Theist or Atheist?

[Rotwang]

It is a big shame one user, which was a friend of mine, is not here. I don`t have the words and energy to argue properly, he on the other hand would finally make an end to such ignorant commends of yours

No he wouldn't. Feathers has the debating skills of a thirteen-year-old.

 

Heres a nice little bit I stumbled upon.

Joseph Atwill is a crank. See, for example, here and here (both of those articles are written by atheists who don't believe that a historical Jesus existed, by the way). Acharya S, Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey are also cranks, in case you were wondering.

 

check mate?

Nope. But the willingness of people to uncritically spread the work of people like Atwill is pretty conclusive evidence that the religious don't have a monopoly on gullibility.

[Padmapani]

If you want fucking proove, go vist fucking youtube.

 

 

I am wondering why I argue with such reallity addicts as you at all. Such ignorant people that think what science has said, is the real truth. You are not any better than people, who claimed the earth is the center of the universe.

of course we all know that youtube is the best source of knowledge.

take this example:

wonderful how it proves the existance of a creator god, ain't it?

 

 

we're not better than the people who claimed that that the earth is the center of the universe? radi, please stop using this pitiful excuse for an argument. especially in this context where you defend your theist believes against science. the claim originates from the bible and was disproven by science (it took the church hundreds of years to acknowledge this fact!). you might want to look up nephilimfree on youtube. he's a strong defender of theism and because it's written in the bible he does believe that the earth is the center of the universe. he also says that the craters on the moon are due to "water ejected from inside the earth at supersonic speed during noah's flood and forming ice meteors that subsequently hit the moon". but hey, he posts the whole thing on youtube, which according to you is an excellent source of information, so according to your logic he must be right.

[radi6404]

It depents what you are watching. Videos on youtube can be informative or senceless, it depents which videos you are watching. The video I talked about was a vdeio originating for am sciensce documentary from a serious TV channel.

 

The ideas here in this forum, denying everything that is connected to god are indeed not much better than the example of earth being the center of the universe. Research is important and answers many things, which become defined, but it is anything but intelligent and logican to question everything that is not defined. Arguing that a god does not exist or that telepathy is not possible is not intelligent, when people take a strong position to one site, without supporting evidence for it. It is quite funny how all atheists here or on other places and all "scientists" ignore the evidence that shows, they could be wrong. Some scientists suggest a theory and only deliver the evidence that is supporting their theories, not including the evidence that disprooves them. For example people say NDE´s originate from the brain and explain how it works, but don´t deal with facts, that blind people could see and describe things in a room or people who coud go to other places outside the room.

 

Also with telepathy, scientists explain how telepathy can´t be possible but don`t deal with the events that happened in the past and showed, how some people were able to notice things with remote viewing.

 

Some users in this thread do that aswell and I am wondering, why I am at all bothering talking here. It is not possible to have reasonable argumentation about a topic, when some people show only supportive evidence for their theories and when they are shown something supporting a diferent theory, they simply ignore it.

 

@Rotwnag

Feathers had great argumentative skills and had the ability to upset people and aktually make them respond. This is a big step, since many people here just ignore others, who are in the way of them, but he managed to make others want to answer, because they were affraid their theories would fall together like a bilding constructed with cards.

[ouroboros]

 

It depents what you are watching. Videos on youtube can be informative or senceless, it depents which videos you are watching. The video I talked about was a vdeio originating for am sciensce documentary from a serious TV channel.

The ideas here in this forum, denying everything that is connected to god are indeed not much better than the example of earth being the center of the universe. Research is important and answers many things, which become defined, but it is anything but intelligent and logican to question everything that is not defined. Arguing that a god does not exist or that telepathy is not possible is not intelligent, when people take a strong position to one site, without supporting evidence for it. It is quite funny how all atheists here or on other places and all "scientists" ignore the evidence that shows, they could be wrong. Some scientists suggest a theory and only deliver the evidence that is supporting their theories, not including the evidence that disprooves them. For example people say NDE´s originate from the brain and explain how it works, but don´t deal with facts, that blind people could see and describe things in a room or people who coud go to other places outside the room.

Also with telepathy, scientists explain how telepathy can´t be possible but don`t deal with the events that happened in the past and showed, how some people were able to notice things with remote viewing.

Some users in this thread do that aswell and I am wondering, why I am at all bothering talking here. It is not possible to have reasonable argumentation about a topic, when some people show only supportive evidence for their theories and when they are shown something supporting a diferent theory, they simply ignore it.

@Rotwnag
Feathers had great argumentative skills and had the ability to upset people and aktually make them respond. This is a big step, since many people here just ignore others, who are in the way of them, but he managed to make others want to answer, because they were affraid their theories would fall together like a bilding constructed with cards.

"denying everything that is connected to god"...

 

such as?

 

"Also with telepathy, scientists explain how telepathy can´t be possible but don`t deal with the events that happened in the past and showed, how some people were able to notice things with remote viewing."

 

there are exactly zero instances of proven remote viewing.

[Rotwang]

@Rotwnag

Feathers had great argumentative skills and had the ability to upset people and aktually make them respond.

That's not great argumentative skills. That's great trolling skills.

 

he managed to make others want to answer,

Yes.

 

because they were affraid their theories would fall together like a bilding constructed with cards.

Haha, no.

[Panoptes]

Joseph Atwill is a crank. See, for example, here and here (both of those articles are written by atheists who don't believe that a historical Jesus existed, by the way). Acharya S, Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey are also cranks, in case you were wondering.

Nope. But the willingness of people to uncritically spread the work of people like Atwill is pretty conclusive evidence that the religious don't have a monopoly on gullibility.

Funny guy eh. To my defense I did just stumble upon this randomly and I feel no obligation to defend it. You should consider holding back the snobby attitude and offer an alternative.

[angular_sound]

padmapani#56 : "sources please. as a molecular biologist with quite a bit of background in evolution, i have never heard about such a thing, and i'm obviously interested."

 

Ouroboros#59 : "yeah id like to hear about that as well. as far as i understand, there arent any "gaps", and the differences are mostly related to regular plain old genes that one species has and the other does not. nothing "alien" or "bizarre looking" about them at all."

 

I decided to ask Kyle as i have no specific knowledge in the field. Here's what he answered :

 

"I got most of this information from reading forum postings by paranormal and conspiracy theory people, and I've never tried to find scientific evidence to elaborate on it, simply beause I don't have enough technical knowedgle of modern genetic to understand the relevant explanatins even if I could find them. However, my Guides say that there is indeed state-of-the-art genetic information that tends to back up the "astral template" theory of guided evolution described in WiH, and this it will probably start surfacing on sites devoted to discussion of genetics and evoltions intended for people without expert knowledge in the field."

 

I then asked more specifically :

 

angular sound : "If these informations are going to be available to a larger audience, how would someone interested and with knowledge in the field never have heard of it ? is this just the obvious scientific establishment and educational programs evading any ideas leading to extra terrestrial implications ?

 

"sources please. as a molecular biologist with quite a bit of background in evolution, i have never heard about such a thing, and i'm obviously interested.""

 

Kyle : "It looks to me like the same scientistic viewpoints that reject religious creationism automatically exclude any kind of ET guidance of the evolutionary process as well. And IMO, just because the guy's interested in these "wild ideas" when he hears about them doesn't mean that his mind is open to the evidence that generates them when he comes across it in his scientific reading."

 

 

Oopie#60 : "I find it there's no such language as of yet that would, without a doubt, prove gods existence or vice versa. Having a spiritual view for life doesn't acquire high degree of intelligence or book smarts, it's a perception or insight that goes deeper than logical mind can grasp. This insight is an experience, and cannot be automated thru logical means only."

 

Yes i fully agree. "calling the nature of the Divine" is as much a matter of subjective personality and tastes as a matter of cosmological "logic".

[Rotwang]

You should consider holding back the snobby attitude

Perhaps you should tell that to the guy who wrote this:

 

Yes of course youtube is a credible source.

and offer an alternative.

Huh? I did offer an alternative, two historians who are relatively¹ reputable.

 

¹ Relative to Atwill, that is.

[Panoptes]

Perhaps you should tell that to the guy who wrote this:

 

 

 

Huh? I did offer an alternative, two historians who are relatively¹ reputable.

 

¹ Relative to Atwill, that is.

my sarcasm isn't nearly as malicious. Also I'm in the process of reading the first article

[Rotwang]

my sarcasm isn't nearly as malicious.

How so?

[Panoptes]

Since you really care. I feel sorry for radi so I try not to be mean to him.

[Panoptes]

Also when I asked for an alternative I meant to ask what your view is of what truly happened.

[Rotwang]

Since you really care. I feel sorry for radi so I try not to be mean to him.

Perhaps you could point out how your trying not to be mean to Radi manifests itself, because I can't see it. Why is pointing out that someone's source has no credibility malicious when I do it to you, but not when you do it to Radi?

[Panoptes]

I have no issues with your pointing out a youtube video's lack of credibility . I do try to avoid confirmation bias, I'm glad you showed me those articles. Its a matter of tone and I guess I held you, as an admin, to a higher standard.

[Rotwang]

Also when I asked for an alternative I meant to ask what your view is of what truly happened.

I don't know, I'm not a Biblical scholar. As far as I know the majority opinion is that Mark's Gospel was written sometime around 60-70 AD, and that those of Matthew and Luke were written shortly after; the latter two used Mark as a source and also a lost document known as Q. John's was written in the late first or early second century. I know of no reason to doubt that the authors sincerely believed what they wrote.

[Panoptes]

I'm no biblical scholar either, however I was raised Roman Catholic and have a first hand experience of faith in god etc.. You're very eager to disprove anything not supporting your worldview. You seem clever enough yet when it comes down to it you're a baptist and your type is notorious for dogmatic beliefs. I have no intention of swaying your worldview or anything, but going around calling things baseless while (even though that one video may have been) believing in this load of lunacy is some what ironic.

[Rotwang]

You're very eager to disprove anything not supporting your worldview.

Truly bizarre. I'm the guy who's spent part of this thread arguing against things that support my worldview (e.g. #26). You're the guy who mocked someone for posting a crackpot Youtube video to support his case, and then posted a crackpot Youtube video to support your case two hours later. But apparently I'm the one who's "very eager to disprove anything not supporting [my] worldview"? Right...

 

You seem clever enough yet when it comes down to it you're a baptist and your type is notorious for dogmatic beliefs.

Notorious among whom? I actually know quite a few of my "type", and I can tell you that they're a lot less dogmatic than the average internet atheist.

[Panoptes]

The foundation of your worldview isn't based on logic, so I have no expectation of your rhetoric to exhibit it. The basis of my posts isn't off a crackpot video, its off of my whole life's experience, education... As I've already said I acknowledge that we simply can't know whether god exists. What vital information am I rejecting because of my confirmation bias? Arguing with fundies and extremists, regardless if atheist or theist, is akin to yelling at a brick wall. What is your point? Sand in your vagina or what?

[ouroboros]

 

"I got most of this information from reading forum postings by paranormal and conspiracy theory people..."

you can stop right there.

[Rotwang]

The foundation of your worldview isn't based on logic,

Neither is yours.

 

The basis of my posts isn't off a crackpot video, its off of my whole life's experience, education...

So is mine.

 

Arguing with fundies and extremists, regardless if atheist or theist, is akin to yelling at a brick wall.

Evidently.

 

Sand in your vagina or what?

Wow, what logical rhetoric. Clearly you're putting that education of yours to great use.

[radi6404]

"denying everything that is connected to god"...

 

such as?

Such as not responding to claims and theories that are in respond to an existance of a soul or god in that matter. I listed in my post you quote examples of that like people not responding to people who explained that they could see during an NDE or that they could find things in the rooms, that could not be seen with the eyes.

[Oopie]

well, the numbers say differently. dont get me wrong, im not suggesting that spiritual people are stupid, im suggesting, the more intelligent and educated a person is, the more difficult it becomes for them to hold on to such beliefs.

That's an interesting suggestion but would only really have some weight on it if it were, that you were spiritual but "lost it" after academic education. That'd be talking out of own experience and I could give it some value then.

"Hold on to such beliefs" as in religious beliefs? My friend, I'm not talking about religious dogma here at all. I'm talking about spirituality. It's quite naturally connected to religion as religion stands as a platform for sharing the belief in a social way. It's human to want to socialize and get acceptance to the ground rules of your life, the way you look at things.

Nevertheless, spirituality is not directly and automatically connected to religion. I can talk out of my own experience, that obtaining this spiritual awareness has nothing to do with book smarts. And still it's not indirectly telling the one having this belief is somehow stupid. that'd be making one too many conclusions without evident logic behind it.

To what does this academic education connect to? It connects largely to the observable universe, the physical reality. So it's logic stands as long as we stick to the conclusion that the physical universe is all that's there to be observed and is the only thing that exists.

 

You remember that analogue (maybe I'm moderating this a bit...) about a man who had been living in a cave behind a rock, and when the Sun shined in all he could see were the shadows reflected from the wall of this cave? And his belief was that these shadows were the most grand thing out there, and it was, according to his experience. Now think, that if there was a being that was fully aware of the Sun that was creating those shadows, would come and meet this man who'd been living behind the rock now what would it be like? The cave man would probably give the most glorious speech to defend his version of life where the shadows form the ultimate reality. How could this being aware of the Sun start telling about it? He shouldn't compromise to a level where he accepts cave man's narrow logic and continue to argue things from there. But he also can't quite dismiss the shadows as one needs to take to a conclusion cave man's mindset. He would understand that there doesn't exist the perfect vocabulary to explain the Sun in a rational level as it deviates from the cave man's experienced subjective reality to a far too large extent. The being from the Sun thinks and comes to a conclusion then, that the only thing that would make it possible for this cave man to acknowledge the Sun is to see it with his own eyes.

 

To see the Sun, The cave man needs to step out of the cave. Stepping out of the cave takes curiousity and courage, qualities that lie deep down in the cave man, rather than logic that was always happy about creating theories about the shadows in the wall. He needs to have humility as the founding attitude of his mind, as by stepping out of the cave he accepts the possibility of change and to having let go of the mindset he thought was based on ultimate reality.

[Anoebis]

As some probably now, in my everyday job I am a history & Christian/Catholic religion teacher in high school.

These kinds of discussion are very interesting and I have lots of them every year. But there is one thing that I simply can't get... Why do atheïst always have to "prove" and even "fight" to put their truth central!? And once you are influenced by something religious/Christian they are often declared "dumb" or "losers".

Take me for example. My big big biiggg example was St Francis of Assisi... No question here, this guy existed and was a great spiritual influence for millions of people during almost 1000 years. He was influenced by Jesus, or that what was written about Jesus.
People like St Francis were, just like Buddha, and some other rare individuals, humans that could leave their ego 100% behind. They also wanted to spread love in an extremely good way. Because of him the first "hospitals" were started for instance.

How can a human being say believing is dumb/stupid/bad/"the root of all evil" I even read here, when you follow that guy's philosophy?


ps: I am talking about Christianity here, I know some other religions have some more agression and less love-spreading inside of them
His writings, way of life and spirituality has a HUGE influence in my life. What is wrong with that? What can an atheist have against it?

[radi6404]

I also agree that atheists should not try as hard to proove that this or that doesn´t exist and come with today´s scientific evidence, which is not worth that much anyway, since science makes new discoveries every day.

[ptn]

That's very interesting read with all those theories and insults, both present as usual when there's debating religion.

 

ps: I am talking about Christianity here, I know some other religions have some more agression and less love-spreading inside of them
His writings, way of life and spirituality has a HUGE influence in my life. What is wrong with that? What can an atheist have against it?

 

Glad to see smiley at the end . I don't know if it's belief itself, I think it's more about the way some folks are using it, the 'you're not believing in God, so you're going down' or 'my God has better apps than yours' type of people.

 

Nice one with Plato's Cave, Oopie .

 

We're living in such times that even when something truly amazing/impossible (delete where applicable) would happen (idk, Second Coming for example), bunch of people would be denying it's existence until the very end, the same with the opposite.

 

To ease the tension a bit (I hope it won't be other way around ), few weeks ago I've listened to an interesting private discussion about magician Dynamo being a god-like figure. One of debaters said, that if the divine being would come to Earth, he/she/it shouldn't connote himself with any religion, simply because of the denial of the others. He should just familiarize everyone with his abilities and make another step. Perhaps Dynamo is doing it right now...