Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[Meriweather]

I might be misunderstanding you, but if not, we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, of course we're all human, and we all miss the mark. And again, yes, even as believers we sometimes stray from God. However, if we have received the gift of salvation, if we are born from above, you can NEVER lose God. You can NEVER go from being spiritually born to being unborn. That is just as impossible as a newborn baby going back into his mother's womb. Also, once we're justified and born spiritually, we (ideally) should be growing spiritually and getting closer to God, slowly over time, not drifting away. But I don't want to take this thread too off topic. lol

No, I am not talking about losing salvation or becoming 'unborn'. Basically, I am just noting that the Bible has account after account of people once very close to God drifting away. I don't think I see straying the same way. It is merely the observation about Biblical accounts, that time after time, people close to God drift away. Life is distracting. Since I see it happening to all the Biblical greats as well as people today, I just don't want to fool myself that it cannot or has not happened to me. Do be assured that I do not believe it is anyway permanent--The Transfiguration puts the man who could not enter the Promised Land right next to Jesus.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

you replied a-hole, there are plenty more just the same as you.

Yes, honey, you addressed me so I replied as usual. Not those "plenty more just the same" thank goodness. That would just be weird. You're most welcome.
Oh, and thanks for finally addressing my question. So, reviewing and parsing,

flora does not have a CNS - irregardless its functioning properties physiology does not exist without a spiritual component and dissipates when that component is removed and is itself a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

English version: (plants don't have nerves)(no life does) "without a spirit"(all die.) "spirit" (is magical like life, however is a) "substance not native to planet Earth."
Fair enough.. Now, adding this fresh news!,

life is native to the universe as physiology proves by its abundance when the conditions for its development are available - and the metaphysical properties required for its existence are adhered to, the viability for physiology's spiritual component.

English attempt: (actually neither life nor spirit are) "native to planet Earth." (instead??? - both are) "native to the universe" (really??? are there any more options??? being native to Earth somehow excludes being from the universe and vice versa??? one requires the other along with some other locally acquired stuff and the existence of life) "proves by its abundance" (that all it well and) "spirit" (rules!)

Yeah, as incoherent and nonsensical as ever, but whatever floats your dinghy. To each their own. Whatever you need to believe to satisfy your personal mental requirements without harming others. I do have an alternative though. All you appear to think of as "spiritual" I just see as small facets of electrical activity that we have yet to flesh out because we've long abandoned consideration of the Aether, dielectrics, and related experimentation, replacing it all with stuff like "warped space" fantasy instead, mainly because Einstein. (was such a brilliant idiot). Peace. Cuppy-cake gumdrop snookum snookum sweetie-pie!

All you appear to think of as "spiritual" I just see as small facets of electrical activity that we have yet to flesh out because we've long abandoned consideration of ...

.
your problem g-nuts is your comprehension problem is global -

View attachment 346755

Flora has no electrical activity as pointed out earlier nor would its chemical composition correspond to Fauna leaving only a spiritual content for its physiological properties and its resilient identity the same as Fauna from its earliest cellular form.

evolution is the direct expression of the spiritual content of the associated physiology.

My comprehension is just fine. Yours is lacking but that's not your fault. You know nothing about the electricity I refer to because it's not taught in any school yet, far as I know. One must really work to find good sources on the web and related books, then spend years reading, deprogramming oneself (example - from thinking you have any clue about what "electricity" really is), watching videos, listening to podcasts, considering it all in one's spare time.. Also, many engaged are batshit nuts so distracting just as here, there, or anywhere. Noise to filter wherever one goes. That said, I'm far from the only one who understands most it it well enough now to pick the brains of those far more specialized and expert without embarrassing myself too badly.

I certainly don't expect you or anyone here to get it at all. I'm just rebutting your earlier accusation of having no alternative theory. I most certainly do. One that ties all in a bow with no supernatural intervention required. I don't expect you to believe me either. That would simply amount to an act of "FAITH." An all too common logical fallacy > Appeal to authority..

 

[zaangalewa]

Kurt Gödel's ontological proof

One of the greatest mathematicians the world ever had seen says something - you say something

Lets not pretend you understand the argument or the symbolized version.

If 5 people worldwide understand this high form of logic, then this is much. But it's without any doubt a correct form of logic. For me this is not relevant, because the existence of god is nothing what worries me. But in case of atheistic believers in science that's another thing. A paradigma of science is "Everything is true as long as it is not proven to be wrong". In this case the existence of god is not only not falsified - it is even mathematically verfied. That's a very strong plausibilty for the existence of god.

If you care to look it up, the premises are dubious, because his axioms are inconsistent and contradictory.

Let me see. I use the German language now:

Axiom 1	Entweder eine Eigenschaft oder ihre Negation ist positiv.
Axiom 2	Eine aus einer positiven Eigenschaft notwendigerweise folgende Eigenschaft ist positiv.
Theorem 1	Positive Eigenschaften kommen möglicherweise einem Wesen zu.
Definition 1	Göttlich ist ein Wesen, falls es alle positiven Eigenschaften besitzt.
Axiom 3	Göttlich ist eine positive Eigenschaft.
Korollar	Möglicherweise existiert ein göttliches Wesen.
Axiom 4	Positive Eigenschaften sind notwendigerweise positiv.
Definition 2	Eine Eigenschaft eines Wesens ist essentiell, falls diese alle seine Eigenschaften notwendigerweise impliziert.
Theorem 2	Göttlich ist eine essentielle Eigenschaft jedes göttlichen Wesens.
Definition 3	Ein Wesen ist notwendigerweise existent, falls es all seine essentiellen Eigenschaften notwendigerweise erfüllt.
Axiom 5	Notwendige Existenz ist eine positive Eigenschaft.
Theorem 3	Ein göttliches Wesen existiert notwendigerweise.

Axiom 1: true.
Axiom 2: true
Theorem 1: Plausible
Definition 1: Plausible
Axiom 3: clear
Korollar: "Probably exists a godly being" - True
Axiom 4: true
Definition 2: absolutelly plausible
Theorem 2: absolutelly plausible
Definition 3: I would say "is existant or not thinkable (=leaves the possibilities of philosophy)" and not only "is existent" here. But is plausible what Gödel found out here.
Axiom 5: true (for a lving entity)
Theorem 3: plausible

I don't see a big problem whether god exists or not for Christians. Believe it or not. Your decision. But the decision "God is not existing" has nothing to do with philosophy, mathematics and science. And people, who make the decision "God exists" are able to say "What is still not falsified!"

And, basically, you just said a mathematician proved god exists, bevauee....hey, he is a brilliant mathematician. Absurd on every level possible.

Mathematics are pure human thoughts with an absolute intersubjective acceptance. Mathematics seems even to exist in the nature itselve. It's the most mighty tool. Without mathematics civilisations would not exist. And with mathemtics some scientist try even to leave behind the not really existing, but nevertheless massive, borders of our universe.

Also, these esoteric argents are utter pap. Zeno "proved" that you could never move. Nobody has falsified this argument.

So you need to understand that these arguments are not proof of anything. But your claiming they are is proof of your bias, itself due to magical thinking.

What a luck that you do not overestimate your own abilities. Without the help of god you could get now a problem with god, because of your contempt for his children - for your contempt for all human beings, who don't think the same stupidities, which you prefer to think.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Appeal to Authority
When you commit an appeal to authority fallacy, you accept a truth on blind faith just because someone you admire said it.

• Katherine loves Tom Cruise. One day, she meets Tom Cruise and he tells her unicorns live in New York City. Without searching to find out if fairy tales have sprung to life in midtown Manhattan, she believes it to be true.

Also a fallacy: Namedropping Cruise in an example with no mention of LDS, Mormonism, or Scientology

 

[Grumblenuts]

If 5 people worldwide understand this high form of logic, then this is much. But it's without any doubt a correct form of logic.

Wrong on both counts, but I'm here just to unquestionably demolish the second one with minimal effort. This link pops right up when Google searching for related critique. The purpose of this paper, as noted in the title, is to report "A Success Story for AI in Metaphysics"

It goes on to explain that many AI programs were employed to test which could find flaws in Godel’s ontological argument and which the fastest. The "success" noted expresses their delight in finding ("discovering") even more faults than they expected. The history provided reports that several flaws had already been found by others in previous years which Godel had had to then correct. So they presumed finding flaws to begin with. Testing their AI on anything they presumed perfect would have been useless except as a control.

5 Conclusion The axioms and definitions in Godel’s manuscript are inconsistent; this was detected automatically by the prover Leo-II.
{...snip...}
Both the automated detection of the inconsistency in Godel’s axioms and the fully automatic proof of T3 from ¨ Scott’s axioms demonstrate the potential of our AI technology for philosophy: this technology is, in its current state of development, already capable of contributing novel results to metaphysics and to conduct reasoning steps at granularity levels beyond common human capabilities.

Got it? Their AI proved excellent, improvements proven to work as well. "Metaphysics" (however they define the term) is presumed. Godel’s axioms are revealed (once again) to be crap ("inconsistent"). Sorry, no gods found

 

[zaangalewa]

If 5 people worldwide understand this high form of logic, then this is much. But it's without any doubt a correct form of logic.

Wrong on both counts

It's stupid what you say here. Inform yourselve about the logical method Kurt Gödel was using and why so many people were impressed from the work of Christoph Benzmüller (Berlin) and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo (Vienna). Gödel was called "the greatest logician since Aristotle" from the philosopher Rebecca Goldstein.

The question "existence of god" is by the way only a side note in context of the fundamental work from Kurt Gödel and his ways in mathematics.

, but I'm here just to unquestionably demolish the second one with minimal effort. This link pops right up when Google searching for related critique. The purpose of this paper, as noted in the title, is to report "A Success Story for AI in Metaphysics"

It goes on to explain that many AI programs were employed to test which could find flaws in Godel’s ontological argument and which the fastest. The "success" noted expresses their delight in finding ("discovering") even more faults than they expected. The history provided reports that several flaws had already been found by others in previous years which Godel had had to then correct. So they presumed finding flaws to begin with. Testing their AI on anything they presumed perfect would have been useless except as a control.

5 Conclusion The axioms and definitions in Godel’s manuscript are inconsistent; this was detected automatically by the prover Leo-II.
{...snip...}
Both the automated detection of the inconsistency in Godel’s axioms and the fully automatic proof of T3 from ¨ Scott’s axioms demonstrate the potential of our AI technology for philosophy: this technology is, in its current state of development, already capable of contributing novel results to metaphysics and to conduct reasoning steps at granularity levels beyond common human capabilities.

Got it? Their AI proved excellent, improvements proven to work as well. "Metaphysics" (however they define the term) is presumed. Godel’s axioms are revealed (once again) to be crap ("inconsistent"). Sorry, no gods found

???

Mathematics is the metaphysics of physics.

... and to the song of Aerosmith let me say: I always in my life was happy with exactly the age I had. I do not like to miss any folds in my face. ...

-----

By the way: What the most people call "AI" is only an "AE" - artificial experience. AI programs need often an unbelievable pool of big data to find new structures. It's a kind of elaborated expert systems. First have experts to make a lot of experiences. This makes all this methods extremely expensive. But intelligence per se means to be able to act with only few data and to find important real structures.

Whatever - in case of Gödel's proof it is clear now, that it is an absolutelly correct proof. Sure you don't agree with him. You are an atheist and what he found out is in contradiction to the belief atheism. So you are not able to accept the axioms he used, although you never thought in your whole life only a half thought about this axioms, isn't it? Your premise seems to be "God knows everything - atheists know everything better". Another axiom could be "Loudness is able to replace truth".

 

[Grumblenuts]

{but, but,..}

Gödel was called "the greatest logician since Aristotle"

{Hmm,..what was I just now talking about prior? Let's see,.. When one's desperate they simply..? Duck? Slither?.. No, hmm,.. Denial used already,.. Oh, yeah! Appeal to Authority!
Okay,.. Quickly now.. Must end with flourish..}

Your premise seems to be

{YES! YES! Inject a Strawman!
Charge! Flail! Personal Attack!
Jolly good!
By "God," I think you've done it again, son! Congratulations!
..as the crowds of crickets roar..}

 

[sealybobo]

Please seriously consider the fact that what generally happens to people who end up "studying", believing, and spreading such crap as opposed to those who don't is so far nothing of great note. It can be logically presumed that atheists end up having more time to pursue other things, but getting distracted by such petty differences misses the huge, single, obvious conclusion. We clearly need fear no significant result from choosing to ignore / outright reject the entire load of bullshit. Plenty of time has passed to evaluate the truth of every stupid, beaten to death religious claim, whether it be carrot or stick. Turns out we're really just animals. No life beyond death period. No special place to go, either upward or down. No pearly gates. No final judgement. No angels coming. No "Saving." It's all just been divisive, manipulative crap from the very beginning. No different than Dubya's insistent, repeated claims of Iraq hiding "weapons of mass destruction." Fear, fear, fear. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Check here for a great analysis of atheist ethics..

In your opinion. The overwhelming majority of the world disagrees. Not that truth is determined by the majority, it isn't. But most people intuitively know that life, the physical world, everything that exists didn't come about by dumb luck. Those who don't see it have a form of blindness. I understand it because I've been there myself. But it's so much more than that, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Atheism has numerous problems, logical errors, which can never be resolved. Why? Because it's simply not the truth. That said, no amount of discussing this or debating is going to make the difference in causing someone to believe. Apologetics can break down certain obstacles or misunderstandings that people have. But ultimately it's not what causes anyone to come to faith.

But that’s just wishful thinking and we are a very primitive creature barely two steps out of the cave.

But people are people all over the world. You think the fact that they all believe in something proves something? I say the fact that their understanding of this thing being so different tells me its all just man made up.

I can forgive my grandmother because she grew up in Greece and had no education. Even still, it amazes me a human can buy any holy book stories. Not just Christianity. Any of them.

look at the Mormons. How can so many people believe such stupidity? It’s because just like muslims they too want there to be a heaven.

Think about our ancient ancestors. Grandpa just got eaten by a saber toothed tiger. Don’t worry gramma you’ll see him in the afterlife. This made our ancestors feel better. And my dad is doing the same thing. He says he truly believes that he will see her again. That’s just wishful thinking.

You are unwittingly corroborating what the bible says. The bible is clear that nonbelievers think faith is foolishness and they think they're smarter than everyone else. Many nonbelievers have a very prideful attitude, thinking they're too "smart" or "mature" to believe.

To me that mindset reminds me of a teenager who is trying so hard to be grown up and doesn't want to be seen as a child, so they have this attitude that they know everything, and that everyone else is stupid, and they don't need to learn from anyone because they think they have it all figured out.

It's trying too hard, and by trying to appear so intelligent and mature, it inadvertently shows just the opposite, an immaturity and lack of wisdom. True wisdom means understanding that we aren't as smart as we think we are, and we know next to nothing in comparison to all there is to know. It is the opposite of pride, which is thinking that we're too smart to believe in "childish" things.

CS Lewis has a quote about this, which is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but it makes basically the same point that I just made. He said: “When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

Jesus taught that unless we become childlike, we will never come to God. But there is an important difference between being childish and childlike. The latter simply means teachable, humble, trusting God similar to how a child trusts his parents.

Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car but no one will give you the keys

Other than your nazi like behaviors towards religion no one gives a shit about your atheism, bro.

This thread was started because I said us agnostic atheists have open minds about the possibility a god exists but I don’t have an open mind to any organized religions. Yet Christians can’t help bring up the Bible because let’s face it that’s all they got.

if all we had was Islam, would you buy into it? Hell yea you would. If you never heard of Christianity you would have bought into whatever religion existed. To me that makes you or us stupid as a species. We should let that go

No. God's existence can be known through human reason. So the Bible is not all we have. Plus God's existence can be known through personal revelation.

But what does that have to do with you behaving like a nazi? Are you trying to say your behavior is justified?

Your reasoning is ultimately flawed and you must go on faith in things that are unbelievable.

Let god reveal himself to me then. Until then your revelations mean squat to me

Of course they don't mean anything to you. You are on a mission.

It’s a debate about if god exists. If you don’t like this subject leave.

I believe the book you use as evidence of god is fake. A lie. Man made up. This I’m sorry to say is a key point with me because I want someone to prove or explain why they believe this god exists without using your holy book. Just like you won’t accept the Mormon or Muslim books, I don’t accept yours.

So, without your fake holy book, you know nothing about heaven and hell and who goes and if they even exist.

You can say you’ve had personal revelations but we all know thats nonsense.

Sorry I’m being so combative snowflake. You see what others here are saying about you? Lol

 

[sealybobo]

You can't be an agnostic atheist.

I would say you are an agnostic secularist

• Atheist - There is no god.
• Nihilistic - Life has no meaning.
• Secular - Lack of religion.
• Agnostic - There may or may not be a god, but open to know more.
• Gnostic - Belief that the God (or gods) we worship are in fact evil tricksters and that a secret knowledge is preventing us from the true God.
• Animistic - Belief that all things contain spirits.
• Deist - There is a God who created life, but just watches and does not intervene.
• Theist - Belief in a higher power and at least one god.
• Polytheist - Belief in more than one god.
• Monotheist -believing in a single God - ie. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
• Apostate - A person who leaves a religion.
• Misotheist - A person that hates God or the Gods.
• Dustheism - Belief that God or the Gods are not totally good.
• Macioism - Belief that God is a Demiurge and wrathful, malicious evil creator. Similar to Gnostic.
• Euthesim - Belief in a totally good God.

What do you mean life has meaning? What is the meaning? What is our purpose? I think we could master the universe if we weren’t so primitive. Still warring with each other rather than working as one planet to get to mars and mine the meteor belt. Then build a ship the size of a planet that can also survive interstellar travel. Then we might have a purpose.

If we stay on this Rock eventually we will die of some natural cause. The planet will still have other creatures who survive this mass global extinction but even they too will die when the water goes or the sun burns out. If we go with the planet, what was our purpose?

We are a way for the universe to know itself. Amazing.

There is no purpose to life.

And if the universe is trying to know itself through humans it could do better since we only have an understanding of about 5% of it.

Sure there is... to become the best version of yourself and to pass it on. There's your meaning.

Simply put, evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. Since the beginning of time matter has evolved and will continue to do so. Your purpose, your meaning in life is to evolve in consciousness and pass it on to the next generation.

That's your meaning.

You have no business telling my what mine is.

According to you, you don’t have one, right?

But according to Darwin the meaning of life is to pass down functional advantage to the next generation.

No not really

I know that what I do here while I'm alive will have little effect in the grand scheme of things.

And again that's Darwin and he has no more right to tell me what my purpose is than you do.

The human race has been here for but a blink in cosmological time and less than a minute in the earth's geological time.

We will be gone in but another few blinks of time as far as the cosmos is concerned.

Nothing anyone has ever done or will ever do will matter.

Yep, you're a nihilist alright.

As i said.

You have a fatalistic attitude, my friend.

I know.

Better a realist than some naive idealistic Pollyanna

No. A realist isn't a fatalist. A realist does not believe that life is without meaning. A realists accepts situations as they are and deals with them. Whereas a fatalist believes nothing matters (i.e. life is without meaning).

realist: a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly.

fatalist: a person who believes all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.

nihilist: a person who believes that life is meaningless.

I'm not a fatalist I do not think anything is predetermined. In fact I am just the opposite as I think events are totally random and chaotic.

And I can be a realist and a nihilist as the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

A realist is not able to say "everything is an illusion". Something has to produce this illusion. Cogito ergo sum.

In fact I do accept things the way they and deal with the way things are on a daily basis but in the really big picture I can also accept that those same things are meaningless

It's meaningless to say things are meaningless. Nothing what's real is unimportant. A minimal cause is able to produce a maximal effect. Example: A mutation of a virus starts a pandemic.

Where did I ever use the word "illusion"?

You used the word "nihilist" and a nihilist thinks everything is an illusion - that's why it is meaningless what we think and do.

And all that man does, feels, thinks or believes in the cosmic scope is meaningless.

So you are a nihilist - but not a realist. To be a realist excludes it to be a nihilist.

No a nihilist thinks life is meaningless.

Definition of NIHILISM

a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You'll notice in the definition there is nothing about nihilism thinking life is an illusion.

So yes I can think life is meaningless and therefore be a nihilist and I can also be a realist and accept things the way they are

Nihilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticismthat condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

Nothing extreme about not believing the Jesus stories. Walked on water? Virgin birth? Rose from the dead after 3 days? Why am I supposed to believe any of that?

if it were obvious how did Islam get started? And why don’t jews believe Jesus was the messiah?

Okay - You are just simple an atheist, who attacks Christians in the name of Jews and Muslims.

Actually, their religions are even dumber than yours.

Just because a creator might exist doesn’t mean any of the 1000 religions are real and that includes yours.

 

[Blues Man]

You can't be an agnostic atheist.

I would say you are an agnostic secularist

• Atheist - There is no god.
• Nihilistic - Life has no meaning.
• Secular - Lack of religion.
• Agnostic - There may or may not be a god, but open to know more.
• Gnostic - Belief that the God (or gods) we worship are in fact evil tricksters and that a secret knowledge is preventing us from the true God.
• Animistic - Belief that all things contain spirits.
• Deist - There is a God who created life, but just watches and does not intervene.
• Theist - Belief in a higher power and at least one god.
• Polytheist - Belief in more than one god.
• Monotheist -believing in a single God - ie. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
• Apostate - A person who leaves a religion.
• Misotheist - A person that hates God or the Gods.
• Dustheism - Belief that God or the Gods are not totally good.
• Macioism - Belief that God is a Demiurge and wrathful, malicious evil creator. Similar to Gnostic.
• Euthesim - Belief in a totally good God.

What do you mean life has meaning? What is the meaning? What is our purpose? I think we could master the universe if we weren’t so primitive. Still warring with each other rather than working as one planet to get to mars and mine the meteor belt. Then build a ship the size of a planet that can also survive interstellar travel. Then we might have a purpose.

If we stay on this Rock eventually we will die of some natural cause. The planet will still have other creatures who survive this mass global extinction but even they too will die when the water goes or the sun burns out. If we go with the planet, what was our purpose?

We are a way for the universe to know itself. Amazing.

There is no purpose to life.

And if the universe is trying to know itself through humans it could do better since we only have an understanding of about 5% of it.

Sure there is... to become the best version of yourself and to pass it on. There's your meaning.

Simply put, evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. Since the beginning of time matter has evolved and will continue to do so. Your purpose, your meaning in life is to evolve in consciousness and pass it on to the next generation.

That's your meaning.

You have no business telling my what mine is.

According to you, you don’t have one, right?

But according to Darwin the meaning of life is to pass down functional advantage to the next generation.

No not really

I know that what I do here while I'm alive will have little effect in the grand scheme of things.

And again that's Darwin and he has no more right to tell me what my purpose is than you do.

The human race has been here for but a blink in cosmological time and less than a minute in the earth's geological time.

We will be gone in but another few blinks of time as far as the cosmos is concerned.

Nothing anyone has ever done or will ever do will matter.

Yep, you're a nihilist alright.

As i said.

You have a fatalistic attitude, my friend.

I know.

Better a realist than some naive idealistic Pollyanna

No. A realist isn't a fatalist. A realist does not believe that life is without meaning. A realists accepts situations as they are and deals with them. Whereas a fatalist believes nothing matters (i.e. life is without meaning).

realist: a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly.

fatalist: a person who believes all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.

nihilist: a person who believes that life is meaningless.

I'm not a fatalist I do not think anything is predetermined. In fact I am just the opposite as I think events are totally random and chaotic.

And I can be a realist and a nihilist as the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

A realist is not able to say "everything is an illusion". Something has to produce this illusion. Cogito ergo sum.

In fact I do accept things the way they and deal with the way things are on a daily basis but in the really big picture I can also accept that those same things are meaningless

It's meaningless to say things are meaningless. Nothing what's real is unimportant. A minimal cause is able to produce a maximal effect. Example: A mutation of a virus starts a pandemic.

Where did I ever use the word "illusion"?

You used the word "nihilist" and a nihilist thinks everything is an illusion - that's why it is meaningless what we think and do.

And all that man does, feels, thinks or believes in the cosmic scope is meaningless.

So you are a nihilist - but not a realist. To be a realist excludes it to be a nihilist.

No a nihilist thinks life is meaningless.

Definition of NIHILISM

a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You'll notice in the definition there is nothing about nihilism thinking life is an illusion.

So yes I can think life is meaningless and therefore be a nihilist and I can also be a realist and accept things the way they are

Nihilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticismthat condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

The impulse to destroy is your interpretation.

I have no impulse to destroy anything. I do not condemn existence I just know that it the cosmic scope of things our lives are meaningless.

And yes I am an extreme cynic and pessimist. I would rather expect something bad to happen and be ready for it ( realist) than expect only good things to happen and then be sucker punched by the bad shit.

Good fortune is nothing but random luck just like tragedy is nothing but random bad luck.

There is no meaning in the good or bad that happens to anyone.

 

[Meriweather]

And yes I am an extreme cynic and pessimist. I would rather expect something bad to happen and be ready for it ( realist) than expect only good things to happen and then be sucker punched

There may be a very thin line between you, the extreme cynic and pessimist and me, the optimist who sees the best in people because I am confident I can handle anything bad that happens (and have). Knowing I can work your way through a really bad, unfair situation is a great confidence booster heading into the future.

 

[sealybobo]

Since shortly after arriving here, ding has always just seemed a troll, worthy of zero attention. Best left unfed.

Ding startEd off interesting and seems knowledgeable and intelligent but then he got frustrated. This happens to me too and I’ve tried very hard to make sure I’m not telling people they are stupid for believing unbelievable things.

I don’t know what I said to those other two that made ding snap. I’m sure it was when he realized I’m not going to accept the Bible Koran or book of Mormons as evidence. He must realize I make a good point about how he isn’t buying those other books just like we don’t believe his.

what ding wants us to do is shut up. If we don’t like Christianity don’t join but keep your mouth shut about the con that is happening. It’s a big business and ding believes it’s good for people.

so he thinks we are mean people rather than understand we truly think organized religions do more harm than good. It’s holding us back. We should already be colonizing mars and using the meteor belt to build a ship the size of a planet that can travel interstellarly. But they can give lots of examples where religion has done people good. Fine. Agreed. But maybe we could help those people without the lie? ultimately a lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel and it’s better we know the truth.

But he’s wrong that I want to outlaw religion or kill it. I don’t want to kill a big business like that. I just don’t like this big business being weaponized politically. Maybe that’s why I’m so militant

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 346571

We all know you don’t agree with the black Christian community on this issue. How is it they read the same holy book you do yet you disagree so much on black lives matter?

 

[sealybobo]

Since shortly after arriving here, ding has always just seemed a troll, worthy of zero attention. Best left unfed.

He has derailed this thread and run all the good christians out of here. We were having a nice conversation until he showed up. How did he get us talking about Colin kappernick?

Seriously ding are you doing this on purpose?

Ever notice christians never hit the like button on his posts?

 

[sealybobo]

I loved it when people started attacking colin kaepernick for his protesting of how his people were being treated.

We know you loved attacking kappernick

 

[sealybobo]

Okay - You are just simple an atheist, who attacks Christians.

Why do you love this lie so much? It discredits you and makes you a laughingstock.

If Christians were blacks you would be accused of being a racist.

Blacks are Christians you racist. There are also black Jews.

 

[zaangalewa]

{but, but,..}

Gödel was called "the greatest logician since Aristotle"

{Hmm,..what was I just now talking about prior? Let's see,.. When one's desperate they simply..? Duck? Slither?.. No, hmm,.. Denial used already,.. Oh, yeah! Appeal to Authority!
Okay,.. Quickly now.. Must end with flourish..}

Your premise seems to be

{YES! YES! Inject a Strawman!
Charge! Flail! Personal Attack!
Jolly good!
By "God," I think you've done it again, son! Congratulations!
..as the crowds of crickets roar..}

Even Micky Mouse and Donald Duck are more serios characters than you are. Why do you anti-speak about this all, although you don't have only a little idea about? No one forces you to be a Christian. So why is the faith of Christians your enemy? Why this senseless war of words? ...

 

[sealybobo]

I too remember being taught as a Catholic, that you can't go to heaven without being baptised . It is the reason babies will go to limbo and not heaven despite having committed no sin themselves. We are apparently all born with original sin - Eve's transgression in the garden of Eden and must be cleansed before entering heaven.

You do realize that all the other Christian denominations think Catholicism is the worst right? There are even threads about it. Have you participated in those threads and seen what other Christians think of Catholics? It's not good.

They are usually funny, though, at least to some of us Catholics. Good for a chuckle because it immediately clear that they have no understanding of the teaching--although they are convinced theirs in the perfect understanding.

Such discussions (as we can see even in this one) it is comparable to someone who thinks they understand the rules of football insist the points are recorded by the number of pMorins knocked down when the Frisbee goes through the hoop. Usually easier to bypass such a discussion because it takes too much time and effort to explain the entire game of football to someone with such a mindset.

Unfortunately there are entire churches, some mega churches, and they teach that catholicism is not the way.

of course they are competing for members so of course that’s what they’re going to say.

Born agains for example have told me I’m not saved because I was baptized as a child. i have to do it as an adult on my own. I think Catholics are baptized as babies too right? So what do you say to them?

I'm just curious to know why you're asking that. Is that you genuinely want to know which idea is actually correct, or are you bringing up these differences for some other reason?

Any true doctrine should be backed up biblically. Not by one verse in an unclear way, but backed up clearly by numerous scriptures and the overall message of the bible.

Infant baptism is blatantly unbiblical. Jesus Himself was baptized as a grown man, but it's not so much age that is the issue, but understanding what one is doing (which obviously babies or young children cannot) and Jesus is always our example.

Neither is right. Being baptized in the Christian Church is pointless if you are an atheist. but I want to know what you would say to a born again who says you have to be baptized again.

This btw is how born agains recruit new members from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox faith. They tell us our church has it all wrong.

I couldn’t be baptized right now because I don’t believe so I would be lying to the congregation when he asked do you renounce Satan? I’d have to say honestly I don’t believe in Satan or god. I would have to lie. I don’t think god will punish me for that. He should have written a more convincing book.

Obviously it's pointless (and wrong) if one doesn't believe. Did anyone argue otherwise?

Baptism is a beautiful thing, when it's done the way it's meant to be done. I grew up in the Catholic church and got baptized as a baby, but that meant nothing. It was just a religious ritual. Obviously when I was a baby I didn't understand what was going on, and even when I got a little older and had my "first communion" and all that stuff, none of it was meaningful to me because I wasn't a believer at that time, I was just there because my mom made me go.

But then many years later, when I actually became a believer, for the first time in my life, I never went back to Catholicism, but I did get baptized, about 4 years after coming to Christ, in a pool in Hawaii, during my DTS through YWAM in Kona.

So you agree with born agains? Are Catholics baptized as babies or adults? News to me if you guys do it twice. And I thought you did it to your bandaids. Archie took meatheads baby to a Catholic Church to get baptism didn’t he?

Yes, I'm a born-again Christian. Here is my baptism, near the beginning of this video.

meriweather and I were only baptized as babies. What will happen to us?

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by grace, through FAITH. When you have a true, saving faith, you become a new creation, literally "born from above"... in other words, it's like a second birth. The first one is physical, the second one is spiritual. I can't explain it, but it's a very real thing. It's almost like your DNA changes.

But getting back to baptism, that it just an outward symbol of something that already took place inside. It is something we do to show the world that we made the decision to put our faith in Jesus and follow Him. So of course it must be done when a person is old enough to understand it all. But the act of water baptism itself does not save anyone. The thief on the cross did not get water baptized, but he was clearly saved. Jesus said so Himself, when He said, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Is that more clear now?

So what if someone never gets baptized again as an adult? My brother and his wife are good people. They go to church. But the Greek orthodox Church doesn’t require members to go through the ceremony again. They were baptized as kids. They show up to church. They believe in Jesus.

So what is their punishment for not being baptized again as adults?

Did you not read the post you were replying to? It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. I'll say it again, in different words. It doesn't matter if you get baptized or do not get baptized. Water baptism doesn't save anyone, it is not a prerequisite for salvation.

I'll copy / paste part of what I said to you earlier, and I'll underline the important part.

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by God's grace, through FAITH.​

So do we have that straight now? I get the feeling you are actually asking a different question, one that is answered very clearly in the bible, but if so I'll let you ask the real question you want to ask.

That’s what you believe but every born again I’ve ever met said different.

but I’m glad to hear you say it doesn’t matter. I agree

What? No born again Christian I've ever encountered (and I've known tons, as someone who was involved with world missions) says that water baptism is necessary for salvation, so I don't know where you're getting this from. It is not just my own personal belief, it is BIBLICAL.

Let's clear this up right now. Do you remember when the bible talks about the thief on the cross? Remember when Jesus was crucified, there were two other men who were crucified, two actual criminals. One of them was repentant and believed Jesus was who he claimed He was, and the other one was unrepentant and did not believe, in fact he blasphemed Jesus.

The repentant thief on the cross professed his faith and obviously there was no time for him to get dunked in water, but according to Jesus' own words he got saved, because Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Also, many people get saved on their deathbed. Obviously again, no time for water baptism then. You seem to have many false ideas about Christianity that are based on false teachings or mere religion, which is not always biblical and true.

You do realize that all the other Christian denominations think Catholicism is the worst right? There are even threads about it. Have you participated in those threads and seen what other Christians think of Catholics? It's not good.

They are usually funny, though, at least to some of us Catholics. Good for a chuckle because it immediately clear that they have no understanding of the teaching--although they are convinced theirs in the perfect understanding.

Such discussions (as we can see even in this one) it is comparable to someone who thinks they understand the rules of football insist the points are recorded by the number of pMorins knocked down when the Frisbee goes through the hoop. Usually easier to bypass such a discussion because it takes too much time and effort to explain the entire game of football to someone with such a mindset.

Unfortunately there are entire churches, some mega churches, and they teach that catholicism is not the way.

of course they are competing for members so of course that’s what they’re going to say.

Born agains for example have told me I’m not saved because I was baptized as a child. i have to do it as an adult on my own. I think Catholics are baptized as babies too right? So what do you say to them?

I'm just curious to know why you're asking that. Is that you genuinely want to know which idea is actually correct, or are you bringing up these differences for some other reason?

Any true doctrine should be backed up biblically. Not by one verse in an unclear way, but backed up clearly by numerous scriptures and the overall message of the bible.

Infant baptism is blatantly unbiblical. Jesus Himself was baptized as a grown man, but it's not so much age that is the issue, but understanding what one is doing (which obviously babies or young children cannot) and Jesus is always our example.

Neither is right. Being baptized in the Christian Church is pointless if you are an atheist. but I want to know what you would say to a born again who says you have to be baptized again.

This btw is how born agains recruit new members from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox faith. They tell us our church has it all wrong.

I couldn’t be baptized right now because I don’t believe so I would be lying to the congregation when he asked do you renounce Satan? I’d have to say honestly I don’t believe in Satan or god. I would have to lie. I don’t think god will punish me for that. He should have written a more convincing book.

Obviously it's pointless (and wrong) if one doesn't believe. Did anyone argue otherwise?

Baptism is a beautiful thing, when it's done the way it's meant to be done. I grew up in the Catholic church and got baptized as a baby, but that meant nothing. It was just a religious ritual. Obviously when I was a baby I didn't understand what was going on, and even when I got a little older and had my "first communion" and all that stuff, none of it was meaningful to me because I wasn't a believer at that time, I was just there because my mom made me go.

But then many years later, when I actually became a believer, for the first time in my life, I never went back to Catholicism, but I did get baptized, about 4 years after coming to Christ, in a pool in Hawaii, during my DTS through YWAM in Kona.

So you agree with born agains? Are Catholics baptized as babies or adults? News to me if you guys do it twice. And I thought you did it to your bandaids. Archie took meatheads baby to a Catholic Church to get baptism didn’t he?

Yes, I'm a born-again Christian. Here is my baptism, near the beginning of this video.

meriweather and I were only baptized as babies. What will happen to us?

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by grace, through FAITH. When you have a true, saving faith, you become a new creation, literally "born from above"... in other words, it's like a second birth. The first one is physical, the second one is spiritual. I can't explain it, but it's a very real thing. It's almost like your DNA changes.

But getting back to baptism, that it just an outward symbol of something that already took place inside. It is something we do to show the world that we made the decision to put our faith in Jesus and follow Him. So of course it must be done when a person is old enough to understand it all. But the act of water baptism itself does not save anyone. The thief on the cross did not get water baptized, but he was clearly saved. Jesus said so Himself, when He said, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Is that more clear now?

So what if someone never gets baptized again as an adult? My brother and his wife are good people. They go to church. But the Greek orthodox Church doesn’t require members to go through the ceremony again. They were baptized as kids. They show up to church. They believe in Jesus.

So what is their punishment for not being baptized again as adults?

Did you not read the post you were replying to? It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. I'll say it again, in different words. It doesn't matter if you get baptized or do not get baptized. Water baptism doesn't save anyone, it is not a prerequisite for salvation.

I'll copy / paste part of what I said to you earlier, and I'll underline the important part.

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by God's grace, through FAITH.​

So do we have that straight now? I get the feeling you are actually asking a different question, one that is answered very clearly in the bible, but if so I'll let you ask the real question you want to ask.

That’s what you believe but every born again I’ve ever met said different.

but I’m glad to hear you say it doesn’t matter. I agree

What? No born again Christian I've ever encountered (and I've known tons, as someone who was involved with world missions) says that water baptism is necessary for salvation, so I don't know where you're getting this from. It is not just my own personal belief, it is BIBLICAL.

Let's clear this up right now. Do you remember when the bible talks about the thief on the cross? Remember when Jesus was crucified, there were two other men who were crucified, two actual criminals. One of them was repentant and believed Jesus was who he claimed He was, and the other one was unrepentant and did not believe, in fact he blasphemed Jesus.

The repentant thief on the cross professed his faith and obviously there was no time for him to get dunked in water, but according to Jesus' own words he got saved, because Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Also, many people get saved on their deathbed. Obviously again, no time for water baptism then. You seem to have many false ideas about Christianity that are based on false teachings or mere religion, which is not always biblical and true.

Well I’ve met lots of born agains who ask me if I know where I’m going when I die. I’m sure you know this pitch right? After services your preacher tells you to all go out on Sunday and spread the word.

so these born agains ask me this question back when I was a Greek Orthodox. I explain to them I already belong to a Christian organization and they begin to tell me how they have it wrong. First, keep in mind the Greek Orthodox wrote the Bible. So it’s funny for these American born agains to tell us we have it wrong.

And they have all pointed out how it’s not good enough that I was baptized as a child. You have to do it again, and then they rope you in to their born again church.

i know a few people who were born Greek Orthodox but left it for a born again church. And a part of becoming a member, and in order to get into heaven, you got to be baptized.

I too remember being taught as a Catholic, that you can't go to heaven without being baptised . It is the reason babies will go to limbo and not heaven despite having committed no sin themselves. We are apparently all born with original sin - Eve's transgression in the garden of Eden and must be cleansed before entering heaven.

Buttercup, here is someone who can corroborate the stuff I’ve heard.

There's a lot that can be said here but the short answer is, it's a false teaching. It is clearly unbiblical.

It's a religious ritual, and religious rituals are the farthest thing from what salvation is actually about.

Btw, I made a video a number of years ago about salvation not being works-based. If anyone wants to watch it, I'll share it here:

I’m just telling you what a lot of other Christians say doesn’t jive with your teachings. I like your position on it btw.

oz confirmed I wasn’t hearing things.

I remember all us boys learning for the first time from a friends mom that even lusting after a woman who isn’t your wife was considered adultry. Just thinking about it she said was committing the sin of adulatory. Even showed us where it said that in the Bible.

Made it very hard to masturbate thinking about her after that but I managed.

 

[sealybobo]

I loved it when people started attacking colin kaepernick for his protesting of how his people were being treated.

And how much did he get paid for playing American football?

If I were to protest, I’d do it for nothing.

How much did it cost him?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have no impulse to destroy anything. I do not condemn existence I just know that it the cosmic scope of things our lives are meaningless.

Completely agree..

And yes I am an extreme cynic and pessimist. I would rather expect something bad to happen and be ready for it ( realist) than expect only good things to happen and then be sucker punched by the bad shit.

Everyone sane thinks that. "Extreme" would be the minority who only expect good things to happen.

Good fortune is nothing but random luck just like tragedy is nothing but random bad luck.

No. Luck is highly random and vastly a factor. But, for example, one driving too fast for conditions with bald tires is greatly tipping the odds. Again, I propose that probability is a force of nature