Zone1 do you believe in a god?

[alang1216]

Semantics. I use God and creator interchangeably.

More than semantics to me. It is the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Do you really need to rationalize your belief that the only thing that exists is the material by asking me that question? How do you know that the only thing that exists is the material? The material world is quite strange in and of itself. How do you know everything isn't just information which is incorporeal?

Many things are possible, only a few are probable. I can only go with what I see.

What is your answer for why an intelligent person such as myself believes the incorporeal is the source or matrix of the corporeal?

Only you know that. Unlike you, I will not speculate on or presume to know what goes on in your head or your heart.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What is your answer for why an intelligent person such as myself believes the incorporeal is the source or matrix of the corporeal?

Perhaps what you cannot accept is reality, and therefore you avoid seeking it.

 

[Zebra]

now ...

11 yes
08 no

 

[Grumblenuts]

11 yes
08 no

Update: 09 no -- Progress!

 

[Baron]

Why does it have to be either or?

Because it is.

 

[ding]

More than semantics to me. It is the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Incorrect. Not even close. I know you'd like to believe you are agnostic but you aren't. You are a militant atheist trying to subordinate religion and God.

Many things are possible, only a few are probable. I can only go with what I see.

That didn't answer the question. How do you know everything isn't just information which is incorporeal? The honest answer is you don't. You left honesty behind long ago because it interferes with your bias. And that is why you can't answer that question honestly. What you see isn't solid. What you perceive as solid are fields which is why depending upon what one is looking for are seen as particles or waves. Fields of energy. Everything is energy.

Only you know that. Unlike you, I will not speculate on or presume to know what goes on in your head or your heart.

That's a lie. You have a very definite idea of your perception of me but you are too cowardly to say it out loud because unlike you I have evidence for my beliefs. You have none. You have arguments against evidence but no evidence of your own.

 

[BULLDOG]

Incorrect. Not even close. I know you'd like to believe you are agnostic but you aren't. You are a militant atheist trying to subordinate religion and God.

That didn't answer the question. How do you know everything isn't just information which is incorporeal? The honest answer is you don't. You left honesty behind long ago because it interferes with your bias. And that is why you can't answer that question honestly. What you see isn't solid. What you perceive as solid are fields which is why depending upon what one is looking for are seen as particles or waves. Fields of energy. Everything is energy.

That's a lie. You have a very definite idea of your perception of me but you are too cowardly to say it out loud because unlike you I have evidence for my beliefs. You have none. You have arguments against evidence but no evidence of your own.

Typical religious nut. You won't even accept that others might have different beliefs than you. You insist you know more about what they actually believe than they do.

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. Not even close. I know you'd like to believe you are agnostic but you aren't. You are a militant atheist trying to subordinate religion and God.

I think the militant one here is you.

That didn't answer the question. How do you know everything isn't just information which is incorporeal? The honest answer is you don't. You left honesty behind long ago because it interferes with your bias. And that is why you can't answer that question honestly. What you see isn't solid. What you perceive as solid are fields which is why depending upon what one is looking for are seen as particles or waves. Fields of energy. Everything is energy.

I can't see energy, I can only see its effects. I understand a bit of quantum physics but 'incorporeal' doesn't mean supernatural.

That's a lie. You have a very definite idea of your perception of me but you are too cowardly to say it out loud because unlike you I have evidence for my beliefs. You have none. You have arguments against evidence but no evidence of your own.

True, I've called out the fallacies of your evidence and your logic, but the only evidence I need is my own eyes. And for me that is enough. I think I have said my perceptions of you out loud but I'm happy to repeat them. You come from a place of faith so you honestly and strongly believe in your God and your religion so you create a universe that supports them both. You are too cowardly to defend your religion and your scripture and instead try to mask that with 'logic'. You find your logic way more convincing than I do. You asked.

 

[Meriweather]

Typical religious nut. You won't even accept that others might have different beliefs than you. You insist you know more about what they actually believe than they do.

Having a discussion with someone with different beliefs is engaging. It's the discussion with someone with no beliefs (other than the belief people of faith are wrong to believe) that leads nowhere. It's like multiplying by zero, where each ends up with what they started.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's like multiplying by zero, where each ends up with what they started.

That would be multiplying by 1. See "multiplicative identity."

 

[BULLDOG]

Having a discussion with someone with different beliefs is engaging. It's the discussion with someone with no beliefs (other than the belief people of faith are wrong to believe) that leads nowhere. It's like multiplying by zero, where each ends up with what they started.

Not believing a certain thing is not the same a having no beliefs. Your religious fervor prevents you from seeing that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheists (and agnostics) retain at least as many beliefs, convictions, and morals as religious folk.

 

[Meriweather]

That would be multiplying by 1. See "multiplicative identity."

I hear you. I was thinking that both end up with zero to add to a discussion resulting in a zero discussion. But you are right...both do end up where they began, or with what they had.

 

[Meriweather]

Not believing a certain thing is not the same a having no beliefs. Your religious fervor prevents you from seeing that.

And...I have no religious fervor, yet you are convinced you know me better. What I do have is love of God and some knowledge/experience of God's love. There is so much more to God than a story about the Amalekites.

 

[BreezeWood]

What I do have is love of God

as reflected by the corrupt christian bible or any desert bible is not to say the love of the heavens but of your love for a particular bible ...

as that suitability is again the christian agenda of self accommodation. meriweather.

 

[BULLDOG]

And...I have no religious fervor, yet you are convinced you know me better. What I do have is love of God and some knowledge/experience of God's love. There is so much more to God than a story about the Amalekites.

I've heard all those stories since childhood. Read them again without religious blinders

 

[ding]

Typical religious nut. You won't even accept that others might have different beliefs than you. You insist you know more about what they actually believe than they do.

But I do accept that others have different beliefs. Having different beliefs isn't the problem. Lack of tolerance is the problem. You have none and neither does Alan.

 

[ding]

I think the militant one here is you.

How so? Do you think I come here to make fun of atheists?

I can't see energy, I can only see its effects. I understand a bit of quantum physics but 'incorporeal' doesn't mean supernatural.

Actually you can see energy. Everything is energy, e=mc^2. You just don't perceive everything as energy. I understand that incorporeal does not mean supernatural. The supernatural is incorporeal though. Information and energy are inseparable as energy contains information and information requires energy. Everything contains information. So how do you know everything isn't just information which is incorporeal? You don't.

True, I've called out the fallacies of your evidence and your logic, but the only evidence I need is my own eyes. And for me that is enough. I think I have said my perceptions of you out loud but I'm happy to repeat them. You come from a place of faith so you honestly and strongly believe in your God and your religion so you create a universe that supports them both. You are too cowardly to defend your religion and your scripture and instead try to mask that with 'logic'. You find your logic way more convincing than I do. You asked.

Any time you want to debate my religion in the Bull Ring, I'm more than happy to oblige. Now let's see who the coward is.

 

[Hawkins]

Humans are fooled because they are created with relatively low intelligence but with a larger degree of free will. Angels are rather created with high intelligence and high capability.

Do you believe that Biden won the votes in the 2020 election? How come others believe that Trump actually won? It is because the exclusive way for humans to get to such a truth is through the mass media. Humans are confused if the equally credible media are inconsistent, as they don't have an alternative to determine a truth, "evidence" is never relevant and vague, it's an ideal for the angels to use to fool humans (even the smartest of them).

To put it another way, we treat words from media as facts as long as we deem the media legitimate and credible. Now how do we judge on whether a media is legitimate and credible? It follows a pattern which the fallen angel blinded humans from recognizing. To simply put, if the event is America-wise, the media must be US-facing in the hope that facts/truth can reach each and every individual as its audience. If a media only broadcast in one state but not the other, it's never the efficient way for the facts/truth to reach all US citizens.

By the same token, if a God has truth to convey, while humans' exclusive way of obtaining a truth is through a mass media, He needs to convey His truth through a human-facing media which is Christianity. Among the thousand human religions only Christianity conveys in a human-facing manner due mainly to the command from its deity that the gospel much be preached (i.e., broadcast) to all nations (i.e., human-facing). All other religions are "broadcasting in only one state but not the other".

Another part of this legitimate process is that, you either put your faith to CNN to believe that Biden won, or put your faith to Fox News to believe that Trump won. Faith is invited in the process of conveying truth. You can't bring this to your consciousness simply because you are fooled and blinded by the freaking angels (through plaguing human secular education system which brainwashing humans since childhood till university graduated).

Atheists think that they are smart. They actually dumb fools in front of the fallen angels (called crafty snake in Genesis). They choose to trust their intelligence and knowledge and science to see their own doom just as Adam did, and as prophesied.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atheists think that they are smart. They actually dumb