Andy Atheist On Human Free Will.

JAGG

New member
Andy Atheist Wrote:
"If the Supreme Being is all knowledgeable (Omniscience)
then it follows that if the Supreme Being knows today,
what action I will take tomorrow and the Supreme Being's
knowledge is infallible, then I have no choice tomorrow
to do anything other than to make the choice that the
Supreme Being knew I would choose."
___Andy Atheist


JAGG Replies:
Yes it is true that since God is Omniscient and knows
the future and knows what you will choose to do, then
you will do that which He knows that you will do.

But , , ,
that does NOT mean that you did not freely choose
to do that which He knew you would do.

Here we need to understand what Free Will means.

Free Will means there is no Force external to you, that
forces you to do, that which you do not want to do.

God merely knowing what you will choose to do, does
not mean that God forces you to do, that which He knew
you would choose to do. Nor does it mean that you did
not want to do it. You did want to do it. Your Free Will
freely chose to do whatever you did.

Repeat , , ,
Free Will means that there is no Force outside of you,
that is forcing or coercing you into choosing to do that
which is against what you want to do. The fact that God
knows what you will choose to do, does not mean that
there was any Force-Outside-Of-You coercing you to
do that which God knew you would choose to do.

__________

Secular , , ,
Free Will is a secular truth, and not only a religious truth;
How so?
Because all of Civilized Humanity recognizes the legitimacy
of the institution of Free Will and has legislated human
Free Will into law. the Law says humans are responsible
for their choices. The Law recognizes the legitimacy of
the Institution of human Free Will.

Keeping in mind what Andy Atheist said, read this
dialogue between Henry and The Judge.

Henry: Your Honor, yes it is true that I robbed that bank
and in the process I killed three bank tellers, but Your
Honor, God is Omniscient and God knew I would rob
the bank and kill those three tellers, so Your Honor its
not my fault that I committed this crime, I merely did
what God knew I would do.

The Judge: Oh okay, Henry. I understand. Thanks for
explaining. Case dismissed.

So?
So humans Are Responsible For Their Free Will Choices.
So all this talk about Free Will NOT being a true, valid,
and legitimate explanation of why humans are personally
responsible before God for the evil choices they make
is irrational and belongs in the basement below the
basement where unproductive totally-useless abstract
philosophical academic speculations blathers on and on
and on.
Nothing said by humans can invalidate this truth: Humans
Are Responsible For Their Free Will Choices.
_________

Atheists will always blame God , , ,
However my view is that the air-tight solid truth
demonstrated in the conversation between
Henry and The Judge, will be dismissed as
nonsense by atheists and the irrational assault
on the institution of human Free Will as a
legitimate and valid explanation of human
evil and sin will continue as if Henry and
The Judge had never been presented. Why?
Because atheists who remain atheists are
NOT going to ever give up blaming God for
the evil in the world -- and thereby excusing
themselves for their own Free Will evil
choices to do evil.

What does Henry and The Judge demonstrate?
That Humans Are Responsible For Their Free Will
Choices. -- and to say otherwise reduces to
absurd-nonsense.

The Coming Judgment , , ,
One last point: Not only does all of Civilized Law
recognize Free Will as a legitimate explanation for
human evil choices, but so does God and the Bible
and God's laws regarding Free Will will be applied
at The Judgment just as man's laws regarding Free Will
are applied in Human Courts. What does that mean?
It means that human Free Will choices will determine
human Eternal destiny. John 3:16 asks humans to make
a choice. Joshua 24:15 asks humans to make a choice.

"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you,
then choose for yourselves this day whom you will
serve, whether the gods your ancestors served
beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you are living. But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD." ___Joshua 24:15



`
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
JAGG Replies:
"Yes it is true that since God is Omniscient and knows
the future and knows what you will choose to do, then
you will do that which He knows that you will do."

Does the "if" indicate that God's knows what we will choose.

"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us..." (2 Tim. 2:12).

if
εἰ (ei)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 1487: If. A primary particle of conditionality; if, whether, that, etc.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Andy Atheist Wrote:
"If the Supreme Being is all knowledgeable (Omniscience)
then it follows that if the Supreme Being knows today,
what action I will take tomorrow and the Supreme Being's
knowledge is infallible, then I have no choice tomorrow
to do anything other than to make the choice that the
Supreme Being knew I would choose."
___Andy Atheist


JAGG Replies:
Yes it is true that since God is Omniscient and knows
the future and knows what you will choose to do, then
you will do that which He knows that you will do.

But , , ,
that does NOT mean that you did not freely choose
to do that which He knew you would do.

Here we need to understand what Free Will means.

Free Will means there is no Force external to you, that
forces you to do, that which you do not want to do.

God merely knowing what you will choose to do, does
not mean that God forces you to do, that which He knew
you would choose to do. Nor does it mean that you did
not want to do it. You did want to do it. Your Free Will
freely chose to do whatever you did.

Repeat , , ,
Free Will means that there is no Force outside of you,
that is forcing or coercing you into choosing to do that
which is against what you want to do. The fact that God
knows what you will choose to do, does not mean that
there was any Force-Outside-Of-You coercing you to
do that which God knew you would choose to do.

__________

Secular , , ,
Free Will is a secular truth, and not only a religious truth;
How so?
Because all of Civilized Humanity recognizes the legitimacy
of the institution of Free Will and has legislated human
Free Will into law. the Law says humans are responsible
for their choices. The Law recognizes the legitimacy of
the Institution of human Free Will.

Keeping in mind what Andy Atheist said, read this
dialogue between Henry and The Judge.

Henry: Your Honor, yes it is true that I robbed that bank
and in the process I killed three bank tellers, but Your
Honor, God is Omniscient and God knew I would rob
the bank and kill those three tellers, so Your Honor its
not my fault that I committed this crime, I merely did
what God knew I would do.

The Judge: Oh okay, Henry. I understand. Thanks for
explaining. Case dismissed.

So?
So humans Are Responsible For Their Free Will Choices.
So all this talk about Free Will NOT being a true, valid,
and legitimate explanation of why humans are personally
responsible before God for the evil choices they make
is irrational and belongs in the basement below the
basement where unproductive totally-useless abstract
philosophical academic speculations blathers on and on
and on.
Nothing said by humans can invalidate this truth: Humans
Are Responsible For Their Free Will Choices.
_________

Atheists will always blame God , , ,
However my view is that the air-tight solid truth
demonstrated in the conversation between
Henry and The Judge, will be dismissed as
nonsense by atheists and the irrational assault
on the institution of human Free Will as a
legitimate and valid explanation of human
evil and sin will continue as if Henry and
The Judge had never been presented. Why?
Because atheists who remain atheists are
NOT going to ever give up blaming God for
the evil in the world -- and thereby excusing
themselves for their own Free Will evil
choices to do evil.

What does Henry and The Judge demonstrate?
That Humans Are Responsible For Their Free Will
Choices. -- and to say otherwise reduces to
absurd-nonsense.

The Coming Judgment , , ,
One last point: Not only does all of Civilized Law
recognize Free Will as a legitimate explanation for
human evil choices, but so does God and the Bible
and God's laws regarding Free Will will be applied
at The Judgment just as man's laws regarding Free Will
are applied in Human Courts. What does that mean?
It means that human Free Will choices will determine
human Eternal destiny. John 3:16 asks humans to make
a choice. Joshua 24:15 asks humans to make a choice.

"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you,
then choose for yourselves this day whom you will
serve, whether the gods your ancestors served
beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you are living. But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD." ___Joshua 24:15



`

Well said
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Omniscience isn't actually a Biblical doctrine. The Bible says some things that might be construed that way, such as "He sees all" or "His understanding is beyond our ability to measure." But it doesn't actually comes out and say omniscient, that I know of. Someone please prove me wrong.

Jarrod
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Omniscience isn't actually a Biblical doctrine. The Bible says some things that might be construed that way, such as "He sees all" or "His understanding is beyond our ability to measure." But it doesn't actually comes out and say omniscient, that I know of. Someone please prove me wrong.

Jarrod

The word, "omniscience", isn't a doctrine--it's a word. To what (if any) doctrine are you referring by the word, "omniscience", when you say "
Omniscience isn't actually a Biblical doctrine"?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Omniscience isn't actually a Biblical doctrine. The Bible says some things that might be construed that way, such as "He sees all" or "His understanding is beyond our ability to measure." But it doesn't actually comes out and say omniscient, that I know of. Someone please prove me wrong.

Jarrod

John 17:21 "Lord you know all things..." 1 John 3:20 "God knows all..."

Therefore:
1) Omniscience is in the bible. John 17:21 "Lord you are omniscient" is an acceptable translation.
1 John 3:20 "God is omniscient..."
2) It is a Biblical doctrine

3) "Prove you wrong?" It is hard to do so. Open Theists don't believe these scriptures say what I believe they do. While the language is certainly "omniscient" the Open Theist limits "all" with "All things knowable" as their qualification. To me? It doesn't ever say such a thing in scripture, it is deduced from an Open paradigm. I can simply give scriptures. God promises His words do not return void so this is enough for both of us. I appreciate a moment to bend your ear over the matter. -Lon
 

KerimF

New member
Andy Atheist Wrote:
Keeping in mind what Andy Atheist said, read this
dialogue between Henry and The Judge.

Henry: Your Honor, yes it is true that I robbed that bank
and in the process I killed three bank tellers, but Your
Honor, God is Omniscient and God knew I would rob
the bank and kill those three tellers, so Your Honor its
not my fault that I committed this crime, I merely did
what God knew I would do.

The Judge: Oh okay, Henry. I understand. Thanks for
explaining. Case dismissed.
`

The Judge: Okay, Henry. But you missed that God also knows that I will apply on you the world's justice, the penalty of death. Case dismissed.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
John 17:21 "Lord you know all things..."
Wrong reference, perhaps? I show that verse as saying...

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)

1 John 3:20 "God knows all..."
I kind of want to be wrong here, but when I read the whole verse... I think the context dictates we shouldn't read it that way.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. (1 John 3)

The writer is talking about the people's deeds, and their conscience. The context has me read it as "God knows all... of our mis-deeds." That isn't omniscience per se, although it certainly doesn't argue against it.

The Open Theist limits "all" with "All things knowable" as their qualification. To me? It doesn't ever say such a thing in scripture, it is deduced from an Open paradigm. I can simply give scriptures. God promises His words do not return void so this is enough for both of us. I appreciate a moment to bend your ear over the matter. -Lon
That kind of a broad limitation doesn't make sense... that's just assuming your own premise is right. If there's a limitation, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis using the context of the verse.

FWIW, in my admittedly-limited knowledge of Greek, that word translated "all" usually really means "each" or "every," and the context is supposed to clue us in. Every ____? Each ____?

The Bible teaches that God sees everything that's happening, and that He has existed from eternity past. That leaves only the future as a question mark, I think.

Many believe that God already knows the future, but that seems to lead them off into fatalistic viewpoints, where all outcomes are pre-determined, and everyone is pre-destined for good or for bad. I think that makes for bad theology. I wonder if perhaps the point at which that line of thinking gets off-the-tracks is in assuming that God has already seen the future?

Jarrod
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
John 17:21 "Lord you know all things..." 1 John 3:20 "God knows all..."

Therefore:
1) Omniscience is in the bible. John 17:21 "Lord you are omniscient" is an acceptable translation.
1 John 3:20 "God is omniscient..."
2) It is a Biblical doctrine

3) "Prove you wrong?" It is hard to do so. Open Theists don't believe these scriptures say what I believe they do. While the language is certainly "omniscient" the Open Theist limits "all" with "All things knowable" as their qualification. To me? It doesn't ever say such a thing in scripture, it is deduced from an Open paradigm. I can simply give scriptures. God promises His words do not return void so this is enough for both of us. I appreciate a moment to bend your ear over the matter. -Lon

I'm not an Open Theist, but of course God's knowing all things cannot but be God's knowing all things knowable. Perhaps, in your view, all things are known by God; were that the case, then, of necessity, all things would be knowable (by God)--which means that for God to know all things would be one and the same as for God to know all things knowable. I, for one, deny that God knows all things, where what is meant by "all things" is more than all things knowable, but I affirm that God knows all things knowable--but yet, as I said, I am not an Open Theist. And, the way I see it, what, alone, is rightly to be encompassed by the phrase, "all things knowable", is truth--"all things knowable" is one and the same with "all truth". Whatever is truth--whatever is true--God knows. And, why I deny that God knows all things, where what is meant by "all things" is more than all things knowable, is because, the way I see it, not all things are true--not all things are truth. Some things are not true/truth. For instance: falsehood. God does not know falsehood.

Here are some things God does not know: God does not know that
  • God does not exist
  • God is evil
  • The Bible is not God's Word
  • God did not create the heaven and the earth
  • Jesus did not rise from the dead
I cannot see how it could fail to be downright blasphemy against God to affirm that God, the Author of 1 John 1:5, knows, for instance, that God is not light, and that He knows that there is darkness in God.

To say that God knows "all things", and that the "all things" God knows is not to be "qualified" as (that is, limited by) "all things knowable", is necessarily to say that God knows more than "all things knowable". Now, an "all things" which encompasses more than "all things knowable" necessarily encompasses, also, "all things unknowable": together, "all things knowable" and "all things unknowable" exhaust "all things". But, to say that God know "all things", where what is meant by "all things" is "all things knowable and all things unknowable", is not rational; for, what is known by God is obviously not unknowable by God. So, it's impossible, rationally, to say that the "all things" God knows is not entirely one with "all things knowable". That is, it is irrational to deny that "all things knowable" exhausts the "all things" known by God.

One thing I would add: every thing that any part of God's creation--any one of God's creatures--knows is something that God knows, and that's not a two-way street. For God knows far, far more than any knowing part of His creation knows, or will ever know. Of absolutely no thing is it true that, whereas a creature knows it, God does not know it.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Wrong reference, perhaps? I show that verse as saying...

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)


I kind of want to be wrong here, but when I read the whole verse... I think the context dictates we shouldn't read it that way.
Sorry, my lysdexia John 21:17. I'm glad I'm typing our you'd hear my peach imspeadiment too.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. (1 John 3)

The writer is talking about the people's deeds, and their conscience. The context has me read it as "God knows all... of our mis-deeds." That isn't omniscience per se, although it certainly doesn't argue against it.


That kind of a broad limitation doesn't make sense... that's just assuming your own premise is right. If there's a limitation, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis using the context of the verse.
Agree.

FWIW, in my admittedly-limited knowledge of Greek, that word translated "all" usually really means "each" or "every," and the context is supposed to clue us in. Every ____? Each ____?
We usuallly have to use context. If 'things' are placed with it, 'every thing (everything) then becomes "omniscient" such as John 21:17 (I've been working, tired when I get home, forgive that one, I've not had to do much rechecking in the past (TOL used to have a bible pop-up that helped recheck references so I need to redouble my efforts until such a time as TOL provides that feature again).

The Bible teaches that God sees everything that's happening, and that He has existed from eternity past. That leaves only the future as a question mark, I think.
For me, Revelation, where John interacts with the future and David's querying the Lord whether he will be found by Saul if he goes a certain direction, puts this one to rest as well.

Many believe that God already knows the future, but that seems to lead them off into fatalistic viewpoints, where all outcomes are pre-determined, and everyone is pre-destined for good or for bad. I think that makes for bad theology. I wonder if perhaps the point at which that line of thinking gets off-the-tracks is in assuming that God has already seen the future?

Jarrod
The good thing about 'freewill' is that it puts the onus upon us for our behavior so we are responsible: thus those who come to the Lord Jesus Christ are choosing actively to depart from a way of life apart from God, with all the consequences. "Fate" carries a tenor of being completely unable to do anything about eternal consequences. In between that are Romans 9 among other passages. I don't believe they teach fatalism, but rather that we are responsible. I'm born WITH sin. It is a 'lack of God/godliness' defect (fate after a fashion). The Lord Jesus Christ provided the remedy. Some would go so far as saying knowing all of the effect 'predestining' those who would be saved. True, but they also say 'predestining' those not. It is my stance they are already 'predestined' by the malady, not God's choosing. I often return to the tares and wheat analogy because it is the closest I get to the mind of God over the matter. He tells the angels "no" about harvesting weeds because it might harm the wheat. It is also the closest I get to Open Theism with 'might.' I can concede the scriptural point, but I believe our theology must be spun on dollars instead of dimes (take time and careful weighing ala the wise man built his house upon the rock and considered with careful planning). As long as we are all in this together, I'm not overtly concerned by freewill theism, I just believe we all grow and thus will change and shift our theology patterns, with each other's help and the Holy Spirit's guidance, to incorporate all the truths of scripture as we find them. It is, for me, like driving in your own lane: as long as you are going the same direction, we are good (even sometimes the one who is on an off-road, but traveling the same direction, it'll eventually merge).

So, while I believe God knows all, including all things future (I also believe logic and good philosophy thinking demand omniscience, if you are interested, I talk through this with Djengo just below here), it does not mean God makes it so. The malady of sin was never God's making. While He is also omnipotent Colossians 1:17 (this scripture reference is right :) ) "In Him all things exist and without Him nothing exists that exists." it does not make Him the Author, but rather the one who sustains (again like the tares and wheat parable) for the sake of those who are saved, all things. I'm okay with disagreement on this, it is just how I've come to grasp these truths at this point in my life and Bible study (The older I get, the more I study, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know and thus have become a bit less dogmatic on some of this as the years go by, by necessity. God wins and I'm more and more humbled). In Him -Lon
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
God does not know falsehood.
This is true, "In Him is no darkness at all." It is not, as the logical proof would go, a positive (all things) but a negative (the negation of 'all things' like a falsehood (not a truth thus not something to know which is, in itself, against the defintion. Thus for me, this is not part of the equation, but if it were, or is in your mind, I see your point. In a nutshell, it is ejected as part of the equation of "all things" for me, thus no qualifier on the scope of ominisciences. That said, I'm finite. There is a logical conclusion to infinite that insists all things are 'within' the infinite else any truth, or any thing, would be outside of the infinite existence of God. Infinite already means 'all things and nothing even remotely possibly outside of it thus Colossians 1:17 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence
John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Acts 17:28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.'
Here are some things God does not know: God does not know that
  • God does not exist
  • God is evil
  • The Bible is not God's Word
  • God did not create the heaven and the earth
  • Jesus did not rise from the dead
I cannot see how it could fail to be downright blasphemy against God to affirm that God, the Author of 1 John 1:5, knows, for instance, that God is not light, and that He knows that there is darkness in God.
These demonstrate your above "falsehoods" so I concur on these with the same: they are not within 'knowledge" but are negations of knowledge, thus (again as far as my grasp of the term) not within the parameters of at least my discussion. IOW, for me, these are not limitations on knowledge, but rather the antithesis thus not part of the conversation or ramifications of 'knowledge.' In that sense, we agree but categorize differently here: These are not limits on 'knowledge' thus not part of the discussion of it. Rather they are discussions of 'lack of' knowledge as I understand them. Thus, again, this would be a difference in how we categorize. We may disagree, but I simply say these are not knowledge, thus nonstarters for discussion about 'knowledge.' Respectfully. -Lon

To say that God knows "all things", and that the "all things" God knows is not to be "qualified" as (that is, limited by) "all things knowable", is necessarily to say that God knows more than "all things knowable". Now, an "all things" which encompasses more than "all things knowable" necessarily encompasses, also, "all things unknowable": together, "all things knowable" and "all things unknowable" exhaust "all things". But, to say that God know "all things", where what is meant by "all things" is "all things knowable and all things unknowable", is not rational; for, what is known by God is obviously not unknowable by God. So, it's impossible, rationally, to say that the "all things" God knows is not entirely one with "all things knowable". That is, it is irrational to deny that "all things knowable" exhausts the "all things" known by God.
The scriptures above could be crudely compared to a jar. Crudely, because God is infinite and a jar is incredibly finite, but Colossians 1:17 describes all things as being contained and sustained inside of the Lord Jesus Christ. It follows then, that 1) nothing happens inside the jar that isn't already inside the jar, 2) that eternity is already inside the jar (and outside of it, because all that is infinite is already Him), thus every atom and smaller, inside the jar, is already accounted for and the movement inside the jar is also accounted for.

One thing I would add: every thing that any part of God's creation--any one of God's creatures--knows is something that God knows, and that's not a two-way street. For God knows far, far more than any knowing part of His creation knows, or will ever know. Of absolutely no thing is it true that, whereas a creature knows it, God does not know it.
I appreciate that. As I said above, the analogy is from a finite mind. Another is like a jar you dip in the ocean, you'll have a glimpse of God, but it cannot contain a humpback whale (or a flounder for that matter). :up: We simply read scriptures and contemplate the truth God is giving us. I don't believe we get demerits for not thinking far enough, thus I've grown in grace on TOL over the years: Whatever extent I believe I grasp scriptures, we all see in part as the Apostle Paul reminds us

1 Corinthians 13: 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
 

Stuu

New member
Because all of Civilized Humanity recognizes the legitimacy of the institution of Free Will and has legislated human Free Will into law. the Law says humans are responsible for their choices. The Law recognizes the legitimacy of the Institution of human Free Will.
The law indeed does as you suggest: the intent the accused had in mind is perhaps the most important factor in determining the path that justice will follow. Cases of one human killing another human could be motivated by the intent to deprive a person of their life for personal gain, or the intent to preserve the life of the killer by self-defence, or with no intent and much regret in the case of an accidental killing.

But the law is a crude tool. It tries to fill the expectations of the people but does not always understand how human brains function. Even though we all feel we have free will, there are many things we cannot choose to do because we are physically incapable. The same applies to the workings of our brains. It is important to remember that there are people who cannot choose to express compassion because they do not have that function working in their brains. About half of the motivation of our preferences is inherited in DNA, and our genetic inheritance is not a matter of free will. So that is where the law has problems: how should we treat people who are not capable of exercising what we think of as free will?

Since you have mentioned atheists, here is Christopher Hitchens: "Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it."

Atheists will always blame God
Atheism is not the disbelief in the powers or authority of a god, it is the disbelief in the existence of any god. You are atheistic about many gods, so I'm sure you understand how mad it would be to blame Odin, for example, for failures of human behaviour. Odin isn't real. You don't believe in the reality of 9999 of the 10,000 gods proposed by humans in the past. Atheists just go one god further. The ancient Jews who were the ancestral believers in your god started out polytheistic, and by a process of assimilation they became monotheistic. Secular Jews today are effectively atheists. So it's all headed in the same direction. Many, one, none!

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
Atheism is not the disbelief in the powers or authority of a god, it is the disbelief in the existence of any god. You are atheistic about many gods, so I'm sure you understand how mad it would be to blame Odin, for example, for failures of human behaviour. Odin isn't real. You don't believe in the reality of 9999 of the 10,000 gods proposed by humans in the past. Atheists just go one god further. The ancient Jews who were the ancestral believers in your god started out polytheistic, and by a process of assimilation they became monotheistic. Secular Jews today are effectively atheists. So it's all headed in the same direction. Many, one, none!

Stuart
:nono: It is indeed a blame-game. There is no reason to be 'a' (against/anti). Jagg's statement holds absolutely true. Of all the atheists I've come across, including the late Hitchens, the issue is always 'against' God. Learning after Carl Reiner's death, that he was a Jewish atheist, he cited the Holocaust as 'reason' why. Atheism is ALWAYS reactionary.
 

Stuu

New member
:nono: It is indeed a blame-game. There is no reason to be 'a' (against/anti). Jagg's statement holds absolutely true. Of all the atheists I've come across, including the late Hitchens, the issue is always 'against' God. Learning after Carl Reiner's death, that he was a Jewish atheist, he cited the Holocaust as 'reason' why. Atheism is ALWAYS reactionary.
Atheism is 'a' (Gk. without) and 'theos' (Gk. god). But I agree that the term is a reactionary one. I identify with the term only in the sense that it describes how I live my life in practice. But it doesn't tell you anything else about me apart from 'without gods', and really it only defines me in terms of the delusions of others. I prefer terms such as 'human', and leave it to religious hobbyists to fail to convince me of the reality of their beliefs!

Hitchens would correct people: although he didn't object to the term atheist he would change it to antitheist specifically. He did a lot of talking in the conditional tense, telling people that while some atheists would like it to be true that there is a god he wouldn't want it to be the Judeo-christian one for all the reasons he gave.

I guess you will have read this in Carl Reiner's Wikipedia page: "I have a very different take on who God is. Man invented God because he needed him. God is us." He said in 2013 he developed an atheistic viewpoint as the Holocaust progressed. You might imagine from a theist point of view that he had some kind of theistic beliefs but discarded them as a failure of clear thinking on the problem of evil or somesuch, but perhaps consider it from an atheist's view: we are all born atheist and some of us (in the US and in developing countries a majority of people) take on one of the local religious memes, but then some go back to the atheistic state on thinking more clearly about it. So if we can take the above statement at face value it's pretty clear that Reiner's atheism is well thought through, and possibly knowledgeably so (atheists do tend to score higher on religious quizzes than theists). The context of his family upbringing would be a factor in how easy that process would have been, of course.

Are you prepared to accept that there is a failure of logic in suggesting that atheists blame your god, when they in fact don't think there is anything there to blame?

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
Atheism is 'a' (Gk. without) and 'theos' (Gk. god). But I agree that the term is a reactionary one. I identify with the term only in the sense that it describes how I live my life in practice. But it doesn't tell you anything else about me apart from 'without gods', and really it only defines me in terms of the delusions of others.
Ah, like trying to explain 'red' to a blind man.... Quite the delusion, huh?



I prefer terms such as 'human', and leave it to religious hobbyists to fail to convince me of the reality of their beliefs!
Because you are dumb, deaf, or blind? :think: Is it a ridicule of your prowess? Yes. Meant to be an insult? :nono: Rather there IS something wrong with you. You really need to grasp that. ANYTHING contrary is projecting, wishing upon stars, and challenging another's accurate perception. I doubt UFO's. I suppose in a sense I'm a-UFO, but not to audacity. I cannot ridicule an intelligent man on such without debasing myself. I can wonder at his/her perception but 'a' becomes 'audacious.' It means exactly that when voiced outside of my own thoughts and shared. Conversation is less intelligent when done so and at that point, it is 'my' fault. I degenerated the conversation, not the guy/gal who thinks UFO's exist. Sight unseen, "I" made the conversation ridiculous. Why? Ignorance, I've nothing to do with the conversation and as soon as I, with admittedly zero exposure, and even if I belonged to a UFO club for awhile, have nothing to offer the conversation because 'zero' is still 'my' personal experience. Pretty dumb to profess to be an expert to 'nothing.' I'm unqualified. Analogy breaks down, there aren't a lot who believe in UFO's (oddly a lot of these are atheists). The majority on the planet believe God exists.

Hitchens would correct people: although he didn't object to the term atheist he would change it to antitheist specifically. He did a lot of talking in the conditional tense, telling people that while some atheists would like it to be true that there is a god he wouldn't want it to be the Judeo-christian one for all the reasons he gave.
He was just and simply an angry and ignorant man. A person can articulate their 'nothing experience' well but it simply attempts to cloud one single issue: Their own 'nothing.' Hitchens does know now, differently and he knows his own dismal part in trying to assert a 'nothing.' It is of no intelligent sense.

I guess you will have read this in Carl Reiner's Wikipedia page: "I have a very different take on who God is. Man invented God because he needed him. God is us." He said in 2013 he developed an atheistic viewpoint as the Holocaust progressed. You might imagine from a theist point of view that he had some kind of theistic beliefs but discarded them as a failure of clear thinking on the problem of evil or somesuch, but perhaps consider it from an atheist's view: we are all born atheist and some of us (in the US and in developing countries a majority of people) take on one of the local religious memes, but then some go back to the atheistic state on thinking more clearly about it. So if we can take the above statement at face value it's pretty clear that Reiner's atheism is well thought through, and possibly knowledgeably so (atheists do tend to score higher on religious quizzes than theists). The context of his family upbringing would be a factor in how easy that process would have been, of course.
Its a dumb (ignorant) comment. We are not, in fact, all born atheist. Intelligence develops so the best you could do would be 'ignorant' not "Atheist." I also read the page in question so 'guess I need to read' is also formed in ignorance. How many ignorant assumptions do you suppose you make? When others question your intelligence, prowess becomes questionable on other discussion points. You think "others have delusions?" You might rethink that. If a good many people with reasonable if not excellent degrees and IQ's say you are wrong and you are an INCREDIBLE minority, for most of us, it at the very very least, shakes our resolve. It isn't that masses are duped, we know they are, but it is wrong to assume "the masses aren't as bright as the rest of us in this incredible minority." That's the epitome of arrogant ignorance, no matter the IQ.

Are you prepared to accept that there is a failure of logic in suggesting that atheists blame your god, when they in fact don't think there is anything there to blame?

Stuart
Interesting fact, Nope. They don't. Blame first, 'angry posturing' second. Always.

Your arrogance is stuck in ignorance, or ignorance stuck in arrogance, however you'd have it, but your assumptions are demonstrably wrong. Yeah, I can prove that, but arrogance doesn't care and I've never changed the mind of a willful (not intellectual) atheist because, and specifically, it is their preference, despite facts. No atheist, in fact, is a rational being. I note all kinds of irrationality in every conversation I've had with them. I can, in fact, prove God exists to rationally relatively intelligent people. To willful regardless of facts? :nono: That is why scripture says, without reservation, "the fool has said in his/her heart, there is no God, they are corrupt and their deeds go against their own nature (abominable)." It is very easy to weigh such statements against truth. It is either true or it is not and as simple as that. Atheists? Cloud issues, look for excuses, blame, etc. always willful, always arrogant against another despite objection "why there will be those who angrily, self-righteously 'gnash' and why others will weep. Better to fact truth now? Yes, but that isn't the choice. This isn't a hellfire sermon, it is all of consequences as well as thinking we are the masters of our own personal universe. It all flies in the face of truths. I cannot convince an arrogant blind man 'red' exists but yes, I'll try. Arrogance means that blind man semi-loves his poor condition, even as I know what eye-sight really is. "Red" isn't just a absence of other spectrums of light reflected back, it is a reality that exists despite any attempt to negate its existence or explain it away.
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
Ah, like trying to explain 'red' to a blind man.... Quite the delusion, huh?
If someone were to claim they were Jesus, then most people would categorise that person as mentally unwell, and perhaps you would agree with that. So then, is it only a cultural assumption that we can’t see claims of gods and hidden causes in exactly the same light? I don’t necessarily know which of us is the blind one, and I am prepared to accept it is me. But you haven’t yet convinced me I am. On the other hand, are you prepared to accept it is you? If not, what hope would you have of doing the convincing?

I’m not sure on what basis you think I am incapable of understanding the motivations to god belief. There is no good reason I can see to think you are right, but it would be wrong to dismiss the background to your worldview as trivial. I would start with the possibility of genetics: separated twin studies show that a tendency to very strong devotion of the kind you have expressed here before is highly heritable. And indeed if it is significantly an inherited trait then I won’t be able to experience it in the same way as you. But you are talking about explaining it, and my lack of inheritance doesn’t necessarily mean I can’t see how it works, to borrow your metaphor.

Because you are dumb, deaf, or blind? Is it a ridicule of your prowess? Yes. Meant to be an insult? Rather there IS something wrong with you. You really need to grasp that. ANYTHING contrary is projecting, wishing upon stars, and challenging another's accurate perception. I doubt UFO's. I suppose in a sense I'm a-UFO, but not to audacity. I cannot ridicule an intelligent man on such without debasing myself. I can wonder at his/her perception but 'a' becomes 'audacious.' It means exactly that when voiced outside of my own thoughts and shared. Conversation is less intelligent when done so and at that point, it is 'my' fault. I degenerated the conversation, not the guy/gal who thinks UFO's exist. Sight unseen, "I" made the conversation ridiculous. Why? Ignorance, I've nothing to do with the conversation and as soon as I, with admittedly zero exposure, and even if I belonged to a UFO club for awhile, have nothing to offer the conversation because 'zero' is still 'my' personal experience. Pretty dumb to profess to be an expert to 'nothing.' I'm unqualified. Analogy breaks down, there aren't a lot who believe in UFO's (oddly a lot of these are atheists). The majority on the planet believe God exists.
You understand that the artist isn’t necessarily the best critic of their own work. And you might consider whether the believer is the best judge of the reality of the believed dogmas. I’m not sure what I can do to be honest about what I think of god beliefs without you thinking I am ridiculing you. Perhaps your worldview is very sensitive to criticism. That is certainly the first step in the way the islamic meme defends itself. Why did you respond to my post if you can see you run the risk of this kind of discussion? Is it unfair to suggest you harbour manufactured grievances against the world? Once again I run the almost certain risk of patronising you, but my question is what is the next step in the development of your modus of relationship with the world? Am I the bogey man ripe for ranting? Or do I make a good point about the dangers of absolute belief and the reality that believing in invisible beings that made and run the entire universe is questionable, to put it mildly? The majority of people on this planet believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong.

[Hitchens] was just and simply an angry and ignorant man. A person can articulate their 'nothing experience' well but it simply attempts to cloud one single issue: Their own 'nothing.' Hitchens does know now, differently and he knows his own dismal part in trying to assert a 'nothing.' It is of no intelligent sense.
If you look on YouTube for video of the discussions between the darling of the right William F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens, it’s pretty clear that he didn’t consider Hitchens ignorant or angry, given that he invited him onto his TV show many times.

Stuu:... it's pretty clear that Reiner's atheism is well thought through, and possibly knowledgeably so (atheists do tend to score higher on religious quizzes than theists). The context of his family upbringing would be a factor in how easy that process would have been, of course.

Its a dumb (ignorant) comment.
I acknowledge your hypocrisy.

We are not, in fact, all born atheist.
In that case what god belief were you born with, and what does it say about the dogmas of your faith that other people must therefore be born with Hinduism?

You think "others have delusions?" You might rethink that. If a good many people with reasonable if not excellent degrees and IQ's say you are wrong and you are an INCREDIBLE minority, for most of us, it at the very very least, shakes our resolve. It isn't that masses are duped, we know they are, but it is wrong to assume "the masses aren't as bright as the rest of us in this incredible minority." That's the epitome of arrogant ignorance, no matter the IQ.
On average, atheists top theists by five IQ points. But intelligence is no preventative against biological viruses, and apparently neither it is prophylactic against mind viruses such as religious memes.

Your arrogance is stuck in ignorance, or ignorance stuck in arrogance, however you'd have it, but your assumptions are demonstrably wrong. Yeah, I can prove that, but arrogance doesn't care and I've never changed the mind of a willful (not intellectual) atheist because, and specifically, it is their preference, despite facts. No atheist, in fact, is a rational being. I note all kinds of irrationality in every conversation I've had with them. I can, in fact, prove God exists to rationally relatively intelligent people. To willful regardless of facts? That is why scripture says, without reservation, "the fool has said in his/her heart, there is no God, they are corrupt and their deeds go against their own nature (abominable)." It is very easy to weigh such statements against truth. It is either true or it is not and as simple as that. Atheists? Cloud issues, look for excuses, blame, etc. always willful, always arrogant against another despite objection "why there will be those who angrily, self-righteously 'gnash' and why others will weep. Better to fact truth now? Yes, but that isn't the choice. This isn't a hellfire sermon, it is all of consequences as well as thinking we are the masters of our own personal universe. It all flies in the face of truths. I cannot convince an arrogant blind man 'red' exists but yes, I'll try. Arrogance means that blind man semi-loves his poor condition, even as I know what eye-sight really is. "Red" isn't just a absence of other spectrums of light reflected back, it is a reality that exists despite any attempt to negate its existence or explain it away.
You would probably find my hobbies as tedious as I find yours.

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
If someone were to claim they were Jesus, then most people would categorise that person as mentally unwell, and perhaps you would agree with that. So then, is it only a cultural assumption that we can’t see claims of gods and hidden causes in exactly the same light? I don’t necessarily know which of us is the blind one, and I am prepared to accept it is me. But you haven’t yet convinced me I am. On the other hand, are you prepared to accept it is you? If not, what hope would you have of doing the convincing?
Equivocating erroneously. Hitchens did it too, so good company. You jump to the absurd to 'try' and pad your #'s. :nono: You can feign mass hysteria as much as you like, but you are the minority and vastly so. Worse? As I've already stated, it'd be audacious and dumb, frankly, to take my 'nothing' experience in UFO's and try to talk to convinced UFO believers. It just wouldn't be rational, however convinced I'd be in the lack (Regardless of the height of my IQ, by the numbers and absence, I'm just not that smart and I know it, the VERY thing atheists never seem to grasp about themselves. It is maddening when there might actually be some evidence of otherwise intelligence).

I’m not sure on what basis you think I am incapable of understanding the motivations to god belief. There is no good reason I can see to think you are right, but it would be wrong to dismiss the background to your worldview as trivial. I would start with the possibility of genetics: separated twin studies show that a tendency to very strong devotion of the kind you have expressed here before is highly heritable. And indeed if it is significantly an inherited trait then I won’t be able to experience it in the same way as you. But you are talking about explaining it, and my lack of inheritance doesn’t necessarily mean I can’t see how it works, to borrow your metaphor.
AGAIN padding #'s it just ISN'T rational and you should know it, regardless of how intelligent you might be. It is a ridiculous position to try and assert. Me? Somebody is answering my prayers very well, and thank you. Oh, there is a ton more than that, but somebodys aren't listening. I do not at all believe in UFO's but I certainly do not discount the possibility, let alone the possibility of evidence. It really would be the less intelligent position (and it is in the case of atheism just and exactly the same).


You understand that the artist isn’t necessarily the best critic of their own work.
:nono: "May not be" is closer to the truth. I'm a very good artist. Sorry, fact. My degree is in assessment. Look up my thread on it in the 'other' section (or on the wayback machine if it didn't make the move). I know for a fact, that you'll agree 100% on my ability because I don't diminish it or pad it. I'm 'very good.' Best? No, haven't honed my skill to that level. "Just" good? :nono: I know from years of doing this where I sit. I've won awards, have had my renderings sit in a museum, etc.

And you might consider whether the believer is the best judge of the reality of the believed dogmas.
Exactly the same. The MAJORITY believes it as well. You, sir, are the minority, regardless of how intelligent or MORE intelligent you think you are, I can assert, from the above and on this, you are wrong, because I do indeed know.

I’m not sure what I can do to be honest about what I think of god beliefs without you thinking I am ridiculing you.
True, its as audacious as trying to convince someone who saw a UFO 'he didn't see a UFO.' If one UFO is all he saw, you might have a leg to stand toe to toe with him, but audacity is trying to do so without 1) listening and 2) evaluating your own need for doubt after his 10th story of interaction. The HUGE further complication is how many of us, there actually are that 'know.' Dawkins and "God Delusion?" Audacious and ignorant, frankly, and sadly, happily so because he doesn't want 'red to exist' if 'he' cannot see it and it doesn't float his boat. Being blind, he hates even the idea of 'red' because it doesn't serve him personally and doesn't meet his expectation of its existence. Is he insane? :nono: He just is arrogant and ignorant and has become deaf as a further hindrance to his own disability.

Perhaps your worldview is very sensitive to criticism.
Just against ignorance. "Red" exists despite the denial. God exists and, as I said, I can prove it. Every atheist I talk to finally admits there is, just that they concede my points and then draw against Him being 'personal' which I can continue to prove (one proof at a time) but I'm convinced it has nothing to do much with intellect, it is a problem of desire and will and it drives one's direction into willful stances I can do nothing about. A simple question goes like this: If I can prove Jesus existed AND is God, will you believe in Him? Its very straightforward. The answer already is the end of the thread and discussion, just that fast.


That is certainly the first step in the way the islamic meme defends itself.
Again drawing from a shallow pool for a 'reason' to reject.

Why did you respond to my post if you can see you run the risk of this kind of discussion? Is it unfair to suggest you harbour manufactured grievances against the world?
State your observance and opinion. I'm open to it until it just doesn't ring true.

Once again I run the almost certain risk of patronising you, but my question is what is the next step in the development of your modus of relationship with the world? Am I the bogey man ripe for ranting? Or do I make a good point about the dangers of absolute belief and the reality that believing in invisible beings that made and run the entire universe is questionable, to put it mildly?
I already know my own intellectual prowess and am as arrogant as the next Mensa member by that token, so I don't get worked up about what another thinks about his/her own prowess and that of the crowd they want to think is intellectual.

The majority of people on this planet believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong.
Watch quiz shows. While you will find 'wrong' in a low percentage on any given point, the audience by and large is nearly always right which is why 'polling the audience' is one of the best strategies for winning. It means it proves the majority are smarter, by the numbers, on any given truth than even the fellow with the high I.Q. I generally find it is the arrogant that thinks otherwise and it is provable they are wrong.

If you look on YouTube for video of the discussions between the darling of the right William F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens, it’s pretty clear that he didn’t consider Hitchens ignorant or angry, given that he invited him onto his TV show many times.
"TV SHow," Catholic, not a theologian and on and on. Speaks for itself.

Stuu:... it's pretty clear that Reiner's atheism is well thought through, and possibly knowledgeably so (atheists do tend to score higher on religious quizzes than theists). The context of his family upbringing would be a factor in how easy that process would have been, of course.
I've seen studies contrawise. When it comes to the masses, you don't want to do statistics that pad your favor between the rest and the few in such a way that it purposefully scews the results because it isn't honest and certainly gives no comfortable room to sit couched in. This is one of those I'd purposefully rob you of, because mistruths are no place to ever sit.

I acknowledge your hypocrisy.
Name it. I'm open to mine. You? I'm as sincere as I know to be and can prove it true as we go along, if you answered "Yes, I'd become a Christian being convinced of truth." That will settle a lot of the posturing right off the bat. I know I'm uncomfortably confrontational but I need to be. "a-UFO" proponents are as audacious as I've described and certainly 'dumb' in the sense they have 'nothing' for experience contra-wise. The negative is not a platform for rebuttal. It is a platform of silence thus agnostic at best.

In that case what god belief were you born with, and what does it say about the dogmas of your faith that other people must therefore be born with Hinduism?
You are 'incorrectly' equivocating again. You are trying to make a child 'atheist' and I'm rather saying a child is not against nor purposefully ignorant of anything. It takes indoctrination to kill that off.

On average, atheists top theists by five IQ points. But intelligence is no preventative against biological viruses, and apparently neither it is prophylactic against mind viruses such as religious memes.
Don't hide behind lies. Arrogance is not I.Q. A good portion of my professors, all Christians in seminary, were either members or fit for Mensa.


You would probably find my hobbies as tedious as I find yours.

Stuart
About as bad as me heckling a stamp collector forum 'for fun' I'd imagine. I don't frequent atheist sites these days. They don't like these kinds of post. Interesting and anti-intelligent, actually, but I'm not that bad, just call spades spades, reality reality and in no mean terms. Straight, uncompromising, but I can speak to enough of you here on TOL The one hope is that one, among the membership, will stop and listen to reason past saying "you are right, I have a god, I just don't see he has to be personal like your's' and eveyr step beyond that for excuse and resistance. I'm looking forward to the day when one doesn't hide behind meaningless mantras and facades and will engage the God who exists on His terms. Until then, I can but do a little and give food for thought that may later take fruit. In Him -Lon
 

Stuu

New member
You jump to the absurd to 'try' and pad your #'s.
Not sure what this expression means.

you are the minority and vastly so.
Don’t forget that I don’t live in your country. Far from being in the minority, if you list all the christian denominations and other religions separately in my country then I am in the plurality with those with ‘no religion’. Not all of them would sign up to the word atheist, but then I have the previously mentioned reservations about that word myself.

Worse? As I've already stated, it'd be audacious and dumb, frankly, to take my 'nothing' experience in UFO's and try to talk to convinced UFO believers. It just wouldn't be rational, however convinced I'd be in the lack (Regardless of the height of my IQ, by the numbers and absence, I'm just not that smart and I know it, the VERY thing atheists never seem to grasp about themselves. It is maddening when there might actually be some evidence of otherwise intelligence).
You give up so easily.

Me? Somebody is answering my prayers very well, and thank you. Oh, there is a ton more than that, but somebodys aren't listening. I do not at all believe in UFO's but I certainly do not discount the possibility, let alone the possibility of evidence. It really would be the less intelligent position (and it is in the case of atheism just and exactly the same).
I really think you have an inappropriate analogy here. If you take the acronym on face value then there is little question that there have been flying objects that remain unidentified. Is your god like them in some way? What happens to your god during the equivalent of flying object identification? Might it be like the moment of the calling out of the Emperor’s New Clothes?

Dawkins and "God Delusion?" Audacious and ignorant, frankly, and sadly, happily so because he doesn't want 'red to exist' if 'he' cannot see it and it doesn't float his boat. Being blind, he hates even the idea of 'red' because it doesn't serve him personally and doesn't meet his expectation of its existence. Is he insane? He just is arrogant and ignorant and has become deaf as a further hindrance to his own disability.
Richard Dawkins’s life’s work is in evolutionary biology, and he has spent a fair amount of his energy on communicating for the public understanding of that field. He is one of the best writers and speakers ever to take on that challenge. Inevitably that has included taking on religious opponents of evolutionary science, which must have been like constantly batting away blowflies in a never-ending Australian summer.

Dawkins has also made a lot of money out of trashing religion. Your criticism is quite friendly compared to the real hate mail he gets from fundamentalist christians. All that seems to me to balance out nicely. The only annoying thing for the christians would be that he finds the abuse hilarious.

Audacious? He would be too reservedly British to accept the honour. Ignorant? You haven’t given a single example of that. Blind? He can explain the general principles of how eyes evolved without the need for any meddling god. Hates? It’s not him sending the abusive emails with the death threats and ear-curling language. Deaf? He would listen carefully then answer any question in a way that served it back to you doubled.

God exists and, as I said, I can prove it. Every atheist I talk to finally admits there is, just that they concede my points
Can you name two?

If I can prove Jesus existed AND is God, will you believe in Him? Its very straightforward.
If I can prove that the great Jupiter is the best of the Classical Pantheon, will you believe in him?

I already know my own intellectual prowess and am as arrogant as the next Mensa member by that token, so I don't get worked up about what another thinks about his/her own prowess and that of the crowd they want to think is intellectual.
The evidence seems to say otherwise.

Watch quiz shows. While you will find 'wrong' in a low percentage on any given point, the audience by and large is nearly always right which is why 'polling the audience' is one of the best strategies for winning. It means it proves the majority are smarter, by the numbers, on any given truth than even the fellow with the high I.Q. I generally find it is the arrogant that thinks otherwise and it is provable they are wrong.
Are you thinking of the kind of quiz which asks general knowledge questions and gives a choice of four answers? When the audience is polled and the answers are split so that 49% get it right and the three wrong answers run at 17%, 16% and 18% then the graph clearly shows that the audience got it overwhelmingly right by plurality, but still a majority got it wrong, which was my claim.

[William F. Buckley’s] "TV SHow," Catholic, not a theologian and on and on. Speaks for itself.
Have you watched any of them?

I've seen studies contrawise. When it comes to the masses, you don't want to do statistics that pad your favor between the rest and the few in such a way that it purposefully scews the results because it isn't honest and certainly gives no comfortable room to sit couched in. This is one of those I'd purposefully rob you of, because mistruths are no place to ever sit.
Huh?

Name it. I'm open to mine. You? I'm as sincere as I know to be and can prove it true as we go along, if you answered "Yes, I'd become a Christian being convinced of truth." That will settle a lot of the posturing right off the bat. I know I'm uncomfortably confrontational but I need to be. "a-UFO" proponents are as audacious as I've described and certainly 'dumb' in the sense they have 'nothing' for experience contra-wise. The negative is not a platform for rebuttal. It is a platform of silence thus agnostic at best.
I think specifically on the point of christianity, were I to become convinced that the mythologies of christianity were also historically accurate (they are so laughably unbelievable and historically untenable that I would say your workload there is going to be overwhelming) I would be unrelenting in my opposition to it on the grounds that it is an immoral proposition whether it is reality or not.

You are 'incorrectly' equivocating again. You are trying to make a child 'atheist' and I'm rather saying a child is not against nor purposefully ignorant of anything. It takes indoctrination to kill that off.
What does being against things have to do with atheism? Haven’t we dealt with the origins of ‘atheism’ already? It’s ‘a’ for without, not ‘a’ for against. A child is clearly born without gods. How could they know anything about them? What on earth do you mean by purposeful ignorance in the case of young children? What conspiracy is this of indoctrination to kill off something that doesn’t yet exist? Good grief, you are paranoid.

Don't hide behind lies. Arrogance is not I.Q. A good portion of my professors, all Christians in seminary, were either members or fit for Mensa.
[URL="https://www.independent.co.uk...-faith-instinct-cleverness-a7742766.html[/url]

Do I need to explain the concept of ‘on average’ to you? Do I need to explain what I meant by intelligence not being prophylactic to infection by religious memes?

About as bad as me heckling a stamp collector forum 'for fun' I'd imagine.
Maybe. But back at our original point of contact in this thread, what you were doing was heckling people whose hobby is not collecting stamps, telling them they shouldn’t complain about their stamps.

Straight, uncompromising
…dogmatic?

Stuart
 
Top