I Am An Atheist

Lincoln98: You claimed that: "No one created God. He is eternal; He has no beginning and has no end" is a truthful statement.

I then pointed out that if it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed (and that such a claim has the advantage of being simpler).

It gives your claim not one iota of support that you chose not to make a different claim. What matters is the claim that you did, in fact, make, and I have pointed out to you that there is (at least) one other claim that is equally valid.

If you are going to say "No one created God. He is eternal; He has no beginning and has no end", and claim that to be truthful, then you need to support your claim. It is a mere tautology to say that your claim is true because any other claim would be a lie.

_______________________

You seem to conflate the application of reason with dishonesty, but the implied slur leaves me unmoved:
You may charge me with murder or want of sense
(We are all of us weak at times):
But the slightest approach to a false pretence
Was never among my crimes!
(From ‘The Hunting of the Snark’ by Lewis Carroll)

Your profile says that you are quite young, so perhaps you will accept a word of advice from me… avoid the temptation to engage in ad hominem attacks. Such tactics merely weaken your position.

In like vein, it does not help to depict yourself as a victim of imagined injustice. I have not supposed either hypocrisy or self-contradiction on your part, nor have I accused you of either, nor have I accused you of not being able to explain the origin of your god (that being irrelevant to our discussion).

_______________________

“... you ascribe the universe to creation”. You are mistaken.

“We know how perfectly set up the universe is…”. Perfectly set up for what? Perfectly set up by what?

“... your acknowledgement of it is that it is just a random event…”. I really cannot see where I have either suggested or even discussed that proposition.

Perhaps you will allow a final piece of advice? Putting words into someone’s mouth does not in any way advance your position. While I am always more than happy to discuss what I have said, I have no interest in discussing what you wish I had said.

_______________________

“the probability of something occurring equals one, with the chance of either of 2 events occurring equalling 0.5”

Probability lies between (note: between) 0 and 1. If the probability of an event occurring equals either 0 or 1, then probability no longer applies.
For two events to share a 0.5 probability, they need to be mutually exclusive, and the circumstances surrounding each event need to be identical.
For example, I love playing tennis (Wimbledon starts next month… yay!), If I played against Maria Sharapova, one of us would win (mutually exclusive), but nobody would give me a 50% chance of winning.
One further example: It is autumn here, and a cold front will arrive on Friday morning. At 3 o’clock on Friday afternoon it will either be raining, or it will not be raining (mutually exclusive events). It dos not follow that there is a 50% probability of rain at 3 o’clock on Friday.

I have said all this because you seem to be trying to make some or other point about probability… although I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify that for me?

You seem to be saying that our universe exhibits perfection… but I am not sure how you are arriving at that position. Perfection against which criteria? What would an imperfect universe look like? If another universe were different, then why would we assume that our universe is the measure of perfection? Why not assume that of the other (different) universe?

Further, you seem to be saying that the universe occurred spontaneously, but again I am not sure how you are arriving at that position. After all, we began this discussion with the observation that if it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed, and there would seem to be no need to postulate spontaneity for something that had always existed (indeed, it would be incoherent to do so)

The observation that “If it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed” carries with it no suggestion of pantheism. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive, and in any event the characteristics of one need not be conferred onto the other.

Frosty Flower-

Even you have said it yourself -"shame" - and how is shame derived? Dictionary.com : the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another
Upon having knowledge of your WRONG, you feel shame; also, upon having knowledge of his WRONG, being scolded by an adult, the child who has done wrong feels shame. The rebellious/nonchalant child is the one who refuses to own up to his wrong act(s) and do correction.

Christianity did not control you with fear and shame; this is proof even; only one who has committed a wrong act Can identify shame. If one is guiltless of a wrong act, shame would not strike that person (undeniable fact. For example; people falsely accused of an act will nor feel shame for the act they have been accused of, because they performed no such acts & therefore, their conscience is clean. If you have been falsely accused before, then you should understand this.)
It is you who, despite the bland realisation of your wrong doing(s), decided to not acknowledge and amend your errors instead. Pride, that is what it is called.

Again, Christianity did not control you & controls no one. When one is told of the penalty of a wrong doing, the guilty one feels fear. When the judge make his verdict, the criminal is filled with fear and sorrow of what he is soon to face; when a parent promises to seize a child's Playstation except He were to turn a new leaf, he is immediately filled with fear and then humbles himself. Same also, the Christian; we tell you that no sin will go unpunished, as Hell will be the end place for all who choose to live in sin, rejecting salvation in Christ. It is no threat, it is a warning - and one out of love - that might not end up in that place of anguish. It is no different from the "check both sides of the road before you cross" warning. Why? Because if you do not check both sides of the road, you'd get run over by a vehicle and most likely die.
.


You have been at peace; of course, you have been at peace! You have spread your tents in worldly peace.
When a thief commits his first crime, he is seared by his conscience; the thief with a hard heart - just as the rebellious/nonchalant child - is the one who does not accept acknowledge his act for the evil doing it is but rather carries on and on till, at last!, the conscience is made mute on that matter (or on all matters even).

.

And what is good? What us your definition of good? Or does an exploiter not consider his works as good before his eyes? And a person should says a 'white lie'? And one who envies another? Do all these ones, and many, not count themselves as good, despite homing wrong things? And would you say yourself different?
And also, if you do good only for the sake that it might benefit you, and not solely from the fulness of your heart, then what true profit is in that?

.

Now let us not dwell in deceit. It is you who has not sat yourself to read well the words of these prophets and prophecies, & that of the deceivers, comparing them. Your ultimate decision was/is complacency ('hanging in the fence'). Willful ignorance is no excuse in matter. And you even further testify against yourself, because the prophecies stated in the Bible - chronologically lined till our present day even - have come to (& are coming to) pass and this even has been asserted as so.
The noted observations and ascertainment are on the web if you need to verify this yourself. And whilst you're at it, do yourself the favour and search up whatever prophecy stated in other religions came to or/and is coming to pass, seeing that you hold God as implausible.


I hope you fair well! Enjoying the summer, yes? Quite warming (pun intended). Haha! God bless you, FROSTY. You never know, you just might MELT (another pun definitely intended. Haha. Laughter is a great medicine after all). You have a lovely day

Ma'am, If such a thought - as to expurgate - was what I had in mind, then I would have taken the most common route of merely deleting our conversation, or the thread as a whole, rather than leaving replies still. I suppose you can agree with me on that.

.


I ask that you please forgive my act of rudeness performed earlier on, ma'am; I had no awareness of this then, now my folly has been made known. From the beginning of our dialogue till before my previous reply, I have regarded you with respect - even now - but in the use of the words "major smh" and capitalization of some certain words, I have shown utter contempt. Please, do forgive my folly. I am sorry.

.

God is spirit - invisible to the naked eye but as plain as day to the eyes of the hearts of those who whole-heartedly seek Him - He would be made fully manifest to us but sin separates us from Him, and for that reason Christ came, laying His life on the cross, that whomever repents of his/her sins, believing in Him, might come to be saved from the judgement for (homing) sin, being bought into His righteousness, and to also come to know God, having a relationship with Him as Father & Child - just as originally intended.
Though sin separates us from God, He is still made known to us via creation & the conscience - seeing the marvel (in complexity) of everything and the presence of a struggle of 'right-or-wrong'/the conscience in us.  In acknowledging this, one then feels driven to seek out this unknown creator & the person who whole-heartedly does, finds Him - surely He said, "whomever seeks Him out whole-heartedly will find Him; He will reveal Himself unto such a one."
We - Christians - are affirmed in our faith because we know God. We have believed in the Gospel of Christ, and the Spirit of God, who dwells in us, working daily in us, by strenghtening us in faith & in the battling of our flesh(ly desires)/carnality.

Religion has a 'feel good' factor but not Christianity. Christians are made new in heart and mind - the change is wholly felt even - and walk in the Spirit - and He is felt in us indeed. Ask people who follow religion if they feel the same as we do - outside of their temples and shrines/gatherings even - and you will receive NOs; and that is because they are grounded on false hope and their walks is just to follow practices and traditions; no sovereign entity is realised in them.

God is spirit, ma'am; He cannot be discovered by man's common method of 'discovery by the use of either of the 5 senses'. To find Him is to search with the heart. You have said to prove to you God and here, I have shown you part, the other half lays on your path. If bias is not in you, and your claim is true, you will search Him out and I assure you you will find Him, and then you will see for yourself how it is that I told you truth all while.
Consider this even, ma'am; in order that man was able to discover the unseen - for example, gravitational waves - he deviated from his common method of 'discovery by the 5 senses'. Before gravity was realised, man assured himself that surely there is something causing the feet to be grounded & keeping the earth from falling, and then he discovered this thing, and not even by his 5 senses but mechanical devices. He deviated from the use of 'discovery by 5 senses' to find, for if he hadn't, he would not have found. Same is akin to finding God - only that in this case, an impartial heart is in place of the 5 senses here.

Those who say that, "No! Because with my eyes, I have not seen Him, and neither by mine ears have I heard Him, there is no god, so unless otherwise, there is no god!", are hypocrites in themselves, in that they sanction the spatial discoveries of man, which was not even firslty realised by the 5 senses, but first by assurance in its existence - even though then unseen - and second by realisation of its existence by use of mechanical devices (e.g infrared telescopes and optical telescopes)

You keep saying "profitable to the soul." My mind is at peace. When I believed in a god and a soul and a savior and a heaven and hell, I was not at peace, because religion seeks to control through shame and fear. I live my life as a good person because it doesn't benefit me, nor those I care about, for me to not be a good person. If your faith (of the many that claim to be the only correct one) is correct, and judgement day comes for me, then I will stand before your god and tell him his prophets and prophecies were no more convincing than the deceivers, and rather than waste my energy and my life dedicated to pleasing the wrong god, I chose to please no god, but live to be kind and make the world a better place.

What is the just measure of a dishonest individual, ma'am; one who would go whatever lengths so as to come out victor? ....
I shall leave your conscience to that.

Or maybe you wrote from having not noticed. If that be the case, then come to realise it now, ma'am; you missed a major part of the text, and from that, have supposed that I perform hypocrisy/contradict myself knowingly/claim God has no origin & yet claim also that I do not know how to explain His origin (indirectly stating then that He does have an origin) - please do read the text again, patiently.

Now, let us review the text.
""...on and on and on, we would continue, until we shall both die" is part of the "And if I chose to lie to you instead, saying 'yes, God was created'..." body. Before that comes, "...you have asked, 'who created God', and I have answered you truthfully..."
Do you see now, ma'am, that the excerpt quoted by you is laid under the grounds of if I were to choose to speak a lie instead. That is what you missed, dear ma'am. Now you see I did not contradict myself. God has no beginning and end; He is the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end.

I have come to a conclusion that you ascribe the universe to creation; but your own grounds of creation is more of a 'happened-by-chance' event rather than a work-of-a-creator. (Do correct me if I am mistaken).
We know how perfectly set up the universe is - all that is in it - but your acknowledgement of it is that it is just a random event...happened by chance. We humans know that the probability of something occurring equals one, with the chance of either of 2 events occurring equalling 0.5 each;and moreover, we know that the chance of perfection occurring - let alone it occuring SPONTANEOUSLY - is FAR LESS THAN 0.5. Let us reason.

.


You made the statement, "If it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed."; which in itself implies then that the universe is god, which in itself is pantheism. I assumed that was what you meant.

Gratitude

Major smh.

You, my dear ma'am, are in your late forties - if not your early fifties - and ought to be well aware that the word 'ignorant' is EITHER of a descriptive and insulting word, and not just an insulting word, as termed by the majority today. Same also applies to the words 'imbecile', 'bastard', 'handicapped', and many more.
(Again, MAJOR smh)

Decades ago - your teen years or even younger than that - the word 'ignorant' - & its affiliating words - was addressed most as a descriptive term than as a derogatory term, but as time flew, the scales were switched, in that 'ignorant' is now regarded to mostly as a slur than description; but nonetheless, it still is held by BOTH definitions.

FOR EXAMPLE
"Junior hit Sasha upon opening the door. He was ignorant of her standing behind it; he had no knowledge of this". As you see there, ma'am, the word 'ignorant' is used in stating that Junior did not know that Sasha was behind the door, NOT AS AN INSULT TO HIM (OR HIS INTELLECT)

"You mundane individual of lowest than low standards; ignorant buffoon!". Now in that, my dear ma'am, the word 'ignorant' is used as an insult.

I hope you've come to understand the difference. To define a word such as 'ignorant', as to whether it is used for debasing purposes or not, the context of the write-up/text body surrounding it is to be referred to.

.

What you suppose is my failure to refute your observation is actually a personal decision to not continue this dialogue of a 'dog-tail cycle' anymore. It is quite evident - your bias, favoritism, and close - mindedness (AND THAT IS NO INSULTING YOU, AS YOU HAVE COME TO THINK AGAIN THAT I HAVE) - but you object to it. I shall leave you to your peace.

Also, ma'am, do come to know this; I would never direspect you - nor everyone even. If I were to ever do such, I would do well to apologise upon realising I did do so. If I can not love my fellow person, it would be falsity from me to claim to love Christ & to have the love of Christ in me. I am nome of such.

God bless you,ma'am. Take care.

Your inability to explain the origins of your god are merely yet another topic which you surround in verbiage before avoiding any further discussion of it.


"not even by his 5 senses but mechanical devices"
Such as reading glasses and hearing aids... which are supplementary to, but not replacements for, the senses.

"...an impartial heart is in place of the 5 senses here"
yet it cannot be a substitute for empirical evidence.

Physical matters are grounded in physical reality.
Spiritual matters are grounded in nothing at all.

And this unseen audience, which you say you address... are they collectively called ma'am?
or do you identify as a part of them, addressing them as 'we'?
“We know how perfectly set up the universe is…”. Perfectly set up for what? Perfectly set up by what?(and you never did address my questions... should I add them to the list?).

“... your acknowledgement of it is that it is just a random event…”. Did this unseen audience collectively make a claim to you about a random event?

In most circumstances, words are used to clarify.
For other purposes, words are used to obfuscate.

if you feel the need to expurgate your comments, then go ahead... it is of no concern to me, and irrelevant to the thrust of our discussion.

"The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons"
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)

The fact remains that the claim you made about your god remains arbitrary and unsupported, and no more likely to be true than is some other explanation... therefore it explains nothing, and instead merely seeks to explain away a fatal difficulty.

You stated that I "acknowledge" my "inability to explain the origins of" God; it is without doubt that such a statement subtly requests its counter.

Yes, I have shown you part; it is written boldly to you, ma'am. You do not accept it as substantial because it is not the answer you seek, and yet I have made implied to you, the way of the answer you seek is not the way at all. I have written to you.
.
Of course, gravity and gravitational waves are different, ma'am. I kept these in two different sentences even.
And yes, we are actually not firmly grounded, and the earth is falling towards the sun, and it is good that one has knowledge of this. However, do come to realise that though you alone are whom I converse with on this thread, the eyes of others fall upon, and surely not every of these persons has knowledge of this. I cannot come to bring about confusion but rather put them into consideration, writing to simplicity.
.
"Are you saying that people who wear glasses are not using their eyes? Do you feel that people who wear hearing aids are not using their ears?"; I do not seem to get your point.

"How much confidence would you feel in an optometrist who suggested that an ‘impartial heart’ would correct your vision?"; how do you conclude to use that as example? Physical matters and spiritual matters are two different things, just as day and night are.
.
Realise ma'am that I wrote "Those", meaning it is in reference to not just 1 person but numbers of people/not specifically to one individual. I have put no words in your mouth.

No insult did I send towards your gates & neither did I place words on your lips. With all due respect, ma'am, do well to read well. Cite what I wrote; "What is the just measure of a dishonest individual, ma'am; one who would go whatever lengths so as to come out victor? ....
I shall leave your conscience to that." I, because of your response before that, accused you of dishonesty; however, your response cannot/should not be penned as that of dishonest words because - even the average man would realise this - it is quite evident that there is a side on the 'panel of reasons' other than dishonesty -ignorance - it was most probable that was the case, which is why I wrote immediately after that, "
Or maybe you wrote from having not noticed.", explaining further.

One who insults/makes an attack does not at the end of his/her debasing utterances say "...I leave your conscience to it." Surely there I'd no sense in that.

Cite also this; ". (DO CORRECT ME IF I AM MISTAKEN)".
You see now that I did not place words on your lips, I did not make a closed conclusion. From deducing waa how I arrived to that conclusion but because I knew also that my deductions could also be totally wrong, I acted right by stating that you please say me otherwise if I had spoken wrong.

I would not speak falsely against you; do well, dear ma'am. You take care

Lincoln98:

“You have said to prove to you God…”
I have done no such thing.
“I have shown you part…”
You have done no such thing

Gravitational waves are not the same thing as gravity.

“...something causing the feet to be grounded & keeping the earth from falling…”
In fact, your feet are not grounded, and the Earth is falling towards the Sun

Are you saying that people who wear glasses are not using their eyes? Do you feel that people who wear hearing aids are not using their ears?
How much confidence would you feel in an optometrist who suggested that an ‘impartial heart’ would correct your vision?

“Those who say that, "No! Because with my eyes, I have not seen Him, and neither by mine ears have I heard Him, there is no god, so unless that be so, there is no god"”
I haven’t said that, and nor do I feel the need to do so.

"No one created God. He is eternal; He has no beginning and has no end" - how could somebody know this?

And exactly which definition of "God"are we using here? Christianity's version? Which particular sect of Christianity - yours or somebody else's?

I have lots of questions.

VSonMe, Lincoln98 apparently feels that purple prose lends his claims gravitas and validity, but it's a loan that has to be repaid, and even the most cursory examination of his claims reveals their underlying bankruptcy.

...and I encourage you to provide support for your arbitrary and unnecessary claims about the existence of magical entities.

As you have so far failed to do so, then I simply encourage you to think.

@Lincoln Why do you use such a contrived writing style? Is it an imitation of how you suppose Lincoln might have written or do you think it gives an air of gravitas to your vapid thoughts?

Yes, you acknowledge your inability to explain the origins of your god ("...on and on and on, we would continue, until we shall both die"). That acknowledgement was consequential to your initial claim that your god had no beginning, from which it follows, as I have said, that it would be equally valid to make the same claim for the universe... such a claim having the advantage of being simpler.

In what way would that involve pantheism? I'm not proposing that anyone worship the universe... I'm simply pointing out that one unsupported claim is as (in)valid as any other unsupported claim.

Acknowledging? Your accusation is hefty indeed, ma'am; do well to tread slow.

And in what way is that even correlative? You have come to suppose then that the universe is God? Let me bring to your knowledge, ma'am, that Christianity and pantheism are as different and not - similar as light is to darkness. Therefore, the universe is dependent on the eternal being, God, because the former is the creation whilst the latter is the creator. You are a person of wisdom yourself, ma'am; it takes not an Einstein to know that the creator IS, before the creation.

All this from pretending to know what you do not know.
How can there be "wrong knowledge". If you are wrong, then you don't know, do you?

So, you accuse me of dishonesty, and then suggest that perhaps I am ignorant rather than dishonest, and you follow all that with a disclaimer that you did not insult me?

All that remains, after we sweep away such overblown, inconsequential pap, is your failure to refute my observation that if it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed.

Lincoln98, after acknowledging that you are unable to explain the origins of your god, you go on to make the unsupported claim that your god has always existed.

If it were in any way valid to claim that your god has always existed, then it would be equally valid to claim that the universe has always existed.

Hello! Indeed yes... both Burke and Bronowski are icons of my childhood, although when I first watched them I was barely aware of the import behind what they were saying. I do know, however, that they came into our home as soon as it became possible to own copies.

Were you as fortunate?

In saying "wrong knowledge", I do not mean it in 'definition-wise' (or how viable it is), but rather, how useful it is; that is why it is followed by "...in that only one is profitable for the soul."

@Lincoln98 It sounds like you've been listening to Clay Jenkinson. The annoying pomposity though doesn't hide the fact that your arguments are utter bollocks.

Lincoln98, you use the phrase "profitable for the soul", but of course this merely begs the question, because you need to first demonstrate the existence of souls.

Hi janine. did you ever watch the James Burke series "Connnections" or "Day The Universe Changed". I love those - and "The Ascent of Man" by Bronowski.

VSonMe-

I do not know who Clay Jenkinson is, sir.

.

I am sorry you've come to think me as one full of himself; with all due respect, I am not.

.

Alright, sir.

I stumbled upon a site yesternight, I encourage you to read it's content: http://www.everystudent.com/features/connecting.html

Much love,
Lincoln.

Hi janine. Yes. I've always enjoyed BBC documentaries and have those and more on VHS and/or DVD.

How can you teach a blind man to see just as you see?

I hope you all fair well. Do have a lovely day.