Zone1 Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?

[ding]

Those big glasses, nostrils, and teeth hide not the stubborn, vacuous little brain cavity stuck behind.

Every moral argument you make, every demonization of the right is proof you believe in absolute truth, absolute morals and through association God.

 

[ding]

Flattering obfuscator! Now try addressing the 3 simple questions you were asked instead..

Thank you for proving you expect everyone to know and accept the moral law.

 

[ding]

No need for any stinkin' Ten Commandments. No child molesting priests or pastors. No gaudy, massive, religious indoctrination centers..

Proving my point yet again!!!!

 

[ding]

I think the fact that everyone has their own concept of what is fair is the greatest proof there is NO God.

Subjectivity is to be expected. The salient point is the expectation that everyone believes their subjectivity should be universally accepted.

 

[alang1216]

No need for any stinkin' Ten Commandments. No child molesting priests or pastors. No gaudy, massive, religious indoctrination centers..

Everyone know right from wrong, that is why we live in paradise.

 

[ding]

The world is a Rorschach test, you see in it what you want to see in it and ignore the noise.

People get confused by their biases and the complexities of life. But reality does exist. Seek reality in all things and you can't help but being happy and successful in life. It's natural.

 

[ding]

Everyone know right from wrong, that is why we live in paradise.

I suspect most people don't live in paradise because they can't get out of their own way.

 

[alang1216]

Subjectivity is to be expected. The salient point is the expectation that everyone believes their subjectivity should be universally accepted.

So if there is a God, his only effect on the world is to make us feel guilty? Well he started out as the Jewish God so that explains a lot.

 

[ding]

So if there is a God, his only effect on the world is to make us feel guilty? Well he started out as the Jewish God so that explains a lot.

I think it's the opposite. He doesn't want us to feel guilty. Being perfect does not mean doing perfect things. It means to exist perfectly. Existing perfectly does not mean being racked with guilt. It means - among other things - to take from our experiences what is useful for moving forward and letting God carry the load for the rest. This stuff is way more complicated and deeper than you can imagine.

 

[ding]

his only effect on the world

That sentence fragment actually contains the making of a great and fair question.

 

[ding]

I think you guys would be much happier if you set aside your pride/biases/egos and started looking at everything in your lives fairly and objectively and without regard for any outcome. I think you'd find out just how amazing existence really is. And then if you took that same approach regarding the existence of God, absent the use of any religious texts, you would have a more complete understanding of God which would be useful for your journey through life. Or don't. I don't really care. It only affects you.

 

[LibertyKid]

I think you guys would be much happier if you set aside your pride/biases/egos and started looking at everything in your lives fairly and objectively and without regard for any outcome. I think you'd find out just how amazing existence really is. And then if you took that same approach regarding the existence of God, absent the use of any religious texts, you would have a more complete understanding of God which would be useful for your journey through life. Or don't. I don't really care. It only affects you.

I think most atheists are atheist against the monotheistic representation of god from the three major religions. If we were to say that a superior being has set forth all things in motion, and walked away, I think most would agree with the plausibility of the premise.

Science has never proven or disproven the existence of a 'god'.

 

[ding]

I think most atheists are atheist against the monotheistic representation of god from the three major religions. If we were to say that a superior being has set forth all things in motion, and walked away, I think most would agree with the plausibility of the premise.

Science has never proven or disproven the existence of a 'god'.

Not if that superior being was even remotely linked or associated with the God of Abraham. There's a real bias there of their own making.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think most atheists are atheist against the monotheistic representation of god from the three major religions. If we were to say that a superior being has set forth all things in motion, and walked away, I think most would agree with the plausibility of the premise.

Science has never proven or disproven the existence of a 'god'.

Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

 

[ding]

He looks angry.

 

[BreezeWood]

If we were to say that a superior being has set forth all things in motion, and walked away, I think most would agree with the plausibility of the premise.

not so ... monotheism, perhaps try metaphysical forces of nature after yours fails also - or at least the heavens over a single entity.

the introduction of crime as a factor of evolution, impurity is what separates the spiritual from who are and are not pure - the impure are meant to perish, the others must prove otherwise in triumph.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He looks angry.

'Cuz you never listen!

 

[ding]

'Cuz you never listen!

So atheists would be less angry if I only listened to them?

Ok, tell me your troubles. I'm not a monster.

 

[LibertyKid]

First, sorry for the long winded read:

A few points on Dan Barker's attempt to apologize for his own conversion to Atheism.

• He poorly discusses the science of proven or unproven god; god particle, etc.,
• Faith - I am not sure I have ever heard any reliable Christian apologists say that "Faith" is evidence.

All of the below points, I will summarize with one conclusion.

• Unreliability of OT Stories
• Unreliability of NT Stories: Resurrection
  • Oral Tradition was the primary method of communicating stories, minor variances in such stories do not necessarily remove the truths in those stories.
• Assignment of diety of characteristics; Omniscience, all powerful, etc.,
• Difference of beliefs between believers
  • Regardless of the religion, this is normative of all religions and doesn't negate that god does or does not exist.
• Problem of evil: Achilles heal of evil.
  • This is a huge conversation with many volumes written on the topic.
  • I will say this - Jesus never promised perfection in the world.

Summary of the previous points:
Christians for the last Millenia, have staked and built theology, orthodoxy, traditions, and general beliefs from the Bible. And in doing so have also applied characteristics to the Bible that God, nor Jesus ever attributed or applicable to the Bible. That's because the Bible was and is never needed to be a Christian or to believe in God.

The ONLY belief ever needed to be a Christian and to be "saved", was to believe in Jesus Christ himself. Not one time, in Jesus' ministry did he ever state that Christians, will at some future state, have a "Word of God" that will dictate what it truly means to be his disciple, and will answer all the questions of the universe, theology, sociology, economics, etc.,

A belief in Jesus, based on the gospel accounts, is all we need. Think about that. The first century christians never had a Bible. How did they survive without it? How did they know what to believe? And think about the first century gentile Christians who didn't even have the Pentateuch/Torah.

Most of the points that Dan Barker makes in the Youtube clip are moot. They are only an argument because Christians have taken the Bible, stamped it as divinely inspired and perfect. Christians have maid claims about the Bible that the bible doesn't even say about itself.

If faith is based alone in Jesus, one doesn't have to worry about the OT stories or variances in NT stories. I don't have to apologize for Characteristics applied to God that Jesus never made a point of belief. Evil is explained because Jesus never said it would go away in this world. I don't have to worry about free will, or TULIP, or which denomination is right or wrong. I don't care if Adam and Eve were real, or if Noah really built the ark. One doesn't have to worry about science proving or disproving God.

If the very first Christians didn't have a Bible, why do I need one today? We should all ask ourselves that question.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thanks for listening and responding like an adult.