The atheist crusades must stop!
The human mind is just a dream inside God.
Humans discussion of the existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant.
You cannot discover something that is beyond the realm of discovery.
The only way you can relate to God is by moving closer to the line between the Dreamed and the Dreamer and to finally wake up.
It is You who has to be discovered, not God.
Discussing it before you do that or manage to have that done is just a waste of time.
And by your use of the pronoun "it", you deny God's as a person, and consign Him to the realm of created things.
it means an entity, could male or female or be hermafrodite...which we were in the beginning (Adam and Eve were one, and Eve with the help of the serpent ripped herself from Adam in order to get the same wisdom as God and Adam, but with the help of the serpent. So it wasn't the biting of the apple that was sin, but the fact that she envied same status as a man)
You can't even get the Bible right, so why should anyone believe you about God?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
And by your use of the pronoun "it", you deny God's as a person, and consign Him to the realm of created things.
it means an entity, could male or female or be hermafrodite...which we were in the beginning (Adam and Eve were one, and Eve with the help of the serpent ripped herself from Adam in order to get the same wisdom as God and Adam, but with the help of the serpent. So it wasn't the biting of the apple that was sin, but the fact that she envied same status as a man)
You can't even get the Bible right, so why should anyone believe you about God?
who says we got the Right Bible???
_________________
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Humans discussion of the existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant.
You cannot discover something that is beyond the realm of discovery.
The only way you can relate to God is by moving closer to the line between the Dreamed and the Dreamer and to finally wake up.
It is You who has to be discovered, not God.
Discussing it before you do that or manage to have that done is just a waste of time.
You seriously need to get in touch with Reality. Your're using nonfalsifiability as a way to bolster your claim, but the fact remains that the REAL world we live in IS governed by falsifiability and if cant discover something that is "beyond the realm of discovery" you CANNOT KNOW whether or not it even exists!! !
And by your use of the pronoun "it", you deny God's as a person, and consign Him to the realm of created things.
it means an entity, could male or female or be hermafrodite...which we were in the beginning (Adam and Eve were one, and Eve with the help of the serpent ripped herself from Adam in order to get the same wisdom as God and Adam, but with the help of the serpent. So it wasn't the biting of the apple that was sin, but the fact that she envied same status as a man)
You can't even get the Bible right, so why should anyone believe you about God?
who says we got the Right Bible???
Who is this "We", and which is the right Bible?
Or are you just making this up as you go along?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Not at all! Mere skeptical inquiry...
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
And by your use of the pronoun "it", you deny God's as a person, and consign Him to the realm of created things.
it means an entity, could male or female or be hermafrodite...which we were in the beginning (Adam and Eve were one, and Eve with the help of the serpent ripped herself from Adam in order to get the same wisdom as God and Adam, but with the help of the serpent. So it wasn't the biting of the apple that was sin, but the fact that she envied same status as a man)
You can't even get the Bible right, so why should anyone believe you about God?
who says we got the Right Bible???
Who is this "We", and which is the right Bible?
Or are you just making this up as you go along?
waky waky, if you just knew that old testament and new testament has been written and interpreted by men and that is is a dilluiton of Holy Genesis books from Egyptians and Babylonians you wouldn't ask such questions, now would ya?
_________________
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
And by your use of the pronoun "it", you deny God's as a person, and consign Him to the realm of created things.
it means an entity, could male or female or be hermafrodite...which we were in the beginning (Adam and Eve were one, and Eve with the help of the serpent ripped herself from Adam in order to get the same wisdom as God and Adam, but with the help of the serpent. So it wasn't the biting of the apple that was sin, but the fact that she envied same status as a man)
You can't even get the Bible right, so why should anyone believe you about God?
who says we got the Right Bible???
Who is this "We", and which is the right Bible?
Or are you just making this up as you go along?
waky waky, if you just knew that old testament and new testament has been written and interpreted by men and that is is a dilluiton of Holy Genesis books from Egyptians and Babylonians you wouldn't ask such questions, now would ya?
The point is two-fold: (1) I am asking those questions now, and (2) you are being evasive and obtuse.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Oh dear! The Atheist crusades! This is so horrible! Militant Atheists are burning down churches! Crashing into skyscrapers! Killing innocent people! All in the name of logic and reason! Oh no! Help!
Oh wait a minute.. They aren't doing any of that, in fact there's no violence even going on, what is going on then that's so horrible? Oh yes, they're questioning people's beliefs, such a treacherous and violent crime right? I wonder how many people have died because of this attack, or have been hospitalized, give me a god damn break. If you're really in the mindset that this is so threatening and you're that unable to defend your beliefs maybe you should ask yourself why you aren't able to. And if you can do those things, why is this an issue? And it's no surprise this thread was made by an Agnostic considering how well they can defend their beliefs. "Well um.. um.. I don't think um.. either side has enough proof! Therefore um.. It must be 50/50! duh." And you want to call Atheism flawed? And yes I know plenty Agnostics don't see it as 50/50, but it appears the majority do and that's plain stupidity.
^^ You forgot the part where Atheists are teaching students to think for themselves, rather than just forcing the students to believe what they're told to believe.
Yes ... shocking, isn't it?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
well, Christians are being persecuted, but the persecution is not physical, it is Spiritual
Atheism can be flawed, if they call babies and animals atheists by nature, couldn't help to see a little arrogance there, or is it not? but then, christians may believe babies and animals can see God or the angels.
Agnosticism seems reasonable to be a good way to see reality or to aproach things, after all it is related to empiricism and the scientific method, a key element when it comes to the scientific method is: Doubt.
Let's just say that I am agnostic about aliens, about the string theory, about parallel worlds, about an afterlife, about God, and possibly about other things.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Well, yes, of course, I can assume some do, and some christians may do that as well, is that shocking?
It isn't actually much about atheism versus agnostics and christians, mostly about the invididuals themselves, and about their own personal approach, emotional approach towards to religion or any other belief system that differs from their own, and even fanatism can be in some cases, and not just from atheists, but from agnostics as well.
And don't deny that if you are against religion, it is an emotional response, not just the claimed rational.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Atheism can be flawed, if they call babies and animals atheists by nature, couldn't help to see a little arrogance there, or is it not? but then, christians may believe babies and animals can see God or the angels.
Agnosticism seems reasonable to be a good way to see reality or to aproach things, after all it is related to empiricism and the scientific method, a key element when it comes to the scientific method is: Doubt.
Let's just say that I am agnostic about aliens, about the string theory, about parallel worlds, about an afterlife, about God, and possibly about other things.
Well I disagree with calling babies and animals atheists for the following reasons. The first one for babies would be, though they highly technically lack a belief in a god, they aren't at the point where their brains have developed enough to make an official decision there, nor do they even know what a god is yet. However it's even more wrong to bring up a child from birth to believe in your religion or belief system, even if you think you are correct let the child figure out what it wants to be for itself. If the reason you don't do that is because you fear your child would become an Atheist, try to understand why. And for the record there's still a large chance your child is going to become an Atheist even if you do brainwash him or her in religious dogma. The reason animals aren't atheists is similar to the baby argument except they'll never be able to decide, it doesn't even matter to them either and doesn't matter to the religious especially considering animals don't have souls apparently.
As for the Agnostic argument, yes you can be Agnostic in things like Aliens, or other things that we can't answer. However, when you're Agnostic don't ever put a 50/50 chance on it, unless it truly is. For the record with God you don't have to be Agnostic depending on the God. For the Gods from Christianity, Islam and Judaism for example there's more evidence against the Gods of those religions existing so you can actually make a fine judgement there. Even Aliens you don't have to be 50/50 Agnostic, there's definitely a good chance there's life on different planets whether we can see it or not. I'd say there's a 95% chance myself that there's life on other planets based on how you can mostly likely form life in plenty of different ways and our universe has billions of galaxies.
Oh, I can't deny the gut-wrenching surge of emotion I feel whenever someone explains away a simple event or condition with words to the effect that "God did it," instead of saying what is really going on. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" does not seem to apply in such cases.
For example, class, can anyone tell me why the chicken crossed the road...?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
