Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[007]

Three engineers were discussing the nature of God. The first said, "When you consider the complex structure of the skeleton and the muscles, it's obvious that God must be a mechanical engineer." Said the 2nd: "No. The thing that makes that makes a human being human is the brain and nervous system. When you consider all the electrical signals that must be transmitted and processed, it's clear that God is an electrical engineer" 3rd guy: "You're both wrong,Only a civil engineer would put a waste disposal pipeline right through a recreational area."

The law of nature... "for every action there's a reaction."

Exactly.

Except when someone is reacting to the actions of someone else, right? Then only the reaction matter, and it is a deficiency on the part of the person reacting, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The natural law applies to matter, not emotion.

It does apply to psychology, though. The natural instinct is to react to actions.

If you hit me, I am going to react, either by hitting you back, or calling the law.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, it doesn't. You can change the outcome of your purported emotional reaction with a simple change in thought pattern. You can't do that with matter where these principles hold fast and true... unless you're being sucked into super black hole, then time and space itself gets warped, all bets are off.

 

[Czernobog]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

Between 2007 to 2014 Americans who consider themselves Christian decreased by 8%, while those who claim no religious affiliations rose by a whopping 6.7% The biggest percentage of those fleeing religion (36%) are millennials. The reality is that Christianity is becoming old, and dying. Those are just facts - you know that objective reality we were talking about. You deny reality all you like. It doesn't stop being reality. Christianity is being abandoned. First the religion lost all of its political power during the Age of Reason, and now that the leaders of Christianity can no longer force citizens to affiliate themselves with Christianity, people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

 

[Czernobog]

Y

Wrong. it is still a reaction to an external influence.

You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

How are those examples of me having an external locus of control?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the post.

Then please do explain it to me.

Here; allow me to rephrase it in a way that might help you understand:

First they came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a homosexual.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the pagans, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a pagan.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

See if, reading this, you can suss out why we atheists think it is important to oppose Christians every time they try to dictate their believes on others through legislation, or public school indoctrination, even if it is about something that does not effect us, personally.

 

[Czernobog]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

 

[Moonglow]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

 

[Czernobog]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

Not really. The new testament still wants women to be subservient to men, it still hates any sexual independence. It still is repressive, and authoritarian. Sure, the fictional Jesus said, "All you gotta do is believe,", but then the entire rest of the book is filled with all the things you have to do to "prove" you believe. So, if you say you believe, but don't behave the way they tell you to, then you clearly don't really believe.

 

[Moonglow]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

Not really. The new testament still wants women to be subservient to men, it still hates any sexual independence. It still is repressive, and authoritarian. Sure, the fictional Jesus said, "All you gotta do is believe,", but then the entire rest of the book is filled with all the things you have to do to "prove" you believe. So, if you say you believe, but don't behave the way they tell you to, then you clearly don't really believe.

Social structure was based on a more rigid set of rules back then, when individualism didn't exist...You do know that computers are like Gods, lots of rules, and no mercy...

 

[ding]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

I can agree with that with one caveat... what does many mean?

 

[ding]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

Not really. The new testament still wants women to be subservient to men, it still hates any sexual independence. It still is repressive, and authoritarian. Sure, the fictional Jesus said, "All you gotta do is believe,", but then the entire rest of the book is filled with all the things you have to do to "prove" you believe. So, if you say you believe, but don't behave the way they tell you to, then you clearly don't really believe.

For a guy who supposedly went to Seminary School, you are most ignorant on the context of the day the Scriptures were written in. Far from proving what you think it proves about subservience, the Bible proves the exact opposite. You just don't know how to recognize how things were like back then. Of course to understand that you would have to have a much deeper understanding of the accounts. Something I would have thought would have been taught in Seminary School.

 

[Czernobog]

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

Not really. The new testament still wants women to be subservient to men, it still hates any sexual independence. It still is repressive, and authoritarian. Sure, the fictional Jesus said, "All you gotta do is believe,", but then the entire rest of the book is filled with all the things you have to do to "prove" you believe. So, if you say you believe, but don't behave the way they tell you to, then you clearly don't really believe.

For a guy who supposedly went to Seminary School, you are most ignorant on the context of the day the Scriptures were written in. Far from proving what you think it proves about subservience, the Bible proves the exact opposite. You just don't know how to recognize how things were like back then. Of course to understand that you would have to have a much deeper understanding of the accounts. Something I would have thought would have been taught in Seminary School.

You say that as if the Christian religion doesn't teach the same standards to day. It does; particularly the evangelical branch of Christianity.

 

[ding]

The religion is not oppressive, but many of the people who follow it are....

Meh...I would submit that the religion is repressive. Look how it dictates that women should be treated. Look at its position on individual choice, such as sexuality. yeah...it's repressive, and authoritarian.

If you separate the Old from the New Testament it's not as bad...

Not really. The new testament still wants women to be subservient to men, it still hates any sexual independence. It still is repressive, and authoritarian. Sure, the fictional Jesus said, "All you gotta do is believe,", but then the entire rest of the book is filled with all the things you have to do to "prove" you believe. So, if you say you believe, but don't behave the way they tell you to, then you clearly don't really believe.

For a guy who supposedly went to Seminary School, you are most ignorant on the context of the day the Scriptures were written in. Far from proving what you think it proves about subservience, the Bible proves the exact opposite. You just don't know how to recognize how things were like back then. Of course to understand that you would have to have a much deeper understanding of the accounts. Something I would have thought would have been taught in Seminary School.

You say that as if the Christian religion doesn't teach the same standards to day. It does; particularly the evangelical branch of Christianity.

You say that like an apostate who has no objectivity.

Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness

Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations

Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions

Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing

Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity

Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility

Religion teaches accountability and responsibility

Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave

Religion teaches that actions have consequences

Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe

Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature

Religion helps us feel less alone in the world

Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit

Religion serves to bind the community together

Religion inspires love, peace and happiness

Religion serves to create traditions

Religion brings order to our lives

Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill

Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed

Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves

 

[ding]

And since it is also authoritarian, and repressive, it is also no wonder that Christianity was abandoned, and continues to be abandoned since the Age of Reason. Man is figuring out that we don't need your repressive, authoritarian religion to be moral, or to find self-worth, and, as a result, happiness And before you suggest that I am, again, "amending" my position, I never denied that Christianity had fundamental influence on Western civilisation. I dispute that the majority of that influence was positive. There's a difference.

Christianity has not been abandoned. You must have a different definition of abandoned.

Christianity is the opposite of repressive and authoritarian. We are given free will to choose. Repressive and authoritarian is what your religion of militant atheism is all about.

Since you have never done an objective assessment on the value of religion, and since you have already gone on record as saying there is no baby in the bathwater, I'm going to go with you have no objectivity on this subject.

Between 2007 to 2014 Americans who consider themselves Christian decreased by 8%, while those who claim no religious affiliations rose by a whopping 6.7% The biggest percentage of those fleeing religion (36%) are millennials. The reality is that Christianity is becoming old, and dying. Those are just facts - you know that objective reality we were talking about. You deny reality all you like. It doesn't stop being reality. Christianity is being abandoned. First the religion lost all of its political power during the Age of Reason, and now that the leaders of Christianity can no longer force citizens to affiliate themselves with Christianity, people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So a decline of 8% over a 7 year period is your definition of abandoning, right?

 

[ding]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

 

[Mudda]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

 

[ding]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

Would you like to abolish religion?

 

[Czernobog]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

Would you like to abolish religion?

Told you it was comin Mudda .

 

[Mudda]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

Would you like to abolish religion?

Abolishing religion is not feasible at this point in time. Over time, as the people overall get smarter, the facts of where we came from will emerge on their own. Until then, the battle against ignorance must go on since there are still too many people pushing their religious myths into the public sphere and trying to make everyone as ignorant as they are.

 

[ding]

Y
You have no concept of what you are trying to discuss. None at all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I find it interesting that anytime I, or anyone else talks about opposing religious encroachment of the non-religious, you call it "external locus of control", as if it is a mistake to do anything other than let religious theocrats, like yourself, do whatever they want. We (humans) tried that approach, once, and we learned a valuable lesson:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Of course, you think that Niemöller did exactly what he should have done - nothing. don't react to those "external loci", that's baaaad.

How are those examples of me having an external locus of control?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the post.

Then please do explain it to me.

Here; allow me to rephrase it in a way that might help you understand:

First they came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a homosexual.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the pagans, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a pagan.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

See if, reading this, you can suss out why we atheists think it is important to oppose Christians every time they try to dictate their believes on others through legislation, or public school indoctrination, even if it is about something that does not effect us, personally.

I have spoken out about a great many things, so I am still not understanding your point. I do not believe you understand the concept of external locus of control for even if I had not spoken out that still would not been a sign of an external locus of control.

 

[ding]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

Would you like to abolish religion?

Abolishing religion is not feasible at this point in time. Over time, as the people overall get smarter, the facts of where we came from will emerge on their own. Until then, the battle against ignorance must go on since there are still too many people pushing their religious myths into the public sphere and trying to make everyone as ignorant as they are.

But if you could, would you do it? Because it seems that you are saying that at some later point in time you'd like to do it, right?

 

[ding]

people are learning that they don't need Christianity to be happy, moral, and ethical.

I see. So you believe that trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others is happy, moral and ethical?

I see it as a public service. Admit it, since you've been here, we've made you question your beliefs, and the proof of that is how the more you argue, the less you make sense because of all the holes you know that you leave in your arguments.
You're welcome.

Would you like to abolish religion?

Told you it was comin Mudda .

It is the logical conclusion to your subjective argument. Don't be afraid to say what you really believe. Opinions not worth expressing are opinions that are not worth a shit.