Happiness in Islam

[GLASNOST]

For the universe to exist, there must be a creator..common sense..

Your superstition is what you call common sense.

 

[ding]

As long as human beings are involved it is impossible to remove human bias unless one is objective. So even science is not necessarily immune from bias.

Why not just admit it. You have nothing to contribute to this subject.

It seems that I am not the first person to recognize the inherent bias of human beings... even human beings engaged in science.

The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:

Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
2. Prediction models are complicated.
3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

end quote

====================================================

A perfect example of #4

Is the Field of Psychology Biased Against Conservatives?

 

[ding]

For the universe to exist, there must be a creator..common sense..

Your superstition is what you call common sense.

Coming from someone whose avatar is a dog shitting on the American flag, I will take that for what it is worth.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

 

[Czernobog]

This is only true, if you first concede the presumption that "God" even exists. Without that presumption, your "purpose" for human beings is meaningless.

By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.

No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

 

[Czernobog]

There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

 

[ding]

There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.

 

[ding]

By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.

No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?

 

[ding]

By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.

No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that people do evil for evil's sake?

 

[ding]

By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.

No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you believe there is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure?

 

[ding]

ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

That is usually how science experiments work. They have to be tested.

 

[Czernobog]

There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.

That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.

 

[Czernobog]

No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?

Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.

 

[ding]

There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.

That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize

 

[ding]

The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?

Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.

Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.

 

[Czernobog]

ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

That is usually how science experiments work. They have to be tested.

No it's not. The "method' you are suggesting is like telling a scientist, "If you wanna know if your new acne medicine works, inject yourself with it," No scientist with half a brain conducts experiments like that. You need a controlled test environment, objective observers to record results, and a detailed proposal of the expected results.

But, let's assume, just for the sake of argument that your methodology wasn't completely fucked up. I commit myself to God. I accept Jesus into my heart as lord and Saviour, I pray, and worship in the divine light of the Holy Spirit. Now, a month later, I am mugged, and robbed. This would be clear evidence that your premise was wrong, correct?

 

[Czernobog]

There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.

That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize

Why do you bother repeating yourself, when you know that you are not willing to defend your bullshit?

 

[ding]

ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

That is usually how science experiments work. They have to be tested.

No it's not. The "method' you are suggesting is like telling a scientist, "If you wanna know if your new acne medicine works, inject yourself with it," No scientist with half a brain conducts experiments like that. You need a controlled test environment, objective observers to record results, and a detailed proposal of the expected results.

But, let's assume, just for the sake of argument that your methodology wasn't completely fucked up. I commit myself to God. I accept Jesus into my heart as lord and Saviour, I pray, and worship in the divine light of the Holy Spirit. Now, a month later, I am mugged, and robbed. This would be clear evidence that your premise was wrong, correct?

So scientists don't test their hypothesis?

 

[ding]

The evidence is overwhelming...

You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?

lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.

That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize

Why do you bother repeating yourself, when you know that you are not willing to defend your bullshit?

Because this is who you are.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?

Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.

Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.

Pseudo-science used to advance an agenda isn't science. You know, like Gay Conversion therapy. There is nothing scientific about that torture, but it does advance the Christian anti-homosexual agenda. I don't reject science. I reject propaganda masquerading as science. There's a difference.

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.

Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.

Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.

We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.

How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?

So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?

Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.

Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.

Pseudo-science used to advance an agenda isn't science. You know, like Gay Conversion therapy. There is nothing scientific about that torture, but it does advance the Christian anti-homosexual agenda. I don't reject science. I reject propaganda masquerading as science. There's a difference.

So you are against testing ideas and assumptions to prove their validity?

They worship science but are the first to argue against it.