple logic, huh? HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
Truth can withstand any questioning.
Anything that can't withstand questioning can't be truth.
My beliefs can be and are questioned and I engage in debates with people specifically to
see if they can disprove or refute my views or beliefs.
That you feel the need to hold on to your beliefs and defend them and ignore them suggests
that r ...[text shortened]...
I do care deeply about truth.
Most atheists I know do.
That is WHY we are atheists.
06 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI recommend that you do if you get the chance. I bought and read it on recommendation in this forum.
I haven't actually read Dawkins book "the god delusion" so I don't even know what his arguments are.
I don't agree with all his arguments, and as SwissGambit says, some of his arguments are a bit weak, but it is still a good collection of arguments that makes you think and you may come across things you hadn't thought about before - as I did when it came to his arguments about why/how moderate religion encourages extremism. You have clearly come to that conclusion independently, but you may find other things of interest in the book.
06 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is why you are on this forum then: to "prosthelytize" the lies you got from Satan the Devil.... Your next line:
[quote]Intentionally doing so or not taking reasonable precautions to prevent you doing so is thus immoral.
indicates that you think that not preventing me from believing what I believe is immoral. ... [/quote]
EDIT: It is a logical conclusion that if you conclude that it is immoral to hold faith based beliefs th ...[text shortened]... osition should logically include a 'prosthelytizing' element. This is what I was referring to.
06 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI guess you would have them living in poverty if you had a god of your choosing.
But for me, no mere human could EVER convince me there is some kind of god out there that is directing organized religion. They are all, 100% of them too human centric, too opposed to each other, fighting religious based wars, killing in the name of some god or other to be believable there is some god overloarding all this.
This will ALWAYS be to me a d ...[text shortened]... their medical bills. Gee, how CONVENIENT. I'm SURE that's how a god would set it up......
06 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadOthers have already done so. Here is an example.
Then write a book/thread on it setting out your arguments as to why you think that is the case. Simply stating it without argument or evidence suggests you have no arguments / evidence.
http://myshasta.info/tempest/seventhunders/delusions/delusion1.htm
07 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think there is a massive difference between hating an Idea, Practise, or Belief system; and hating those who are associated with them. I imagine the personal example you have ilustrated must be quite conflicting for you.
I have a son who is homosexual and I am not against him. But I am against some of the acts of homosexuality, which can be done by non-homosexuals as well. I believe God loves the person, homosexual or not. But He hates sin and I believe that includes certain acts of homosexuality.
09 May 12
Originally posted by SwissGambityes its something that I have come to appreciate from the forum that there are different
Isn't there some value in trying to understand where the other side is coming from, even if no one expects to win any 'converts'?
Not all atheists embrace the arguments of Richard Dawkins. In fact, I have heard some atheist philosophers join their christian counterparts in agreement that some of Dawkins' arguments are weak.
But this might bring up ...[text shortened]... is a little more nuanced than one side being mere blinded zombies under Satanic control. 🙂
degrees of atheism, from the truly broad minded, to the agnostic atheist who concludes
that for him there is not enough convincing evidence to form any kind of consensus to
the militant atheist who thinks that religion and faith are dangerous and immoral.
09 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57No, I am at peace with it now. It is in the Lord's hand now. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
I think there is a massive difference between hating an Idea, Practise, or Belief system; and hating those who are associated with them. I imagine the personal example you have ilustrated must be quite conflicting for you.
13 May 12
2 edits
R. C. Sproul on The Psychology of Atheism.
He admits that we all have a vested interest one way or another.
He wants with all his being for there to be God.
He says the Atheist must deny God as a threat to the atheist's sense of autonomy.
He admits that the existence of non-existence of God is beside the point of our prefered desire concerning this either way.
He says we all have psychological baggage.
He says the question of "If there is no God what are there theists?" can be asked the other way as well - "If there is God what are there atheists?"
Other things Sproul says I think are good.
&feature=related
13 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillinteresting snake oil salesman. he shames the field of psychology.
[b] R. C. Sproul on The Psychology of Atheism.
He admits that we all have a vested interest one way or another.
He wants with all his being for there to be God.
He says the Atheist must deny God as a threat to the atheist's sense of autonomy.
He admits that the existence of non-existence of God is beside the point of our prefe ...[text shortened]... oul says I think are good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xh8PxPTIvQ&feature=related[/b]
a common theme he is trying to portray is that the atheist "denies" the existence of god. in the field of psychology, denial is used in connection with the mental disease of rejecting experienced truth.
this sets the stage in the context of the atheist receiving direct revelation from god, and being in "denial' of that experience, which in reality amounts to complete nonsense. nobody has received direct revelation from god, ergo nobody can deny god's existence.
his entire argument hinges on this fallacy and it falls apart on it.
13 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDon't listen to VoidSpirit.
interesting snake oil salesman. he shames the field of psychology.
a common theme he is trying to portray is that the atheist "denies" the existence of god. in the field of psychology, denial is used in connection with the mental disease of rejecting experienced truth.
this sets the stage in the context of the atheist receiving direct revelation f ny god's existence.
his entire argument hinges on this fallacy and it falls apart on it.
He has nothing.
&feature=related