Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!

Dix, are you bothered by athiests? Aren't you secure enough in your Jesus worship to not care about those who don't worship your jeesus?
 
Beefy said:
Dix, are you bothered by athiests? Aren't you secure enough in your Jesus worship to not care about those who don't worship your jeesus?
Click to expand...

Atheists don't bother me, they amuse me. It's always interesting to hear from Nihilists, just to see how they're hanging. I don't worship Jesus or anything else, I respect my God, and leave the rest for him to sort out. Now, say what you will about Jesus of Nazareth, he was considerably more profound than you, or even Grind, will ever be, and look at all the technological advantages you two have! Here we are, 2000 years later, and many people still believe in what he had to say, and follow his teachings. I doubt anyone will be interested in anything you have ever posted in 2000 years, I mean you guys do good to keep a thread going 24 hrs. You're welcome to bash him all you like, it helps to further expose your denial mechanism and make my point, so I like for that to happen, to be honest.... and Jesus can handle it, he probably understands that it's essential in your transformation, so he doesn't really care. So go ahead and get it all out of your system, that is healthy for you!
 
Wickedjews said:
After the scores on the IQ test pass the 120 range it is not a good indicator of how successful a person will be. Before that, it matters a great deal.
Click to expand...

IQ tests, when properly done, can give some indicators of potential. But a true IQ test is an involved process, not a quick test given to kids before recess.
 
Dixie said:
Isn't it amazing how often you see them post their 'repudiation' of God? They spend inordinate amounts of their personal time and life, researching scriptures, developing their convoluted justifications for denouncing the belief and faith in God. It's a very revealing psychological phenomenon, they are living in abject denial. Because of the denial, they feel compelled to defend themselves, speak out on their views, have you agree with them to feed their codependent behavior. This social reassurance they glean from the masses, is very important to the Atheist, it enables them to cope with the uncertainty of what they are doing.

The one most certainly universal and unforgivable sin is the complete denunciation of God. It kinda doesn't matter what you believe in, to denounce it completely is sort of a big deal. For this reason, many Atheists will hide behind the label of "Agnostic" ...which basically means the same thing as Atheist, only an "Agnostic" is saying, they aren't quite ready to make that leap into complete denunciation of God just yet, they may have a few more questions.

It is my theory, only a very few humans do not believe in anything greater than self. Some "Atheists" are the biggest believers in God. Keep in mind, psychological denial instincts dictate, you have to convince yourself of something before you can ever convince others. Many Atheists have convinced themselves so well, they will never.... See The Light! :)

You see, one scientifically proven aspect of human behavior, is our profound connection to spirituality. It is our definitive unique quality which makes us humans, and different from our 96% DNA cousin, the chimpanzee. It's the thing that 'evolution theory' can't explain or account for, it defies the principles of Darwin because it's a trait not found in our predecessors anywhere, and it's essential to us being humans, practicing humanity, enabling civilization itself. Where did it come from? What caused this anomaly? From the unearthing of our earliest civilizations, we find evidence of spiritual belief in humans. We have this inclination hard wired into us as humans, there is nothing we can do about it... except, deny it. Some of us do choose to do that, but have you ever noticed how miserable they are? Constantly dissatisfied, frustrated, searching for something, trying to find it through indulgence and promiscuity, self-pleasure. The sad thing is, they will never find the answer there.
Click to expand...

Funny how important it is to "belivers" that everyone else also belive....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I didn't say or suggest the first.
As to the second, it has to do with the action vs consequence idea.
Liberals are always looking for a free ride. :cof1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE
Click to expand...
Want a free ride? What are you talking about? You didn't even answer my question.

So is what your saying to me is that if someone doesn't believe in God and that due to this action (or lack there of) God is going to show his love to them by having them burn in unspeakable agony forever and ever till the end of time? Just because that someone doesn't believe in him?
 
Southern Man said:
I don't care if you libtards believe or not. In fact, the more of you in hell, the more room for me in heaven...
Click to expand...

Unless you are seriously different in person than online, I doubt you will end up where you think you will.
 
Dixie said:
You have a false concept of God. Why would an omnipotent God express the human emotion of "caring" whether or not you "worship" it? Does God have feelings like a human being? You are attempting to apply humanistic criteria to a spiritual force, completely ambivalent to human emotion and need. Granted, many "religious" believers do have faith that this entity "loves" them or has "compassion" for them, but this is simply fallible human perspectives of trying to comprehend something they are compelled to have faith in.

Let me throw you Anti-Christians a bone here to chew on... I said earlier that most Atheists are living in abject denial, but it is also true that a good many Christians live in denial as well. They just happen to mask their denial with the professions of belief in Christianity, and use the Scriptures to support their denial in a different way. Many tenants of religion are mechanisms of denial, and serve to mask what is truly in one's heart and mind.
Click to expand...
So your saying this "ambivalent God" doesn't love me? :cry:
 
Ice Dancer said:
THE METAPHYSICAL
PLANE EXISTS

...a most logical proof



So how do we know the metaphysical world exists? We can prove it. It is a simple matter to logically establish its existence. We simply use that tried and true logical proof, the Greek syllogism, as the core to establishing our thesis.

Proposition A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound. This is an enormously important statement as it is the foundation of all rational thought and the scientific revolution which emerged out of the so-called Age of Enlightenment in Western Europe some 300 years ago.

The entire corpus of Western scientific research and technology stands on this assumption. Any man or woman of science will immediately nod their head in agreement with this. Without this axiom of material existence, the person of science will tell you, the world would descend back into cesspool of ignorance and superstition such as the Middle Ages. Indeed, it is precisely because of this axiom that science and rational thought was able to lift Western society out of the pig stye of Medieval sorcery, fear, and ignorance.

Proposition B: The human mind exists. To be glib, if the human mind doesn't exist, then what is reading this web page? Here we have a variation of Rene Descartes' famous delineation of subjective idealism, cogito ergo sum, one of the few unchallengeable statements of existence known. Note that the existence of the human mind is a very separate proposition from an assertion that the human mind is being used wisely. I know better than to get into that one. I only state the mind exists.

We are now ready to construct our devastatingly logical syllogism:


A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.

B: The human mind exists.

C: Therefore, the human mind can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.



So here we have our ice-cold logical conclusion, that the human mind is definable by the five senses. Well, since it has been proved logically (and all of us here are logical, correct?) that the mind is definable by the five senses, let's see if we can do it.



Can we define the human mind by touch?

So what does the mind feel like when you rub it between your fingers? Smooth? Rough? Slippery? Hot? Cold? Oh, my, we're trouble with touch.



Can we define the human mind by sound?

I wanna buy the CD and crank it up on the stereo until the neighbours complain. No CD? Oops, we're in trouble again.



Can we define the human mind by sight?

Kewl. Where can I rent the video? Or is this a midnight screening at the local repertory movie house? No can do? This one isn't working, so we are in trouble with seeing the mind.

Can we define the human mind by taste?

I dunno about you, but I've never seen a Mindburger for sale at McDonalds, even at regular price. We're in trouble on this taste thing with the mind.

Can we define the human mind by smell?

"Ah, mon cheri, how I love the sweet smell of Mind Perfume wafting to my eager throbbing nostrils." M-m-m-m-m......I don't think I'll ever get laid with that line. We're in trouble with the smell of mind, too.



In fact we are in very big trouble. Our ice-cold logical syllogism just collapsed around us. We know all things which exist can be defined by the five senses. We know the mind exists. But we are unable to define the mind in terms of any of the five senses. We can show what the mind does, but showing what the mind does, unfortunately, does not define what the mind is. Our logical conclusion, then, becomes illogical, OR, one of our initial two propositions is wrong.

Maybe it's time to look at those two propositions again. No one yet has refuted cogito ergo sum, and it hasn't been for lack of effort by some very skilled mental (ironic isn't it?) activity by highly skilled philosophical and academic personnel. So we know the mind exists.

That leaves us with the logical conclusion that the other proposition is in error, the proposition about defining all existence with the five senses. It seems we have found something which exists which can NOT be defined by the five senses.

So the logical conclusion is that if we have found one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses, then we must conclude there may be more than one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses. Logically, it cannot be proven that there are no other things besides the mind which also exist and also cannot be defined by the five senses. Attempting to logically prove such a negation, in layperson's terms, is a mug's game.

So what we are left with here is that there seem to be two categories of existence:



1. Those things which can be defined by the five senses; and

2. Those things which cannot be defined by the five senses.



Somewhere along the line, long before I was born, these two categories were given names:


1. Physical plane: All things which exist and can be defined in terms of the five senses.

2. Metaphysical plane: All things which exist and cannot be defined in terms of the five senses.

Isn't logic wonderful?
Click to expand...
Uhhh using logic to prove the metaphysical exists makes about as much sense as using faith to explain a ham sandwhich.
 
Dixie said:
Excellent post, ID! You nailed it!
Click to expand...
Nailed it? It's rhetorical nonsense. She just used logic, very poorly I might add, to prove the unprovable. Am I not the only person here who see's something wrong here? LOL

Look, alls you need to do is find one false premise that the authors covoluted reasoning is based upon and the whole house of cards comes falling down. One such false premise exists in the authors opening statement in proposition A.

"Proposition A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound. This is an enormously important statement as it is the foundation of all rational thought and the scientific revolution which emerged out of the so-called Age of Enlightenment in Western Europe some 300 years ago."

This is not only a false premise it borders on a lie. First science and rationalism makes no such claim as the author posits. Second, we know factually that all things which exist cannot be defined in terms of our 5 senses. We cannot define the following in terms of our senses, they must be inferred. An atom, an electron, the nucleus of an atom, the wave/particle nature of light and electrons, genetics, chemical reactions, the property of gasses, quantum elctrodynamics, aerodynamics, etc, etc,ad nuseum.

The authors whole argument is based on this premise of proposition A. If you demonstrate, as I just easily did, that proposition A is false, the authors entire argument collapses.
 
Last edited:
X-rays are metaphysical?

If you used the above "logic" there are many things that science has explained that would suddenly become metaphysical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top