Atheism versus God

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

That is a one-sided sword which cuts only one way.

It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.

Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Question

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:45 pm

snowyflake wrote:
jp wrote:No one needs God or religion to do right and to act right, but God lives and is real whether anyone needs Him or not.
'God lives' is a statement of fact. In order for that fact to be true, you need to present evidence that shows that God lives. You cannot do this, so you need to preface your comments with 'I believe God lives', 'I believe God is real whether anyone needs him or not'. Those are statements I can accept. I cannot accept statements like 'God lives' any more than I can accept statements like 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' lives.

No, I stand by what I said as still being accurate and true.

I have given evidence in other threads and fortunately I can do it again here.

Some evidence is that we can experience ghost and demons as real, and we can find real info from a higher power inside of world religious scriptures, anyone can with sincere effort can communicate with the God, things like the "Big-Bang" is factual evidence of a real creation day (or creation event), and certain prophesies are evidence / proof of a real God, and there is much more evidence.

Just because you or Atheist deny the very evidence in front of their own face does not mean that there is no evidence - just means that there are disingenuous denials.

snowyflake wrote:
jp wrote:Atheist can be great people, and I love it when anyone does, but God is still there and active whether anyone knows about God or not.
Again, see above. One cannot make statements of fact in relation to God. You can only ever say 'I believe....'

I simply do not share your weakness.

And I must confess that I find all Atheism to be based on a weakness, because you can not have any of the best faith.

snowyflake wrote:
jp wrote:It is only when a person wants to know more and when one really wants some thing much better then the need appears for God.
If you need god, then you are a dependent. You are not a grown up adult who takes responsibility for their own life, actions, inactions, goals and outcomes.

You do not understand, that that kind of dependence is a super strength.

The fact is that all people are in need of that dependence onto God, and only the very strong can truly carry that load.

snowyflake wrote:Wanting to know more about life? Take some science courses. You would be amazed at what you would learn about the world and the universe. You would learn how to reason and you would understand that god has nothing to do with anything anymore than any other fictional character in a story has anything to do with this world.

I do read and study science but I do not want to become indoctrinated by a class.

The parallel universe theory is very believable to me, and I see it as explaining a lot about the thing we so inaccurately call as God.

snowyflake wrote:
jp wrote:Any person can live a long happy loving productive life without ever knowing about the real God, or they can live a miserable rotten life without ever knowing about God, but it is only our own loss, as the God thing is there anyway whether we recognize it or not.
That is a statement of belief. It is not fact. I have never witnessed any action that could be construed as from God.

I would just say that is because you are blind to it, but I doubt that you ever really looked.

My own finding is that God is so involved in everything that it is super hard not to see Him.

The trick to it is that in order to see God then we simply have to start looking in the places where we really do not want to see.

snowyflake wrote:As a Christian, God and Jesus were silent to me. God and Jesus are silent to me as an atheist as well. It seemed, to me anyway, that God and Jesus are not that bothered one way or the other whether I believe in them or not. Conclusion: They probably don't exist since they didn't figure in my life when I was a Christian and they don't figure in my life as an atheist. They are figments of human imagination, no different to any of the other gods man has invented.

Lots of people are fooled by Christianity, by expecting to find Christ in Christianity, and that is simply looking in the wrong place.

We have to approach God alone, just as we are born alone and die alone, we really have to live alone, and it is a contradiction but we can have lots of people all around and yet still be alone. As like being born alone while lots of other people are there, and to die alone even with your closest loved ones all around, so too with God, as many people are all around and yet we must do it alone.

Idea

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:33 am

JP Cusick wrote:Some evidence is that we can experience ghost and demons as real, and we can find real info from a higher power inside of world religious scriptures, anyone can with sincere effort can communicate with the God, things like the "Big-Bang" is factual evidence of a real creation day (or creation event), and certain prophesies are evidence / proof of a real God, and there is much more evidence.

None of this is evidence, Mr. Cusick. Nor does it line up with other things you have said.

For instance: You're the ONLY one who claims demons are real. I'm the ONLY one who claims ghosts are real -- well, actually, I don't make that claim. I only make the claim that the evidence (empirical) is good enough to warrant serious university-level research and investigation.

But that applies to ghosts, not demons - and certainly not the kind of "demons" associated with fallen angels, Lucifier, and that idiotic war in heaven. Yeah, because a war in a supposedly perfect place makes a whole lotta sense, doesn't it ... Except you don't believe in heaven, do you? So if heaven doesn't really exist, that means there was no war there, Lucifer and his minions were never cast out of heaven and, thus, there cannot be any Biblical demons. Just monsters that we erroneously call demons. What are they then? Creatures from other planes? Other dimensions? Other realities?

Of course, that assumes that "demons" exist ... at all.

Moving on, you also say that "we can find real info from a higher power inside of world religious scriptures."

Except you said the Bible was "full of lies."

Let's assume for a moment that what you say is true. How are we supposed to decide from these scriptures what is a lie and what is "real information from a higher power?" Obviously the stuff about murdering kids isn't a lie given your tenacity in defending it. Yet there is really no way to know which is which. The result is the same old cherry picking that believers are notorious for doing, surgically selecting as "truth" that which we already agree with and throwing away the rest. As such, my original point stands - that we simply use religion and gods to justify a decision or an opinion we would have had without religion and god.

In other words, gods, religions, and scriptures are wholly redundant and unnecessary.

Finally, the Big Bang is not evidence of a "creation day" in the way you mean it. What you're doing is "begging the question" without actually asking the question. You assume from the outset that a god exists, therefore, if there was a Big Bang, a god must be responsible for it. But there is no evidence that a god did it. On top of that, you contradict yourself yet again by claiming you do not believe in magic. Well, if not for magic, how else do you explain a being apparently existing outside of space and time with the power to create an entire universe? Even if this god used natural processes to cause a Big Bang, the ability to manipulate those natural processes to get them to do what he wants is still magic.

JP Cusick wrote:And I must confess that I find all Atheism to be based on a weakness, because you can not have any of the best faith.

Well, I can live with that opinion if you must have it. I don't agree, of course, but you can only lead a horse to water ... and such. The reason why I can live with your opinion is because I don't see atheists defending the right of Muslim males to oppress Muslim women nor do I see atheists perverting morality by claiming God was "mercifully" killing all of the children in Israelite land grabs. If that, to you, is strength, then I stand up proudly to be counted among the weak. If this "best faith" you trumpet about includes having my eyes blinded to moral injustice, then I don't want your "best faith."

JP Cusick wrote:The fact is that all people are in need of that dependence onto God, and only the very strong can truly carry that load.

You know what else the Bible says? "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." -- Proverbs 16:18. Perhaps that is some "real world information" you ought to take from scripture.

Not that any of this matters seeing how you've booted me from this discussion by ignoring all of my posts.

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:37 am

Heretic wrote:Not every person that meditates believes in god.

Yep, I know. But people do use meditation in a religious context so it still applies. I figured if that's not how you use mediation, then my post didn't apply to you. No need to worry.

I used to study Isshinryu karate so yeah, I'm familiar with the meditation of martial arts training.

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:39 am

And last but not least ...

You guys are straining the limits of what is acceptable behavior in a debate. I'm seeing way too many personal attacks on JP Cusick. You can attack his ideas all you wish, but calling HIM an idiot and stupid and ignorant, etc. well ... we just don't like that. This is especially true when there's a whole lot of you and only one of him.

by Heretic Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:54 am

Shirina wrote:And last but not least ...

You guys are straining the limits of what is acceptable behavior in a debate. I'm seeing way too many personal attacks on JP Cusick. You can attack his ideas all you wish, but calling HIM an idiot and stupid and ignorant, etc. well ... we just don't like that. This is especially true when there's a whole lot of you and only one of him.

I'm sorry but I struggle to see how a sane or reasonable person could believe the rubbish that he comes out with. I agree that it is the ideas that should be rubbished rather than those that hold them. But I do need to say that if he lived anywhere close to me that my neighbours would tenderly help him to be escorted to the padded van, you know the one that escorts people to that hotel with the extra thick padded wallpaper.

Sorry but I do believe the real JP to be just some adolescent kid playing wind-up and his avatar is just some red-neck politician. I will bow to the judgement of the majority (yes I do know majorities can be wrong). From now on I cannot do other than treat him as an adolescent boy as I have spent a good portion of a day trying to make sense of his gibberish and there is no coherent structure to it at all.

Thankyou for your forbearance but I think you understand entirely where I am coming from.

Peace

Heretic

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:52 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: empirical ... empirical ... empirical ...
I just wish that you were some place where I could throw a dictionary at you.

Ha ha ha .........

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/Submit
adjective
1.
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I ask again what objective scientific methods did you use to test and validate your observations that you saw demons and spirits? We can go to any mental institution and hear limitless claims that are palpably untrue, so by your logic the ravings of every lunatic would be empirical evidence of their claims. Is that what you're saying?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:55 am

Shirina wrote:And last but not least ...

You guys are straining the limits of what is acceptable behavior in a debate. I'm seeing way too many personal attacks on JP Cusick. You can attack his ideas all you wish, but calling HIM an idiot and stupid and ignorant, etc. well ... we just don't like that. This is especially true when there's a whole lot of you and only one of him.

I have tried to ensure my derisions were specifically aimed at his posts, if I've aimed any at him directly then I apologise.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:06 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: empirical ... empirical ... empirical ...
I just wish that you were some place where I could throw a dictionary at you.

Ha ha ha .........

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I just wish you had the ability or honesty to understand that a words definition can be affected by context, and the integrity and knowledge to understand that empirical evidence is not just what a person or group of persons claims they have detected using their senses.

I'll try an example and see if we can't enlighten you...

Claim: The moon is made of cream cheese.

Now is that claim true or false?

While you're cogitating I'll just point out using your logic that I have empirical evidence validated by others.

The moon appears to my senses as creamy in colour.

The moon appears to my senses to be the texture of cheese.

So if you were right, then it's QED and the moon is made of cream cheese. Or perhaps it's starting to dawn on you that your claims are not cleverly subverting the term empirical evidence with clever semantics, but is in fact making it look as though you genuinely are ignorant of what scientific empiricism is. Given your earlier denials of scientifically established facts like evolution it's seems clear the latter explanation is far more likely.

Now since you have repeatedly ignored this one I'm going to insert it here again:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Then it is entirely incumbent on you to provide evidence for such a claim. If you really want to convince atheists try getting your evidence for your beliefs published in a worthy scientific journal and peer reviewed, something no theologian has ever managed to my knowledge.

There's a reason that what you claim is empirical evidence has never been validated as such, and no amount of post editing or emoticons is going to change that.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:31 am

JP Cusick wrote:JP Cusick wrote:
It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
An inaccurate misnomer, how can atheism be against something that it doesn't accept exists? You really are showing a poor understanding of what constitutes atheism. It isn't against god, as atheism accepts the axiomatic premise that there is no compelling empirical evidence for the existence of a deity.

JP Cusick wrote:
It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE. Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Again your basic polemic is entirely false, atheism is no more a negative concept than accepting that unicorns and mermaids don't exist is a negative concept. Atheism makes no claims, it simply doesn't accept the theistic claim that a deity exists, as there is no empirical evidence to support that claim.

JP Cusick wrote:
So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
You also appear to be confusing deism with theism, though your assertions that atheism doesn't accept the existence of any deity is correct, as there isn't one shred of empirical evidence to support the claim.

JP Cusick wrote:
I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Then it is entirely incumbent on you to provide evidence for such a claim. If you really want to convince atheists try getting your evidence for your beliefs published in a worthy scientific journal and peer reviewed, something no theologian has ever managed to my knowledge.

JP Cusick wrote:
My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
At least you've accurately described this as your view. However accepting things only based on evidence and having the intellectual integrity to say you don't know when that is the case is the antithesis of self righteous. Whereas the absolutes that theists deal in are axiomatically self righteous, they even believe they have the right to dismiss the beliefs of others as wrong, and their own as right, without evidence, at least atheists only dismiss beliefs based on the lack of evidence. Your last sentence is laughable, as again we see you try to claim knowledge of the mindset of a demographic of millions, without any evidence whatsoever.

Since you're just reposting your original unedited post, I'll just repost my original unedited response.

by polyglide Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:46 pm

All you need to be an athiest is a lack of common sense.

What you need to be a Christian is the evidence of the love of God and this can be found in abundance even among the evil people and the foul deeds of every day life.

by Dan Fante Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:07 pm

polyglide wrote:All you need to be an athiest is a lack of common sense.

What you need to be a Christian is the evidence of the love of God and this can be found in abundance even among the evil people and the foul deeds of every day life.

What a load of trite, pompous nonsense.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:29 pm

Dan Fante wrote:
polyglide wrote:All you need to be an athiest is a lack of common sense.

What you need to be a Christian is the evidence of the love of God and this can be found in abundance even among the evil people and the foul deeds of every day life.

What a load of trite, pompous nonsense.

Seconded, and pretty much the standard that polyglide and Cusick have set with their posts.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:34 pm

polyglide wrote:All you need to be an athiest is a lack of common sense.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:All you need to be an atheist is to set the bar for evidence beyond the gullible level of those who swallow ancient superstitions with incredible credulity. Magic apples, talking snakes, virgin births, people raising from the dead after they've been dead long enough to stink etc etc...Yes indeed it takes a "SPECIAL" kind of "common sense" to swallow that claptrap...and then pompously claim that those who deride such superstitious nonsense lack common sense.
What you need to be a Christian is the evidence of the love of God and this can be found in abundance even among the evil people and the foul deeds of every day life.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Claim number 2839373, any evidence? What am I saying, all you and Cusick have to do is shout ta-dah! and point to your claim, and your beliefs and for you that represents evidence. Of course with the bar set that low there is nothing you can't swallow with credulity.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:50 pm

Thirded Dan, polyglide how on earth can you write such drivel? and say that is all you need to be a christian? so every murderer, child abuser. rapist. theif. and anyone else who commits a foul or evil deed,as long as they love god it's ok cos they are christians. What utter b/s.

by snowyflake Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:59 pm

Sorry JP, but I find your post highly offensive and condescending. Sooooooooooooo.........I'm going to return the favour with my rebuttal. Smile

You and polyglide are Siamese twins aren't you? The argument of 'look around you and you can see God in everything' is a rubbish argument and again a statement of belief. It is not a fact. Just because you believe it is a fact doesn't make it so. The mental institutions are filled with people who believe things that are not true.

Your dependence on anything is not a super strength. You are needy. You cannot be a good person unless you believe that your belief in god will save you from sinning. That is weakness. It means you cannot be a good person without God. If that is true, then you are truly an evil person. And having read your posts, I don't believe you are truly an evil person. If you stopped believing in God do you think you'd race around to your neighbours, steal his cash, fornicate with his wife, stay drunk for days and gamble away your life earnings without regard for your family? Unlikely.

God is a wet blanket for you. Something to suck on to help you cope with your fear of death and your paranoia that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. That's weak because you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong without your god-blanky. We are better now than we have ever been in human history. Look up Steven Pinker's lecture called The Better Angels of our Nature. He will provide evidence for how much better we are and guess what? It's not because of religion or faith or belief.

Take care, JP. It's ok to say that belief is unfounded. To say otherwise is actually lying.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:23 pm

snowyflake wrote:Sorry JP, but I find your post highly offensive and condescending. Sooooooooooooo.........I'm going to return the favour with my rebuttal.

You and polyglide are Siamese twins aren't you? The argument of 'look around you and you can see God in everything' is a rubbish argument and again a statement of belief. It is not a fact. Just because you believe it is a fact doesn't make it so. The mental institutions are filled with people who believe things that are not true.

Your dependence on anything is not a super strength. You are needy. You cannot be a good person unless you believe that your belief in god will save you from sinning. That is weakness. It means you cannot be a good person without God. If that is true, then you are truly an evil person. And having read your posts, I don't believe you are truly an evil person. If you stopped believing in God do you think you'd race around to your neighbours, steal his cash, fornicate with his wife, stay drunk for days and gamble away your life earnings without regard for your family? Unlikely.

God is a wet blanket for you. Something to suck on to help you cope with your fear of death and your paranoia that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. That's weak because you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong without your god-blanky. We are better now than we have ever been in human history. Look up Steven Pinker's lecture called The Better Angels of our Nature. He will provide evidence for how much better we are and guess what? It's not because of religion or faith or belief.

Take care, JP. It's ok to say that belief is unfounded. To say otherwise is actually lying.

Well put. Theistic claims for evidence may be lying, or more likely they're delusional.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:38 am

Shirina wrote:Let's assume for a moment that what you say is true.

Try checking mine for accuracy instead of truth.

Me showing how the Bible teaches things far different then the traditional truths means that my accuracy can trump the truth.

In science too we can connect (or disconnect) according to the accuracy without arguing about truth.

Truth can be subject to interpretation, while accuracy can be verified or exposed as error.

Shirina wrote:How are we supposed to decide from these scriptures what is a lie and what is "real information from a higher power?" Obviously the stuff about murdering kids isn't a lie given your tenacity in defending it. Yet there is really no way to know which is which.

We can rightly use our own brain and our own judgment and our own conscience and then decide.

You are perfectly capable of doing that, just as all people are so capable, and in fact it is really rather simple to do.

As in the example that you give above - it is an obvious lie (or fable or fiction) that some prophet told two (2) "she bears" to kill those children ( 42 children ) in 2 Kings 2:23-24, so with a little effort you and I and anyone can see that never really happened.

The 2 she-bears would not do as told, and killing 42 children would be a lot of work even for 2 vicious bears, and real bears do not kill out of malice nor by command.

It is true (or accurate) that I say there is a moral to that story, but there is also a moral to the stories of Robin Hood, and King Arthur, and to Santa Claus, but those stories are not intended to be accepted as true.

Shirina wrote:The result is the same old cherry picking that believers are notorious for doing, surgically selecting as "truth" that which we already agree with and throwing away the rest. As such, my original point stands - that we simply use religion and gods to justify a decision or an opinion we would have had without religion and god.

This is an unjust accusation, and human beings just have lots of faults and defects, and it is hard for any of us to overcome our human weaknesses.

People cherry-pick about the law, about the weather, about anything and everything, and I myself happen to see the cherry picking as the best way to approach anything, just like picking out the right stuff to keep and picking out the wrong stuff to discard.

Those who view the Bible and God as infallible are the ones who fail to rightly cherry pick.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:The fact is that all people are in need of that dependence onto God, and only the very strong can truly carry that load.
You know what else the Bible says? "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." -- Proverbs 16:18. Perhaps that is some "real world information" you ought to take from scripture.

That is an example of the word of God being like a double edged sword, in that it cuts both ways.

Shirina wrote:Not that any of this matters seeing how you've booted me from this discussion by ignoring all of my posts.

I am trying to deal with you.

Trying, trying, trying.... headbang

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:53 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/Submit
adjective
1.
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
I ask again what objective scientific methods did you use to test and validate your observations that you saw demons and spirits? We can go to any mental institution and hear limitless claims that are palpably untrue, so by your logic the ravings of every lunatic would be empirical evidence of their claims. Is that what you're saying?

Doc - The demons and spirits and ghost can be seen and heard and experienced by anyone and that is empirical evidence indeed.

No logic needed and no theory included, as it is observation and experience verified by anyone, so that is empirical evidence and proof.

=========================================

stu wrote:Thirded Dan, polyglide how on earth can you write such drivel? and say that is all you need to be a christian? so every murderer, child abuser. rapist. theif. and anyone else who commits a foul or evil deed,as long as they love god it's ok cos they are christians. What utter xx.

The principle can be summed up as = Hate the sin but not the sinner.

You above are recounting the sins, but the sinners get saved.

And every person gets saved so they do not have to be a Christian, but to know Christ will make anyone closer to the truth.

Idea

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:53 am

jp wrote:The principle can be summed up as = Hate the sin but not the sinner.

You above are recounting the sins, but the sinners get saved.

And every person gets saved so they do not have to be a Christian, but to know Christ will make anyone closer to the truth.

I find this detestable and nauseating. So every paedophile child murderer is saved regardless of whether they are Christian or beg forgiveness.

As for demons and ghosts, can you show me any evidence for the existence of either please. Don't tell me to 'look around' please because in my every day life, I have never come across either. Nor has anyone I know. There is no scientific literature pointing to their existence. So how do you know they exist?

by Dan Fante Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:28 am

You can probably assume someone is struggling in terms of presenting an argument when they're trying to make a distinction between accuracy and truth. And the old "hate the sin, not the sinner" is just a gargantuan and disingenuous cop-out.

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:07 pm

Well said Dan, I just felt like using language I shouldn't.

by Dan Fante Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:41 pm

I think it's perfectly reasonable, to use and extreme example, to detest a child murderer. Their having found God in prison afterwards is a complete irrelevance. The stuff about hating the sin is ridiculous. It's not like you can detach 'sin' from the perpetrator. Unless it suits your agenda. Of course the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' thing is also used to hide behind when promoting homophobic views.

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:47 pm

Exactly Dan, good words.

by Tosh Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:41 pm

The demons and spirits and ghost can be seen and heard and experienced by anyone and that is empirical evidence indeed.

Yep, totally agree, too many people think science has all the answers when all we have to do is believe people who see and hear things, I personally cannot wait to get dementia to live in this world.

You sound like a genius.

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:18 pm

Hi Tosh pleased to meet you, well I reckon you hit the nail on the head there mate. Laughing

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:44 pm

snowyflake wrote:I find this detestable and nauseating. So every paedophile child murderer is saved regardless of whether they are Christian or beg forgiveness.

Those feelings of yours are what separates you from God and from the truth and from righteousness.

So that God tells us that He God wants to forgive and to bless His own lost and fallen children, then you and we all have no real right or authority to tell God that you want those people to be damned or to be rejected or whatever.

I really say that most people are offended at God not because He is evil but because people do not approve of God being sooooo loving and compassionate and forgiving, and God is so much for justice that humans simply can not stand that.

We humans created the idea of a literal Hell, as it did not come from God.

snowyflake wrote:
As for demons and ghosts, can you show me any evidence for the existence of either please. Don't tell me to 'look around' please because in my every day life, I have never come across either. Nor has anyone I know. There is no scientific literature pointing to their existence. So how do you know they exist?

I have told it and I do not see how anyone can deny the empirical evidence that so many people see and hear and experience ghost and spirits and Demons (by any name) and it is available to anyone anywhere in the world for your self to experience the things that it is proven.

You say this = Don't tell me to 'look around' please ...
Well duh, of course you have to look around.
And no one can have empirical evidence when they refuse to look around.

If you want there are places where you can even get a guided tour of some ghost by-any-name being a spirit or a Demon or apparition or etc.

Ask your own Monarch about their Ghost and Goblins and such = Haunted Castles

======================================

Dan Fante wrote:You can probably assume someone is struggling in terms of presenting an argument when they're trying to make a distinction between accuracy and truth.

Actually to distinguish between accuracy and truth is a totally logical way of communicating.

As like arguing the Bible (since this is a religious thread in a religion board) then we know some things in the Bible are not true and not real, but it can still be given or discussed based on its accuracy in the Bible. In example is the creation day being the Big-Bang, well the Bible does not really say "creation day" as that is a belief, so accurately what the Bible does say is this:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
KJV, Genesis 1.

As such the Bible does ACCURATELY does align with the Big-Bang, but that being seen as the TRUTH is a separate discussion.

Dan Fante wrote:And the old "hate the sin, not the sinner" is just a gargantuan and disingenuous cop-out.

For me I see no explanation for that - as what is it that you think it is copping out of?

I would see it as a cop-out of the human hatred, and cop-out of the human ideals of malice and vengeance and of injustice, but for the high virtues it is not a cop-out as that is copping-in.

It is a cop-in of those things that the Atheist try to dismiss, as like forgiveness and love, mercy, justice, righteousness, etc etc etc.

In my opinion it would be wise to cop-out of your own negative perception.

Idea

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:57 pm

Heretic wrote: You really are a piece of work aren't you. I really wish I could send in the 'padded van' because even someone with an imagination like yours deserves to be committed. I have only really bothered looking closely to what you post today and the absolute ^^%$$%^&%& that you come out with. How you have the audacity to come back in here day after day and post stuff that could only come out of the mind of a sick adolescent.

You really do need help.

Heretic

The thing here is that I am recounting an important piece of human history, while you are just refusing to see.

The old saying gets applied here that = Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

You may not like the historical truth about human actions being relevant and being repeated today, but it is still accurate anyway.

Idea

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:21 pm

No JP, what you are repeating there is the same old bullshit that you post out day after day.

by Tosh Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:15 pm

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

My view is theism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God people get to create their own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being a theist.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:58 pm

Hello Tosh Smile

Nice to see you again. Where have you been, what have you been up to?????

Hope all is well in the Tosh Castle. Things at Snowyville are fantastic. Was having a hiatus at the Amazon forum but they had an arbitrary Forum Gestapo and were banning people and deleting posts willy nilly. So I've come back and found polyglide has cloned himself and created JP Cusick Smile

They're a matched set it seems.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:13 pm

jp wrote:Those feelings of yours are what separates you from God and from the truth and from righteousness.

JP: This is not what separates me from God. First, there is no god so there is nothing to separate us. Second, this type of forgiving hogwash on people who perpetrate the worst of crimes on the most vulnerable and helpless is unnatural and not a normal response. I am not sure what God you are worshipping but he is not the Christian God or the God of the OT, who by all accounts is a misogynistic, jealous, petty and violent murderer of innocents. This all-loving Santa-god you've got doesn't sound like any Christian god I've ever heard of.

What do you make of the child rapist and murderer who testified that he stabbed the little girl to death while she prayed to God to save her? You think God will forgive him and let him stand next to the little girl he violated and murdered in heaven when he asks for forgiveness?

I hope that thought makes you throw up.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:31 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/Submit
adjective
1.
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
I ask again what objective scientific methods did you use to test and validate your observations that you saw demons and spirits? We can go to any mental institution and hear limitless claims that are palpably untrue, so by your logic the ravings of every lunatic would be empirical evidence of their claims. Is that what you're saying?
Doc - The demons and spirits and ghost can be seen and heard and experienced by anyone and that is empirical evidence indeed.

No logic needed and no theory included, as it is observation and experience verified by anyone, so that is empirical evidence and proof.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:All you've done is repeat your claim, you've made no attempt to answer my question, why is that I wonder? Experiencing something with human senses is a subjective experience, a cheap tawdry magic show is ample proof that our senses can be deceived, and self delusion is a perfectly common occurrence, as is group hysteria, and therefore shared delusions, there are quite a few documented cases of this. This is precisely why evidence is tested using scientific empiricism. Now one last time..

what objective scientific methods did you use to test and validate your observations that you saw demons and spirits? If the answer is none then please be honest enough to say so..

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:26 pm

Tosh wrote: My view is theism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God people get to create their own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being a theist.

The thing is though that religions do have "judgements from God" along with other rules and principles and commandments, so in that case of religion (or Theism) it is far more difficult to be self righteous.

The Atheist is just a negative kind of religion with nothing to believe in except the negativity of there being no God.

Having no "judgements from God" along with no rules and no principles and no commandments makes so that virtually everything Atheist is thereby self-righteous indeed.

It would be better if you would actually judge the accuracy of your own words before posting such dribble, but I am still happy to set the record straight.

afraid

================================================

snowyflake wrote:This all-loving Santa-god you've got doesn't sound like any Christian god I've ever heard of.

I really have been trying to tell that to everyone, that the real God is a thing which most people have never heard of.

But it is a mistake to think that it is a God like Santa Claus, and I certainly am not preaching that, because we each and all are going to work and pay for everything we get and there is not going to be any Santa Claus.

Everyone getting saved is a far more intimidating message than the nonsense about Heaven and Hell.

snowyflake wrote:What do you make of the child rapist and murderer who testified that he stabbed the little girl to death while she prayed to God to save her? You think God will forgive him and let him stand next to the little girl he violated and murdered in heaven when he asks for forgiveness?

I hope that thought makes you throw up.

Yes God will forgive that person just as every person needs forgiveness and will get it.

When that person learns the truth about God and about humanity and about himself THEN he is the one who will never ever forgive himself.

Carrying our own cross is far harder then most people have yet to imagine.

Idea

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:38 pm

How many crosses are you carrying then JP.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:33 pm

My question, JP, since you missed the obvious implication is why did God let that bastard rape and kill her while she was begging God to save her? Where was God for her?

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:36 pm

So JP, let me see if I got this right: Your God, whom you claim is the Christian God, saves everyone. No one goes to hell, even if they don't repent, or even believe in God. So the child murderer is going to be forgiven no matter what he does.

Sorry, but that belief system is bonkers.

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:46 pm

Exactly snowyflake, the guy makes no sense at all with his posts does he?

by Dan Fante Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:52 pm

This guy... Laughing

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:10 pm

snowyflake wrote:My question, JP, since you missed the obvious implication is why did God let that bastard rape and kill her while she was begging God to save her? Where was God for her?

Surely God does know about such things, and the murderer-rapist does not really get away with the crime whether the police catch them or not.

The dead girl will get another chance in the after-life resurrection.

And if the parallel universe theory is correct (and I believe it is) then that same girl was never harmed in another dimension (or other universe). Which also means that each one of us were killed many times in our own other universe!

It would be far too intrusive if we really did have a God floating around as our morality police and interfering when any person were to commit any sin, as we would not like God to be like that.

It is important to understand that all humans are a type of demigod or lesser God or as is said a child of God, so we each have the power to fight against God even if God did interfere with some human activity. We are not puppets on a string - no.

snowyflake wrote:So JP, let me see if I got this right: Your God, whom you claim is the Christian God, saves everyone. No one goes to hell, even if they don't repent, or even believe in God. So the child murderer is going to be forgiven no matter what he does.

Sorry, but that belief system is bonkers.

Actually it is not really my belief or even my creation, as that is the message from the Bible.

I am passing that message along, yes, but that message is not really from me, as it was not my idea to do things in that way.

This is what I meant by the difference between accurate and truth, because those are some of the accurate messages from the Bible but for those messages we have to wait and see whether they happen or not.

The better messages from the scriptures are about more important and more interesting things that apply right now and immediately.

People being so psyched out about after-death is just a human defect which interferes with the better stuff.

Idea

by snowyflake Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:50 am

Nope JP. Still not getting it. So the little girl is raped and murdered in this universe but that's ok because in another universe she isn't. And she gets to have an afterlife so being murdered in this one doesn't matter.

Pardon me if I think your morality is just a bit waffly. And you think atheists have no morals.

Wow! I'm gobsmacked by this (and I hesitate to use this word) thinking.

If anything this is an example of the mental aerobics and acrobatics believers go through to have their belief make sense to them. You would be a psychiatrists wet dream, JP.

by Dan Fante Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:43 am

JP, could you stick a wink on the end of these posts, just to let me know you're not being serious? As I really don't want to countenance the notion that you're being sincere. Cheers.

by Sponsored content