Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Until something within you hears that call perhaps you should not worship anything just try to be the best person you can. You may want to do some searching for yourself into whether there is such a thing as a holy spirit and a Omni present creator but that is upon you to do it; which you may already have; its not up to another to 'make' you believe in what they believe in but they can share it.Please! Someone tell me which entity I should believe in ! Sheep!
One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...
Fair enough.
Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?
Please also describe what "god", as perceived by theists is to exist.
I don't know if thoughts are physical or not. Also, I've never seen ideas or abstractions interact with the physical world."Supernatural" is a meaningless descriptor.I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).
This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.
A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).
As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).
This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".
Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).
The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.
(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).
All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.
The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.
Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.
Thoughts, or ideas, or abstractions are not "natural", as in made of earthy or material things, so by that odd definition, one could easily argue that thoughts themselves are "supernatural".
Much as scientific theories or ideas could be said to be, as in the fact that while they may be based on natural phenomina, the theories, abstractions or mathematical approximations which the theories are invented or developed from, are not.
One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.
I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...
Fair enough.
Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?
I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).
This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.
A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).
As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).
This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".
Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).
The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.
(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).
All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.
The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.
Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.
Ok. I ask myself that. Now what?
Ok. I ask myself that. Now what?
And what is the answer?
I'd argue that the notion of bad behavior in man having its roots in physical drives and lack of self-discipline or control is Biblical (such as how in the Bible, these are likened to behaviors of beasts), much as the notion of self-discipline and being above and beyond those degenerate behaviors is common folk wisdom, whether one references ancient religious texts, legal systems such as Common Law, or so on and so forth; this is a central theme of the Bible, and most religious traditions that focus on the roots of desire as a form or cause of sin and suffering, as well as legal philosophy (e.x. our criminal justice system distinguishes between crimes of "passion", such as 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, done in "the heat of the moment" or in an aroused emotional state, and "intentional or premeditated crimes", such as those done coldly, calculatedly, rationally.Please also describe what "god", as perceived by theists is to exist.
God exists. The Christian God of Trinity. One evidence is God's word is the Bible and it cannot change. It took around 1500 years to compile, but it is complete now and inerrant.
The Bible was written by God himself as He worked through human authors in a process called “inspiration.” “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).
We also have Satan's anti-Bible in the form of ToE and evolutionary thought and history. Today, it is just called evolution. It, too, has been written by humans (secular and atheist?) over thousands of years. It contradicts everything that has been written in the Bible. This cannot be just a coincidence
I'm sure it depends, in some cases it may be, in others it may be questioning atheistic beliefs imparted to them by parents, teachers, or other popular cultural forces - accepted on the basis of indoctrination, rather than thought, skepticism, reasoning, intuiting, and so onI've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).
This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.
A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).
As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).
This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".
Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).
The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.
(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).
All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.
The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.
Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.
So most Catholics or Jews or Baptists aren't Catholics, Jews or Baptists because their parents were?
My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?
Ok. I ask myself that. Now what?
My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?
Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.
The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".
No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"
Wrong. You say evrything had a cause. Then you claim a creator without cause. You just defied your own "logic". (Protip: you did not actually post any logic)Logic is on the side of a creator.
No, it's an example of actual atheist behavior, just repeating a simplistic, popular mantra or slogan hoping it to be true, or become true.No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"
" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".
And that's it.
Then by the same token or logic, you can't dismiss a creator if you believe that something can happen, originate or exist with no prior cause.Wrong. You say evrything had a cause. Then you claim a creator without cause. You just defied your own "logic". (Protip: you did not actually post any logic)Logic is on the side of a creator.
How fucking duuuuumb.
